Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/01/technology/amazon-union-staten-island.html
763 comments
> It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization.
I fully expect this to happen. Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation. They have every right to be angry, and I think they are collectively starting to realize that they have a lot of power to change the status quo.
At the risk of veering into politics, I'm also not sure how this will change the current tribal political lines. Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction. Whoever figures out how to capture this massive constituency is set up for a powerful future.
I fully expect this to happen. Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation. They have every right to be angry, and I think they are collectively starting to realize that they have a lot of power to change the status quo.
At the risk of veering into politics, I'm also not sure how this will change the current tribal political lines. Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction. Whoever figures out how to capture this massive constituency is set up for a powerful future.
> Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction.
I saw an op-ed from a conservative magazine on this exact theme: [1]. The author basically says, "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?"
1: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans...
I saw an op-ed from a conservative magazine on this exact theme: [1]. The author basically says, "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?"
1: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans...
I think that question pretty much answers itself, especially if one looks at voting demographics by income.
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
(perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
(perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)
"The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality."
Always? No. But certainly since the 1970s.
Always? No. But certainly since the 1970s.
Parties benefit from ideological inertia. I prefer small government that minimizes spending…
So based on recent voting patterns, I vote Democrat.
So based on recent voting patterns, I vote Democrat.
Neither of the two parties represents anything close to a small-government platform.
I agree. So, the question is if you want lower spending etc, who do you vote for?
It’s not obvious. Take a corporate tax loophole, is that spending and or a form of economic control? Foreign ownership of US companies compounds this, is it giving money to foreigners or good economic policy etc.
It’s not obvious. Take a corporate tax loophole, is that spending and or a form of economic control? Foreign ownership of US companies compounds this, is it giving money to foreigners or good economic policy etc.
Paying less taxes is not government "spending". A person's income is not government property that the government generously allows the person to keep some of it.
That’s at best a semantic argument as refundable tax breaks can result in a net payment by the government. As in you can revive 1,400$ having never paid any money to the government.
A more common example is to pay nothing and also get a rebait to avoid paying taxes in the future.
A more common example is to pay nothing and also get a rebait to avoid paying taxes in the future.
I see. You think that the money you make belongs to the government, and they just allow you to keep a bit of it.
The $1400 stimulus payment was not a tax break nor was it income.
The $1400 stimulus payment was not a tax break nor was it income.
Not that 1,400$. 1,400$ of the 2,000$ child tax credit is refundable and that’s not a stimulus the GOP made part of the child tax credit refundable back in 2018.
Some nonrefundable tax tax credits cap at zero or the AMT for that year.
Other nonrefundable tax tax credits can get rolled over into future years, so people with actual incomes can still pay zero in some years. Aka they go to zero and roll over savings to next year.
However refundable credits mean an actual check even in years you paid zero taxes: American opportunity tax credit, Earned income tax credit, Child tax credit, Premium tax credit. Aka they go to zero then send you a check.
It not that common for people to get a check for the full amount, but it does happen.
Some nonrefundable tax tax credits cap at zero or the AMT for that year.
Other nonrefundable tax tax credits can get rolled over into future years, so people with actual incomes can still pay zero in some years. Aka they go to zero and roll over savings to next year.
However refundable credits mean an actual check even in years you paid zero taxes: American opportunity tax credit, Earned income tax credit, Child tax credit, Premium tax credit. Aka they go to zero then send you a check.
It not that common for people to get a check for the full amount, but it does happen.
The money actually does belong to the government. They print it. Distribute it. And then they take it back.
Reducing taxes, especially in a selective way, is essentially state spending money on subsidies.
Although you are correct, the point goes further than that because any system of taxation is effectively a subsidy to whatever doesn't get taxed. Income taxes cause over-allocation to assets, wealth taxes cause over-allocation to short term spending, taxing left handed people causes allocation to right handed people, etc. I like the idea of a land value tax/Georgism, from a philosophical belief that we should under-allocate to people whos claim to fame is that they got to the land first.
But nevertheless the original point stands - the state may be handing out advantages but it is not a form of spending. Not taking stuff is different to handing something out even if in some models they have equivalent effects.
But nevertheless the original point stands - the state may be handing out advantages but it is not a form of spending. Not taking stuff is different to handing something out even if in some models they have equivalent effects.
That's abusing the word "subsidy".
> Take a corporate tax loophole
Tax policy you disagree with isn't a loophole.
Tax policy you disagree with isn't a loophole.
Tax policy that benefits the select few instead of the country is a loophole.
Not if it was designed to do that.
A loophole is using a thing (a loophole) for something it is not supposed to be used for but is advantageous (entry).
A loophole is using a thing (a loophole) for something it is not supposed to be used for but is advantageous (entry).
This is like saying a 'backdoor' isn't a backdoor because the hacker who put it there intended it to be used for nefarious purposes.
I mean loophole as in an unintended side effect of tax law.
The classic double Irish with a Dutch sandwich was emergent behavior based on how US, EU, Irish, and Dutch tax codes all intertwined.
The classic double Irish with a Dutch sandwich was emergent behavior based on how US, EU, Irish, and Dutch tax codes all intertwined.
Forward carried interest is a loophole created for the express purpose of letting the wealthy occupy a lower tax bracket. It has no other public benefit.
> loophole created for the express purpose
This is an oxymoron.
This is an oxymoron.
While perhaps technically true, I think you are taking a word's general strict meaning, and are attempting to apply it to something where the meaning is often stretched a bit liberally.
While yes, it is true that a "loophole" is something that is unintended but allows some subset of people to benefit, when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.
Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.
While yes, it is true that a "loophole" is something that is unintended but allows some subset of people to benefit, when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.
Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.
[deleted]
The Republican party was the party of big business before the end of the civil war.
It also used to be the party of civil rights when Democrats were the ones engaged in voter suppression.
[deleted]
> The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
I tend to agree, but then again I really don't grok the Trump thing, and I can't claim that I saw it coming or sticking around as long as it has. At this point I would not be terribly shocked to see a bit of role reversal between the two major parties.
I tend to agree, but then again I really don't grok the Trump thing, and I can't claim that I saw it coming or sticking around as long as it has. At this point I would not be terribly shocked to see a bit of role reversal between the two major parties.
I've been a conservative since I had a minimum wage job, for one reason: I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I firmly believe nobody will care about my family as much as I do and I don't want the government's golden handcuffs. Leave me alone, let me work, and I'll happily live with whatever happens.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect in left-right (economic) politics. The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect in left-right (economic) politics. The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
In my early 20's, I would have agreed 100% with your stance.
But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for.
You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.
But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for.
You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.
I'm not convinced. There are plenty of countries with social safety nets galore, and all of them seem to have fewer freedoms and fewer small businesses created per capita than the USA.
If this is any indication, the US is certainly not winning that race:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr...
I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here.
EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing.
https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2...
So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr...
I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here.
EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing.
https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2...
So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
I'm not sure where that first link is getting its numbers, or why they're so outdated, but the US Small Business Association puts the number of small businesses in the US at around 31.7 million [0], or just over 100 per 1,000 people, which would top that list (excluding Indonesia, which, BTW why is it so high?)
[0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...
[0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...
Do companies count as self-employed, though?
That's because good safety nets means people don't have to take risks on business. So that leaves only the people who want to start a business.
Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point.
As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.
Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point.
As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.
The US is the last man standing in the west that still employs these legacy policies. Where are they going to go? China?
Why are the FAANG companies all based in the US?
Large amounts of venture capital from US investors, a really large monolingual market and path dependence.
More generally though, relying on outliers for your argument is perhaps not the best approach.
More generally though, relying on outliers for your argument is perhaps not the best approach.
Outlier? FAANG is just the top of the market. Companies are started in the US and grown because the opportunity to make money is much greater.
Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors.
Monolingual? The global business world runs on English.
Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors.
Monolingual? The global business world runs on English.
Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
Same reason they make most of their physical stuff in China. The government allows the most abuses.
Most "businesses" created in America are shell corps designed to push money around and limit liabilities. They don't produce anything.
What freedoms are other countries lacking?
Just guns?
Just guns?
The freedom to say mildly offensive things on Twitter without getting punished by the state?
In Germany it is illegal to school your children if you don’t like what the public institutions are doing.
As a European… The problem with safety net is it brings taxes to cover that safety net. And regulations for companies to make them part of that safety net. In the end it makes it harder to start a small business and more comfy to be employed. Essentially helping big businesses to stamp out competition.
Some safety net without the negatives would be nice. But where will the money come from?
Some safety net without the negatives would be nice. But where will the money come from?
And if one were to consider healthcare premiums in the US as a "tax", the US looks very much like a European country. We in the US are already paying for the safety net, but without actually getting one.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-a...
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-a...
You're conflating security with freedom. You can have security or freedom, but not both.
You absolutely can have both, because the world does not boil down to simplistic either or choices. You can argue that freedom and security are oppostite poles of a sliding scale, and most people would agree with you. But nobody wants absolute freedom (anarchy and literal lawlessness) nor does anyone want absolute security. People want degrees of both.
It's a naieve mindset to think it's all or nothing.
It's a naieve mindset to think it's all or nothing.
> You absolutely can have both
It's a sliding scale between security and freedom. Every bit of security you want means giving up a corresponding freedom.
Also, most people do not include "freedom to harm others" when they're talking about freedom. I've never heard of anyone carrying a sign saying "FREEDOM" and meaning they want to be free to hurt others.
It's a sliding scale between security and freedom. Every bit of security you want means giving up a corresponding freedom.
Also, most people do not include "freedom to harm others" when they're talking about freedom. I've never heard of anyone carrying a sign saying "FREEDOM" and meaning they want to be free to hurt others.
How am I less free because my country has free healthcare and decent unemployment benefits?
Neither of those is free. You still pay for it, plus you pay for the government's cost of administering it. You're worse off.
With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.
With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.
Walter, it’s amazing how often I see you weigh in on economic and political issues on this forum when you have a poor grasp of even the basics. Claiming that privatised healthcare is somehow more efficient in spite of overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary, or that people are capable of meaningfully informed choices in picking a healthcare plan and somehow find it life-enhancing to have to do this, or ignoring the fact that funding it through taxation rather than insurance results in more universal and equitable access, and entirely glossing over adverse selection problems, is just amateur house stuff. You’d get laughed at in a high school classroom with this stuff but here you are trying to talk about it with authority.
Are you sure about your points?
I've never made the claim that privatized health care is more efficient. I have claimed that free market health care is more efficient. If you've got evidence that government health care is more efficient, let alone overwhelming evidence, I'd like to see it.
From what I've seen from high school economics, they can laugh at me all they want. But they don't know anything as they are taught by high school teachers who don't have any training in economics and have never held a private sector job or run a business.
Here's a reference for you with plenty of evidence that contradicts your claims. Read it and get back to me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...
BTW, you made one of my points for me. You just said that having the government force a plan on you is better than you picking your own plan. You gave up your freedom for security. Exactly what I was talking about.
I've never made the claim that privatized health care is more efficient. I have claimed that free market health care is more efficient. If you've got evidence that government health care is more efficient, let alone overwhelming evidence, I'd like to see it.
From what I've seen from high school economics, they can laugh at me all they want. But they don't know anything as they are taught by high school teachers who don't have any training in economics and have never held a private sector job or run a business.
Here's a reference for you with plenty of evidence that contradicts your claims. Read it and get back to me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...
BTW, you made one of my points for me. You just said that having the government force a plan on you is better than you picking your own plan. You gave up your freedom for security. Exactly what I was talking about.
No, I'm simply restating Maslov's hierarchy of needs. You cannot reach self-actualization without first covering basic needs. One of which is, ironically, called "safety". As in, perhaps, a safety net...
Or, in other words, to have the freedom to self-actualize, you must have security in your basic needs.
Or, in other words, to have the freedom to self-actualize, you must have security in your basic needs.
No. Any government big enough to bail everyone out, is big enough to take away everything we have. One of the parent posters said they didn't get the Trump thing. It's easy. Trump whether worth $1 or Ten Billion dollars got what converservatives and the majority want; government out of the way. And preferably the end of career politicians.
So most federal conservatives. Who are career politicians. Want to get rid of career politicians? After doing nothing to get rid of career politicians their whole career?
This doesn’t track. No politician from either side wants to limit themselves out of a job.
This doesn’t track. No politician from either side wants to limit themselves out of a job.
>The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. The right (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders, in other words the exercise of violence, whereas the left also believes the government has a duty to provide for the social welfare of its citizens in exchange for the power granted to it by social contract.
And when the right says it wants liberty, what it tends to mean is that it wants liberty from the social obligations that the left tend to want government to support.
I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. The right (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders, in other words the exercise of violence, whereas the left also believes the government has a duty to provide for the social welfare of its citizens in exchange for the power granted to it by social contract.
And when the right says it wants liberty, what it tends to mean is that it wants liberty from the social obligations that the left tend to want government to support.
> The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be.
I think you're close here, but I don't think that's the root of it. That difference in position is important, but it comes from even deeper philosophical differences. I think this boils down to the argument over positive vs negative rights (freedom to vs freedom from).
A worldview built on negative rights has to have a much smaller legitimate role for the government than one built on positive rights. In the former, the government can never make anything better, only potentially rectifying wrongs (usually via punishing the offender). Within that framework, the goal of the government becomes to rectify the worst of the wrongs while disturbing things as little as possible. A worldview built on positive rights inherently leaves a bigger space for the government to behave legitimately, because this worldview sees the government as having a role in making things better.
Of course, there are very few people who adhere 100% to either of these, so reality is a bit more complicated.
I think you're close here, but I don't think that's the root of it. That difference in position is important, but it comes from even deeper philosophical differences. I think this boils down to the argument over positive vs negative rights (freedom to vs freedom from).
A worldview built on negative rights has to have a much smaller legitimate role for the government than one built on positive rights. In the former, the government can never make anything better, only potentially rectifying wrongs (usually via punishing the offender). Within that framework, the goal of the government becomes to rectify the worst of the wrongs while disturbing things as little as possible. A worldview built on positive rights inherently leaves a bigger space for the government to behave legitimately, because this worldview sees the government as having a role in making things better.
Of course, there are very few people who adhere 100% to either of these, so reality is a bit more complicated.
> I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system.
There is a section of the left-right spectrum that believes in equality of opportunity, but that it’s certainly not the leftmost people in that spectrum. The left pole is not “equality of opportunity for all” and how far left you are is defined by how strongly you believe in that.
I think it’s more the middle of the spectrum who hold the view and the left extreme is much closer to equality of outcome.
There is a section of the left-right spectrum that believes in equality of opportunity, but that it’s certainly not the leftmost people in that spectrum. The left pole is not “equality of opportunity for all” and how far left you are is defined by how strongly you believe in that.
I think it’s more the middle of the spectrum who hold the view and the left extreme is much closer to equality of outcome.
> (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders
People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either.
These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.
People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either.
These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.
Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome. This is why we don't see a mass migration from tech jobs to welfare...
But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc...
And "liberty" alone is so undefined as to be meaningless for these purposes. Is "paying less taxes so that the disabled don't have as much help" an example of liberty? For you? For them?
But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc...
And "liberty" alone is so undefined as to be meaningless for these purposes. Is "paying less taxes so that the disabled don't have as much help" an example of liberty? For you? For them?
> Most safety net programs are far more focused on "avoiding a catastrophic outcome" than guaranteeing a good outcome.
Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense.
A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.
Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense.
A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.
> I want the government out of my life as much as possible
unless it has to do with your education, gender identity, sexual preference, religion, voting, or women's rights, I assume
unless it has to do with your education, gender identity, sexual preference, religion, voting, or women's rights, I assume
This is an uncharitable reading. Almost no one would answer that they want the government to impose positions over their personal views on those topics
Except it's accurate. Most conservatives are fair-weather individualists who only care about "liberty" in loose terms as long as the liberty that they believe is being affected is their own.
We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minorities the right to vote, or allow mixed-race couples to marry.
No conservatives lost liberty in any of those instances. They lost their "special" status, which is what they're really worried about and why the populist rhetoric resonates so strongly with them.
We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minorities the right to vote, or allow mixed-race couples to marry.
No conservatives lost liberty in any of those instances. They lost their "special" status, which is what they're really worried about and why the populist rhetoric resonates so strongly with them.
Not just Republicans, though. Plenty of Democrats were against gay marriage as well - including Obama as recently as 2004.
I don't think the parent referenced Republicans or Democrats at all. The parent was talking about "conservatives". And anyone who opposed same-sex marriage in 2004 -- Obama included -- should absolutely be counted as having (at least some) socially-conservative views.
Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.
Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.
Reread my post, I I thought I was clear emphasizing that they didn't want imposition on themselves. Nobody does
You cannot divorce their record on the rights of others with their claims of being for liberty, thus the GP's post was not uncharitable at all.
Are you including Obama in that? He was against gay marriage until the tide turned.
What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?
What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?
I mean... yes?
Clearly you're trying to go for a "gotcha!" type comment, but... so what? People who believed same-sex marriage should be illegal are just as wrong as people who believed interracial marriage should be illegal during much of the last century. It doesn't matter if they called themselves Democrats or Republicans or whatever. It doesn't matter if they were part of some majority or minority. They were just as wrong regardless.
Some people -- Obama included -- changed their minds, for whatever reason. Many people, sadly, still have not. It might be interesting to look at what kind of person still hasn't seen the light on this, and what political party that kind of person is overwhelmingly more likely to identify with, but that still doesn't really matter much to the rightness or wrongness of a previous belief.
Clearly you're trying to go for a "gotcha!" type comment, but... so what? People who believed same-sex marriage should be illegal are just as wrong as people who believed interracial marriage should be illegal during much of the last century. It doesn't matter if they called themselves Democrats or Republicans or whatever. It doesn't matter if they were part of some majority or minority. They were just as wrong regardless.
Some people -- Obama included -- changed their minds, for whatever reason. Many people, sadly, still have not. It might be interesting to look at what kind of person still hasn't seen the light on this, and what political party that kind of person is overwhelmingly more likely to identify with, but that still doesn't really matter much to the rightness or wrongness of a previous belief.
So when Obama became pro-gay marriage is he no longer a conservative? Or is he still one?
My comment was more about calling out a group that doesn’t actually exist or at least has no formal definition based on OPs opinion.
My comment was more about calling out a group that doesn’t actually exist or at least has no formal definition based on OPs opinion.
'Minorities' are not inherently liberal or conservative. And it's possible to be conservative on one issue only
This is clearly a spectrum. On one hand we have Mad Max-style "might is right" anarchy, which is over-prioritizing freedom. On the other we remove all personal choice in order to "keep people safe."
So the question is, "how much risk is acceptable?" Are we okay with the idea that getting sick can ruin your entire financial future? Are we okay with child labor? Personally I lean towards providing a social safety net, and I think most people actually want _some_ version of that as well -- but perhaps have not thought deeply about where exactly the balance is for them.
So the question is, "how much risk is acceptable?" Are we okay with the idea that getting sick can ruin your entire financial future? Are we okay with child labor? Personally I lean towards providing a social safety net, and I think most people actually want _some_ version of that as well -- but perhaps have not thought deeply about where exactly the balance is for them.
There's also a question of how personal freedom interacts between people. If one person has a contagious disease, and knows it, do they have a right to put others at risk of infection without those others' consent? If so, that infringes on the personal freedom of the others. If not, then isn't their personal freedom infringed? "Prioritizing freedom" and "keeping people safe" can each claim either position!
That’s an awfully selfish outlook, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be willing as a society to care for the poor and needy among us? So far every other group and organization has completely failed at that, except for government. I am happy to pay my taxes so that my government can take care of those who not as well off as I am.
This is all well and good, but we have essentially had this for 40 years where anti-trust enforcement is concerned. I don’t think anyone can honestly say this has been a good things, especially not for small businesses. There is a conservative argument for breaking up big businesses thereby enabling democratic control over our economic destiny, which has been largely lost, to the detriment of 99% of us.
> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
The right are proponents of right-to-work legislation that force unions to represent non-dues paying members for free, and nullifies their private contracts. That's not exactly liberty, and it minimizes risk for owners.
The right are proponents of right-to-work legislation that force unions to represent non-dues paying members for free, and nullifies their private contracts. That's not exactly liberty, and it minimizes risk for owners.
That's not true at all.
Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization.
Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.
Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization.
Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.
The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.
> that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions
Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it.
In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf.
What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract.
So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.
Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it.
In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf.
What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract.
So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.
Employers have a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith with unions which are the exclusive representatives of an entire bargaining unit. They have no such obligation to members-only unions. This is what the "right to collectively bargain" refers to in the context of US labor law. If you don't like the terminology, you can try to take it up with the NLRB, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
> If you don't like the terminology, you can try to take it up with the NLRB
Well, I am talking to you here though right? And there is context here, to this subthread that you are ignoring/missing.
If you want to say "Non union members cannot force 3rd parties to work with them, if they don't want to" Then yes I agree.
But the context of this subthread was about the idea of who is or is not forcing people to do things.
So, to get back to the point of all of this, I was initially responding to someone else who tried to claim "That's not exactly liberty".
But it is liberty. Liberty is the idea of consenting parties, not being forced to do things. So yes it is liberty to say that people can join non-members unions, but that those non-members unions cannot force other people to do certain things.
Do you understand the point and context of this all? It was about whether that is "liberty" or not, which just means who is or is not forcing others to be in the group, or forcing people to work with your group.
Well, I am talking to you here though right? And there is context here, to this subthread that you are ignoring/missing.
If you want to say "Non union members cannot force 3rd parties to work with them, if they don't want to" Then yes I agree.
But the context of this subthread was about the idea of who is or is not forcing people to do things.
So, to get back to the point of all of this, I was initially responding to someone else who tried to claim "That's not exactly liberty".
But it is liberty. Liberty is the idea of consenting parties, not being forced to do things. So yes it is liberty to say that people can join non-members unions, but that those non-members unions cannot force other people to do certain things.
Do you understand the point and context of this all? It was about whether that is "liberty" or not, which just means who is or is not forcing others to be in the group, or forcing people to work with your group.
Workers are free to take non-union jobs if they don't want to be in a union.
Except when all the jobs in your industry are union jobs.
Unless you're suggesting someone in this position should have to retrain for a different industry. Which, sure, ok, I guess, but the cost to do so might be quite high to the point of being life-ruining.
Unless you're suggesting someone in this position should have to retrain for a different industry. Which, sure, ok, I guess, but the cost to do so might be quite high to the point of being life-ruining.
[deleted]
Those workers are also free to use right to work laws, to make it so they are allowed to get jobs at whatever company wants to hire them while also not joining the union.
And then workers who prefer the union, can join members only unions that are not forced to represent people not in them.
And then workers who prefer the union, can join members only unions that are not forced to represent people not in them.
Without the government your minimum wage job likely would have been sub-minimum wage...
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic at hand but statistics show the far majority of minimim wage workers, for many of whom it is not just a short phase, will disagree with you on this.
Most Americans aren’t even at liberty to leave their jobs as they risk medical bankruptcy from a hospital trip.
I don't think people ask for social support from goverment as "emotional" support or "expression of deep love" - the way you seem to interpret it. It is way more about practical down to earth "do I get health care or not" thing. It is also about what kind of environment is build - both social and physical.
Also, golden handcuff means enough money so that you don't want to leave. I don't think such high govermental support exists all that often.
Also, golden handcuff means enough money so that you don't want to leave. I don't think such high govermental support exists all that often.
I recently moved from a conservative state to a liberal one. The government at the former was far more controlling then my new home. I’ve never understood this argument. Conservatives are just as invested in intervening in our lives. See recent legislation limiting medical access, voting rights, environmental protections in the Southeastern US.
In my new home. I have better access to medical care, the outdoors are better funded, voting is simple and easy.
Both parties want control over the populace. The idea one party is advocating for more “liberty” is a reductive way of viewing politics
In my new home. I have better access to medical care, the outdoors are better funded, voting is simple and easy.
Both parties want control over the populace. The idea one party is advocating for more “liberty” is a reductive way of viewing politics
In a idealogical vacuum, totally fair. But in a (spiritually) capitalist economy, the federated nature of government is an effective instrument when applied properly. It’s not either the left or right’s fault that government is dysfunctional, it’s that greed is the root of all evil and subversion necessitates complex regulation over time.. it’s a double edged sword. Hands off and risk irreversible damage to millions, hands on and risk irreversible damage to millions. I do not envy the job of governing (justly).
> The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
Why did the republicans bail out the banks then?
The right wants you to think you should be responsible but the guys at the top will happily give and take govt money.
Why did the republicans bail out the banks then?
The right wants you to think you should be responsible but the guys at the top will happily give and take govt money.
I also want government out of my life as much as possible.
I don't want them controlling what I do with my body or who I love, or how I present myself.
Who should I vote for?
Libertarians.
Is bailing out banks and huge corporations a left wing or a right wing thing to do? Clearly the second, judging from reality. Your second paragraph is a ridiculous tale of the right that has gotten to the minds of many. "Liberty together with the risk" only concerns non rich people. Look at all those entities getting saved when in a pinch by sweet government money, and tell me if they have liberty or not. Is there a reason EVERYONE cannot be bailed out the same way? US government just threw 3 billion and counting in a heartbeat at Ukraine but somehow a safety net for its own citizens is non feasible?
I'm not completely sure what you mean, the 2016 votes leaned approximately democrat for <75k and and republican >75k like every other election in recent US history, although admittedly by a lower margin than the previous years. In 2020 it seems to have returned to a larger gap again.
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
I find this a funny criticism considered when Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
I find this a funny criticism considered when Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so.
https://youtu.be/Vpdt7omPoa0
https://youtu.be/Vpdt7omPoa0
Well that was amazingly dishonest of you.
He said he loves the “poorly educated”, he never said “dumb”, you did, which I think says more about you than Trump.
He said he loves the “poorly educated”, he never said “dumb”, you did, which I think says more about you than Trump.
That's incredibly dishonest of you.
You introduced "dumb" as a euphemism for poorly educated. You did that in this discussion. The poster than quotes directly Trump saying he loves the poorly educated, and then you presumably feign being upset at the use of the word "dumb" that you introduced.
That speaks volumes about you.
You introduced "dumb" as a euphemism for poorly educated. You did that in this discussion. The poster than quotes directly Trump saying he loves the poorly educated, and then you presumably feign being upset at the use of the word "dumb" that you introduced.
That speaks volumes about you.
I didn't introduce "dumb". That's why I put in quotes, I was quoting what others had said.
And regardless, clearly Bilal_io was accusing Trump of something negative or why else share that clip? He literally sad "Trump was ridiculed" and shared that clip. So he agrees Trump was ridiculed for loving the "uneducated vote", which was entirely my point.
You either missed that or are intentionally trying to gaslight me.
And regardless, clearly Bilal_io was accusing Trump of something negative or why else share that clip? He literally sad "Trump was ridiculed" and shared that clip. So he agrees Trump was ridiculed for loving the "uneducated vote", which was entirely my point.
You either missed that or are intentionally trying to gaslight me.
> I was quoting what others had said.
Then please share the quote from a legit source (and not joe schmo on the internet).
And again, it's not clear if you know what you wrote. Bila_io didn't accuse Trump of something negative. You again said:
> Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
You specifically introduced Trump being ridiculed. Do you again not see that you introduced this concept to the discussion and yet are accusing the other person of doing it? You both wrote "dumb" and the concept of "ridicule" and are assigning responsibility to both of those to the person who responded to you. You introduced both of those in the context of Trump.
Then please share the quote from a legit source (and not joe schmo on the internet).
And again, it's not clear if you know what you wrote. Bila_io didn't accuse Trump of something negative. You again said:
> Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
You specifically introduced Trump being ridiculed. Do you again not see that you introduced this concept to the discussion and yet are accusing the other person of doing it? You both wrote "dumb" and the concept of "ridicule" and are assigning responsibility to both of those to the person who responded to you. You introduced both of those in the context of Trump.
Yup, you’re gaslighting.
Google it, plenty of articles with headlines like this “Now there's proof: Trump's voters lack "cognitive sophistication," often believe Bible is literal word of God”
https://www.salon.com/2022/03/23/new-research-on-voters-they...
Or maybe "Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally" which includes "Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces...
Happy to provide another dozen similar articles if you’d like.
I introduced nothing. I quoted articles (like the above). Sure you can be pedantic and nitpick over “cognitive sophistication” or "low-information" or "ignorant", but you know exactly what they meant - "dumb".
And what did Bila_io say? "No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so." I would read that as agreement that he was ridiculed for loving the "dumb" vote, the only argument being made was that Trump agreed they were "dumb" (which the clip doesn't support in the least).
And if Bila_io wasn’t accusing Trump of something negative, what was the point of the reply? Just sharing a random clip for fun?
Google it, plenty of articles with headlines like this “Now there's proof: Trump's voters lack "cognitive sophistication," often believe Bible is literal word of God”
https://www.salon.com/2022/03/23/new-research-on-voters-they...
Or maybe "Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally" which includes "Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces...
Happy to provide another dozen similar articles if you’d like.
I introduced nothing. I quoted articles (like the above). Sure you can be pedantic and nitpick over “cognitive sophistication” or "low-information" or "ignorant", but you know exactly what they meant - "dumb".
And what did Bila_io say? "No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so." I would read that as agreement that he was ridiculed for loving the "dumb" vote, the only argument being made was that Trump agreed they were "dumb" (which the clip doesn't support in the least).
And if Bila_io wasn’t accusing Trump of something negative, what was the point of the reply? Just sharing a random clip for fun?
It's a scheme for the wealthy who the party exclusively serves to win elections by pandering with negative messaging designed to appeal to the disaffected. They can't win seats as the party of big business and special interests.
> "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?"
But they don't really mean it and have never meant it. The Republican party, at least in modern history, has never been pro working class in any real sense. The opposite in fact, probably far more hostile to working class than Democrats.
Much of the "pro working class" rhetoric is largely just conservative values like abortion or region. Maybe a better way to phrase it is "pro rural white conservative working class values".
But they don't really mean it and have never meant it. The Republican party, at least in modern history, has never been pro working class in any real sense. The opposite in fact, probably far more hostile to working class than Democrats.
Much of the "pro working class" rhetoric is largely just conservative values like abortion or region. Maybe a better way to phrase it is "pro rural white conservative working class values".
But they might mean it going forward. The parties realign - rarely, but not never. And there are a whole lot of voters who have been abandoned by the Democratic Party moving away from what it has been. It would not be impossible for the Republican Party to move into that territory.
Of course, it is more likely for the Republican Party to talk like it's moving into that territory, but not actually do anything. But, for example, Trump's emphasis on "America over trade" is something that could actually help workers.
Of course, it is more likely for the Republican Party to talk like it's moving into that territory, but not actually do anything. But, for example, Trump's emphasis on "America over trade" is something that could actually help workers.
Exactly, and I think Ahmari's article was sort of laying down a challenge for his fellow Republicans: "are we going to talk about helping the working class, or are we going to do it?"
Conservatives don't generally project their worldview through the lens of large social groups pitted against each other, so it's kind of meaningless to argue about whether conservatives are pro- or anti- working class. They aren't generally pro- or anti- any "class" from their own perspective, because they don't think dividing society up like that is a legitimate thing to do to begin with.
A typical conservative would say something like: what do you call the boss of a small window cleaning firm? Is he a capitalist or a member of the working class? The left generally ignore questions like this because they can't answer them. But they do spend lots of time trying to tell everyone that society is simple and "conservatives" are one big blob that all hate "workers".
Generally conservatives are anti-union, because historically unions have been very tied up with communism, very aggressive/violent and very anti-competitive, all of which are antithetical to what libertarian conservatives believe yield the most socially beneficial outcomes. That is, they're anti union because they think unions are in fact worse for the "working classes" - to the extent such a concept makes sense at all - than not having them.
A typical conservative would say something like: what do you call the boss of a small window cleaning firm? Is he a capitalist or a member of the working class? The left generally ignore questions like this because they can't answer them. But they do spend lots of time trying to tell everyone that society is simple and "conservatives" are one big blob that all hate "workers".
Generally conservatives are anti-union, because historically unions have been very tied up with communism, very aggressive/violent and very anti-competitive, all of which are antithetical to what libertarian conservatives believe yield the most socially beneficial outcomes. That is, they're anti union because they think unions are in fact worse for the "working classes" - to the extent such a concept makes sense at all - than not having them.
“ But they don't really mean it and have never meant it.”
Ah reading millions of minds I see.
I think there's a difference here, one that I didn't see immediately either.
No one in this subthread is talking about the millions of Republican voters out there. The people being talked about is the much smaller group of people who set Republican policy. And we don't need to read their minds; we can look at their policy platform and directly witness what they support.
No one in this subthread is talking about the millions of Republican voters out there. The people being talked about is the much smaller group of people who set Republican policy. And we don't need to read their minds; we can look at their policy platform and directly witness what they support.
I don't care about what you believe, I care about what policy you enact, and Republican policy has been objectively anti-worker for my lifetime. So if you vote for Republicans, you are anti-worker.
Marco Rubio came out in favor of the works at Amazon., last year he wrote:
>Here’s my standard: When the conflict is between working Americans and a company whose leadership has decided to wage culture war against working-class values, the choice is easy — I support the workers. And that’s why I stand with those at Amazon’s Bessemer warehouse today.
Was there a large ground swell of popular conservative outlets against this?
>Here’s my standard: When the conflict is between working Americans and a company whose leadership has decided to wage culture war against working-class values, the choice is easy — I support the workers. And that’s why I stand with those at Amazon’s Bessemer warehouse today.
Was there a large ground swell of popular conservative outlets against this?
Don’t confuse political opportunism with core ideological beliefs.
The Republican party has always been pro "working class" in that their policies have been focused on trapping the "working class." Keep them poor, uneducated, easily manipulated, and powerless as a worker so they are easily exploited.
Republicans hate social programs like welfare because it's so much easier to prey up on John Q Factory Worker when John is paycheck-to-paycheck and terrified of losing his job.
Ditto for universal health insurance. With medical bills are the top cause of personal bankruptcy, tying a basic human need/right to employment is just yet another way they get to hold a workforce in fear.
Republicans hate social programs like welfare because it's so much easier to prey up on John Q Factory Worker when John is paycheck-to-paycheck and terrified of losing his job.
Ditto for universal health insurance. With medical bills are the top cause of personal bankruptcy, tying a basic human need/right to employment is just yet another way they get to hold a workforce in fear.
[deleted]
with the rise of the new generation of robber barons that's not suprising
there will lots of change and crisis until things balance out
there will lots of change and crisis until things balance out
I mean you’d have to ignore the impact of unions over the last 50 years in the US to make that connection.
I’ve been in a union and workers rights often aren’t the priority.
I’ve been in a union and workers rights often aren’t the priority.
High housing prices aren't the result of stagnant wages and rising wages will only cause housing to become more expensive (more money chasing the same housing stock) unless something is done to boost supply. Unions don't fix this, they might make it worse on the margins.
Unionization is a mixed bag. The UAW has been in the news recently for a seemingly never ending parade of union leaders being sent to jail for corruption.
Unionization is a mixed bag. The UAW has been in the news recently for a seemingly never ending parade of union leaders being sent to jail for corruption.
How many empty houses are there in the US, millions? How many luxury condos are being built and sit unoccupied?
It seems like people always come out of the woodwork to explain how rising wages aren’t helpful and are solution must always seem to involve paying for more things (this cases houses).
It seems like people always come out of the woodwork to explain how rising wages aren’t helpful and are solution must always seem to involve paying for more things (this cases houses).
Population isn’t static. We need housing supply to be responsive to changes in demographics and preferences.
If the towns no one wanted to live in anymore were 100% occupied, that would be very bad! It would mean more people were stuck.
If the cities people want to live in were 100% occupied, that would also be very bad! It would mean there’s no such thing as a move-in ready home to terminate your search. You’d only be able to move by swapping with someone, or else everyone in the connected component of moves would need to move on the same day (some cities actually used to do that).
In general, vacancy is good for buyers and tenants; it gives them both liquidity and leverage over sellers and landlords.
If the towns no one wanted to live in anymore were 100% occupied, that would be very bad! It would mean more people were stuck.
If the cities people want to live in were 100% occupied, that would also be very bad! It would mean there’s no such thing as a move-in ready home to terminate your search. You’d only be able to move by swapping with someone, or else everyone in the connected component of moves would need to move on the same day (some cities actually used to do that).
In general, vacancy is good for buyers and tenants; it gives them both liquidity and leverage over sellers and landlords.
Why deny basic laws of supply and demand? Almost all economists agree low supply of homes is a factor.
https://econofact.org/why-and-where-are-housing-prices-risin...
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/homes-for-sale-hit-...
https://www.barrons.com/articles/may-housing-starts-51623796...
Supplies are hitting record lows.
There will always be millions of temporarily vacant homes in a country the size of the US as people move in and out of homes.
Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from?
https://econofact.org/why-and-where-are-housing-prices-risin...
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/homes-for-sale-hit-...
https://www.barrons.com/articles/may-housing-starts-51623796...
Supplies are hitting record lows.
There will always be millions of temporarily vacant homes in a country the size of the US as people move in and out of homes.
Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from?
>Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from?
He did not say that though... He commented that many got built, but withouth any indication of why. You read it as him claiming that 'someone is asking them'. I read it as a reflection on the uneven distribution of wealth (which unions can help with).
He did not say that though... He commented that many got built, but withouth any indication of why. You read it as him claiming that 'someone is asking them'. I read it as a reflection on the uneven distribution of wealth (which unions can help with).
Not directly, but look at the last sentence.
> are solution must always seem to involve paying for more things (this cases houses)
> are solution must always seem to involve paying for more things (this cases houses)
> How many empty houses are there in the US, millions?
About 16M units unoccupied [1].
> How many luxury condos are being built
Quite a few! New construction is almost always targeted at the high-end, which has been true throughout history. Low-end housing, outside specific government projects, tend to be the high-end housing of the past
> and sit unoccupied?
Very, very few. The idea of luxury housing being built only to sit empty for some unspecified "investment" reason has been a persistent myth that has never been backed up by data.
1. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP04#
About 16M units unoccupied [1].
> How many luxury condos are being built
Quite a few! New construction is almost always targeted at the high-end, which has been true throughout history. Low-end housing, outside specific government projects, tend to be the high-end housing of the past
> and sit unoccupied?
Very, very few. The idea of luxury housing being built only to sit empty for some unspecified "investment" reason has been a persistent myth that has never been backed up by data.
1. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP04#
So basically, what you're saying is there are millions of unoccupied units, which should be older, now lower-end units, but people still can't afford to buy them.
It doesn't matter how many houses remain empty in the US as a whole. Presumably locations with high vacancy rates are places with low demand (ignoring, for the moment, places with large amounts of foreign real estate investors who parasitically decide to leave their properties empty).
Raising wages in places where housing is in high demand, but short supply, will just serve to increase home prices further. That doesn't mean we shouldn't raise wages, it just means the real problem housing-wise is the lack of supply.
Raising wages in places where housing is in high demand, but short supply, will just serve to increase home prices further. That doesn't mean we shouldn't raise wages, it just means the real problem housing-wise is the lack of supply.
In 2022, when Congress is insider trading in full view of everyone, is anyone trying to pretend like the people going to jail for corruption are the ones who really deserve to be there?
> (more money chasing the same housing stock)
Another way to look at it is that if workers have more money they might be able to better compete with the bankers that are buying houses to rent them out.
Another way to look at it is that if workers have more money they might be able to better compete with the bankers that are buying houses to rent them out.
If the trend continues as you posit, I would expect private-sector unions to become a non-partisan alignment, similar to how social security is sacrosanct in US politics.
Most unions form at places that are genuinely terrible workspaces where workers have legitimate reasons to hate the boss. As unions become mainstream at places like Starbucks I would expect folks agitating for worker power to less radical.
Most unions form at places that are genuinely terrible workspaces where workers have legitimate reasons to hate the boss. As unions become mainstream at places like Starbucks I would expect folks agitating for worker power to less radical.
It might, but they would have to be big enough to break the "conservative" alignment of resource extractors, religious fanatics and rich people.
It's definitely possible in 10-20 years.
It's definitely possible in 10-20 years.
Outside of Bernie and a few others, the days of Democrats having many nationally significant politicians that are truly pro-union are pretty much gone.
I don't think most people, including those that vote Democratic, have much of an illusion of the Democratic party as a friend of labor anymore.
Sure the Republicans actively try to dismantle all worker protections, but the Democrats mostly stand by and say well what can ya do?
The role of Democrats right now is to pretend to fight for normal people just enough to get the votes, then completely fail to do anything so the rich party donors still get what they want.
I don't think most people, including those that vote Democratic, have much of an illusion of the Democratic party as a friend of labor anymore.
Sure the Republicans actively try to dismantle all worker protections, but the Democrats mostly stand by and say well what can ya do?
The role of Democrats right now is to pretend to fight for normal people just enough to get the votes, then completely fail to do anything so the rich party donors still get what they want.
The Democrats have been the party of the free trade and globalization, while also supporting the working class. There is a problem with this approach. Free trade and globalization means that goods are cheaper, the economy is more efficient, and the nation on the whole is wealthier. Unfortunately, a lot of these efficiencies come at the expense of many US based working class jobs. This is why the Democrats have been less union over the years, unless they are supporting teachers, police officers, or other government unions.
The war in Ukraine could slow down and reverse a lot of globalization. Supply chain issues that we've seen during the pandemic have also been particularly. Maybe we'll start making more things in America again and perhaps the Democrats will do a better job supporting working class Americans.
We are living in interesting times. I'll guess we'll see what happens.
The war in Ukraine could slow down and reverse a lot of globalization. Supply chain issues that we've seen during the pandemic have also been particularly. Maybe we'll start making more things in America again and perhaps the Democrats will do a better job supporting working class Americans.
We are living in interesting times. I'll guess we'll see what happens.
What do you expect Dems to do at the federal level if they do not have the votes in the Senate?
The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will.
It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.
The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will.
It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.
I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through.
And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts.
Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.
And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts.
Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.
I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.
Surely not being able to expect every single party member to toe the line cuts both ways. If you need N and have N in your party, either get all of them, get a few from the other party, or content yourself to accomplish nothing.
There’s been a lot of door #3 being chosen.
There’s been a lot of door #3 being chosen.
It is obviously a matter of willpower.
The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff.
"Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time.
If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority.
It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why.
The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff.
"Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time.
If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority.
It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why.
The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
> If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would.
Without 51 Senate votes, how?
I would rather not have politicians that “fall in line” for the party’s sake, and rather “fall in line” for the country’s sake.
>It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why.
>The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
I think the fact that Democrat states exclusively have better worker protections and laws says a lot more about which party is run by who. Not to mention that federal Democrats actually propose things like universal pre K, expanding access to healthcare (note Republican states exclusively opted out of Medicaid expansion), and so on and so forth.
Without 51 Senate votes, how?
I would rather not have politicians that “fall in line” for the party’s sake, and rather “fall in line” for the country’s sake.
>It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why.
>The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
I think the fact that Democrat states exclusively have better worker protections and laws says a lot more about which party is run by who. Not to mention that federal Democrats actually propose things like universal pre K, expanding access to healthcare (note Republican states exclusively opted out of Medicaid expansion), and so on and so forth.
> "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time.
The obvious counter-example to this is John McCain's vote to preserve Obamacare and sink the republication attempt to end it. Since then, despite a 2-year period where Republicans controlled house, senate and presidency under Trump, they still could not get a repeal bill passed, due largely to their moderate members.
The obvious counter-example to this is John McCain's vote to preserve Obamacare and sink the republication attempt to end it. Since then, despite a 2-year period where Republicans controlled house, senate and presidency under Trump, they still could not get a repeal bill passed, due largely to their moderate members.
That doesn't offset all the political sabotage and hostage taking the Republican party has been pulling off since 94.
What exactly is the "extreme stuff" Republican legislatures get through? They got the tax cut, but all of them agreed to that anyways.
Also, Manchin is from one of the reddest of red states, so the Democrats don't really have any leverage on him.
Also, Manchin is from one of the reddest of red states, so the Democrats don't really have any leverage on him.
I think you're mistaking an electoral Catch-22 for "willpower" and desire.
Because the Republican party tends to line up with rural voters, they have a statistical advantage in both the Senate and the Electoral College; because of gerrymandering, they actually have a statistical advantage in most House races, too. (That last one is more complicated, but the short version is that when Democrats are in charge of redistricting they tend to favor putting nonpartisan committees in charge of drawing district lines, while when Republicans are in charge of redistricting they tend to favor drawing the lines themselves for partisan advantage.)
The upshot of that means that Republicans can and do win elections by appealing to their most partisan voters, but Democrats literally can't do that. Republicans can get rid of moderate Republicans and still win enough elections to maintain or even gain power; Democrats cannot get rid of moderate Democrats and get the same result.
So, actually, no, the Democrats can't "block, blacklist, and crush" campaigns of moderate members. They can do that to progressives in districts that are still swing districts, whose voters seem to be largely centrist. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but statistically speaking, when centrist Democrats run in those swing districts they win more often than progressive Democrats do. Joe Manchin is not from a swing state; he's from a state that went for Trump by 35 points in 2020. He's a fluke, and if he loses his seat, he ain't gonna be replaced by someone who votes with Democrats nearly as often as he does -- which is, IIRC, about 70% of the time. This is something else that often gets lost: the truth is that the most conservative Democrat still votes with Democrats a majority of the time, just like the most liberal Republican still votes with Republicans a majority of the time.
Maybe this balance will change; maybe it'll change sooner rather than later. But there seems to be this pervasive idea on the Left that Democrats would be able to pass all the legislation they wanted if they just had enough strength or willpower or something, and that just isn't true, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. If you only have 51 people on your side, counting the VP, and a single one of them is determined to keep the filibuster, then you're going to keep the filibuster. There is no amount of pressure you can put on that person that's meaningful, because you will need them on your side for other battles, they know it, and you know it. And if you keep the filibuster and there is no way you will peel 10 people off from the other side no matter what the bill is, you're not going to pass anything that can't get around the filibuster. Period. Full stop.
Because the Republican party tends to line up with rural voters, they have a statistical advantage in both the Senate and the Electoral College; because of gerrymandering, they actually have a statistical advantage in most House races, too. (That last one is more complicated, but the short version is that when Democrats are in charge of redistricting they tend to favor putting nonpartisan committees in charge of drawing district lines, while when Republicans are in charge of redistricting they tend to favor drawing the lines themselves for partisan advantage.)
The upshot of that means that Republicans can and do win elections by appealing to their most partisan voters, but Democrats literally can't do that. Republicans can get rid of moderate Republicans and still win enough elections to maintain or even gain power; Democrats cannot get rid of moderate Democrats and get the same result.
So, actually, no, the Democrats can't "block, blacklist, and crush" campaigns of moderate members. They can do that to progressives in districts that are still swing districts, whose voters seem to be largely centrist. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but statistically speaking, when centrist Democrats run in those swing districts they win more often than progressive Democrats do. Joe Manchin is not from a swing state; he's from a state that went for Trump by 35 points in 2020. He's a fluke, and if he loses his seat, he ain't gonna be replaced by someone who votes with Democrats nearly as often as he does -- which is, IIRC, about 70% of the time. This is something else that often gets lost: the truth is that the most conservative Democrat still votes with Democrats a majority of the time, just like the most liberal Republican still votes with Republicans a majority of the time.
Maybe this balance will change; maybe it'll change sooner rather than later. But there seems to be this pervasive idea on the Left that Democrats would be able to pass all the legislation they wanted if they just had enough strength or willpower or something, and that just isn't true, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. If you only have 51 people on your side, counting the VP, and a single one of them is determined to keep the filibuster, then you're going to keep the filibuster. There is no amount of pressure you can put on that person that's meaningful, because you will need them on your side for other battles, they know it, and you know it. And if you keep the filibuster and there is no way you will peel 10 people off from the other side no matter what the bill is, you're not going to pass anything that can't get around the filibuster. Period. Full stop.
> Because the Republican party tends to line up with rural voters, they have a statistical advantage in both the Senate and the Electoral College
Yep. And frankly it's something of a miracle that we ever have a Democrat in the White House, and a 50-50 Senate.
Many people (myself included, sometimes) complain about how Democrats seem to suck so hard at winning elections, but the system is so heavily stacked toward Republicans, it's pretty impressive that Democrats manage to hold majorities at the federal level at all.
Yep. And frankly it's something of a miracle that we ever have a Democrat in the White House, and a 50-50 Senate.
Many people (myself included, sometimes) complain about how Democrats seem to suck so hard at winning elections, but the system is so heavily stacked toward Republicans, it's pretty impressive that Democrats manage to hold majorities at the federal level at all.
> but statistically speaking, when centrist Democrats run in those swing districts they win more often than progressive Democrats do.
Turnout is abysmal in these races. I have volunteered in multiple progressive races and it is such an uphill battle to increase turnout by even a few points. Many districts are won by brand loyalty(ie. a politician has been running for decades and so he is a known figure).
Turnout is abysmal in these races. I have volunteered in multiple progressive races and it is such an uphill battle to increase turnout by even a few points. Many districts are won by brand loyalty(ie. a politician has been running for decades and so he is a known figure).
>They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority.
Manchin's a senator from West Virginia, a state that went for Trump by 39 points. Crushing him would just have McConnell not bringing any legislation to a vote again.
Manchin's a senator from West Virginia, a state that went for Trump by 39 points. Crushing him would just have McConnell not bringing any legislation to a vote again.
Executive orders to get as much as they can rammed through. Then its on Republicans to repeal popular programs and suffer the consequences.
1) Reclassify Marijuana as a non schedule 1 drug. (Finally a bill got through the house today to get the ball rolling but Biden could have done this day 1)
2) Declare COVID a national emergency and use that criteria to extend Medicare temporary to the rest of the country. Lets see the Republicans try to repeal that and not get beaten down to nothing.
There are many more things he could have done but does not want to. I have typed up this list so many times that it is tiring because it has been discussed to death at this point. Biden's upcoming historic losses are completely his and his party's fault.
The current Republican strategy is to run on nothing and they are pulling ahead.
1) Reclassify Marijuana as a non schedule 1 drug. (Finally a bill got through the house today to get the ball rolling but Biden could have done this day 1)
2) Declare COVID a national emergency and use that criteria to extend Medicare temporary to the rest of the country. Lets see the Republicans try to repeal that and not get beaten down to nothing.
There are many more things he could have done but does not want to. I have typed up this list so many times that it is tiring because it has been discussed to death at this point. Biden's upcoming historic losses are completely his and his party's fault.
The current Republican strategy is to run on nothing and they are pulling ahead.
I think you're thinking too short term.
Support for deregulation (of workers rights), global free trade and an alignment with the financial class has been a bipartisan effort for a long time. Democratic policy hasn't been pro-labor in a long time. At best it's labor ambivalent but they support plenty of policies that hurt (American) labor as a direct and obvious byproduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States
Support for deregulation (of workers rights), global free trade and an alignment with the financial class has been a bipartisan effort for a long time. Democratic policy hasn't been pro-labor in a long time. At best it's labor ambivalent but they support plenty of policies that hurt (American) labor as a direct and obvious byproduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States
The parties are symbiotic.
The big tent of the Democratic Party wouldn’t exist without the regimented command & control model of the Republicans.
Personally, I think that you’ll see party platforms shift as the current cohort of old people die off and their replacements are poorer and angrier. The parties of 1920, 1960, 2000 and 2040 are and will be different things.
The big tent of the Democratic Party wouldn’t exist without the regimented command & control model of the Republicans.
Personally, I think that you’ll see party platforms shift as the current cohort of old people die off and their replacements are poorer and angrier. The parties of 1920, 1960, 2000 and 2040 are and will be different things.
The "few others" are a cadre of younger politicians. As millennials continue to win elections, the hope is that the tide will shift. Gen Z is even better because they have never had any illusion that this was a workable system.
Unfortunately the Boomers will cling on to power until their last dying breath. (ex. Nancy Pelosi running for re-election yet again).
Unfortunately the Boomers will cling on to power until their last dying breath. (ex. Nancy Pelosi running for re-election yet again).
I don't think that will be the case for social security for much longer. The trust is on the path to running dry over the next 10-15 years and benefits will need to be cut. Romney recently breached the idea of raising retirement age for current workers. Frankly I'm shocked by how few young workers realize how bad of a deal they're getting with the current system
What choice do they have? At any rate, SS benefits kicked in at 65 originally because that was the lifespan of a worker, more or less. Raising the age is a perfectly reasonable ask if we can get people better affordable ealthcare. Truly disabled people at 65 can of course get SSDI.
It’s easy enough to simply raise the income cap though to shore it up.
Politically, no, that is not simple.
Politically, it's the simplest solution of all. The average American pays FICA on 100% of their income. The people who don't are upper middle class to rich, and nobody is going to weep for the 1 less vacation those people take every year.
Careful there; this is typically when the sob stories start about how one is NOT "upper middle class" when making $150K (more than double the median household income), because they live in expensive areas, etc. One saw a similar outcry when the TCJA removed the ability to deduct SALT taxes for effective income levels around that amount.
The reality is, and has always been, that this group (call it whatever you want) of incomes in the $150K to $400K range is absolutely necessary to include in increased taxation policies to pay for all the spending.
The reality is, and has always been, that this group (call it whatever you want) of incomes in the $150K to $400K range is absolutely necessary to include in increased taxation policies to pay for all the spending.
> benefits will need to be cut
You think politicians will be able to do such a thing? If they just decide to print an extra 100B or so every year, combined with allowing the yearly COLA to lag behind reality, maybe the trust fund won't run out after all.
It's a raw deal for everyone in any case, but it's also a third rail issue. Give people an choice between the abstract (deficit spending is bad) and actual changes to their benefits in the negative direction, most people will choose the former.
You think politicians will be able to do such a thing? If they just decide to print an extra 100B or so every year, combined with allowing the yearly COLA to lag behind reality, maybe the trust fund won't run out after all.
It's a raw deal for everyone in any case, but it's also a third rail issue. Give people an choice between the abstract (deficit spending is bad) and actual changes to their benefits in the negative direction, most people will choose the former.
The only way social security will "run dry" is if Congress lets it die.
> Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation
Yes, and the pandemic brought a brief moment of dignity (but not safety) to the low paid service workers who make our society operate. They went from the butt of cruel jokes to “essential workers” and “heroes” overnight. It is very, very hard to force people back into undignified circumstances once they’re had even a taste of being treated like a person.
Veering into my own pet theories, I think that the social aspect of who is and is not allowed to be treated like an actual person is a highly underrated factor of unionization pushes. It often costs companies little to nothing financially to treat their employees like actual people, but it feels good to those on top of the office hierarchy to abuse and belittle those they see as their social inferiors. They ignore the risks of this behavior at their own peril.
Yes, and the pandemic brought a brief moment of dignity (but not safety) to the low paid service workers who make our society operate. They went from the butt of cruel jokes to “essential workers” and “heroes” overnight. It is very, very hard to force people back into undignified circumstances once they’re had even a taste of being treated like a person.
Veering into my own pet theories, I think that the social aspect of who is and is not allowed to be treated like an actual person is a highly underrated factor of unionization pushes. It often costs companies little to nothing financially to treat their employees like actual people, but it feels good to those on top of the office hierarchy to abuse and belittle those they see as their social inferiors. They ignore the risks of this behavior at their own peril.
I don't know about dignity. Ask any nurse, doctor, grocery worker, restaurant worker, etc. how they feel about being called a hero. Calling us that to exploit our sense of duty or compassion. Giving us pats on the back and "bonuses" if that amounting to half a week of rent or food. We won't just stop at being actual people. We'll keep on organizing and quitting and lying flat or whatever we need to do to get our share.
That is what has felt so hollow to me over the past two years. I'm not an "essential worker", so I've been looking at this from the outside, but it's felt so gross seeing all the "hero" framing with all the "huge thanks", but without anything tangible to go with it. How about we pay people more? Maybe give more paid vacation? Maybe find ways to make these jobs more attractive so more people will want to do them and relieve some of the pressure on the people who have gotten nothing but "thanks for being a hero" for the duration of the pandemic?
At this point, everyone I know has quit or just works way less than they used to. Compassion fatigue is awful. At this point, everything is just a job to most people, and we will all become disloyal mercenaries in healthcare and service industries. Yes, more pay, vacation, and not being physically or verbally abused would be nice. Nurses and doctors and residents should not be physically abused while on the job.
Higher wages cannot make it any more possible for N+1 people to have N large plots of land close to the city center.
People living near city centers are perfectly content with apartment buildings, which have no real upper limit on how many people will fit into a given plot of land.
It sure would be nice if they voted and engaged with local government processes as if that were true!
> large plots of land
This assumption that you've smuggled in begs the entire question
This assumption that you've smuggled in begs the entire question
Isn't that the american dream? Owning a nice house with large living spaces for a complete family, amenities such as pools and outdoor areas, garage with at least two cars?
There's a reason people living in small standardized modular pods in extremely dense skyscrapers is a staple of cyberpunk dystopias.
There's a reason people living in small standardized modular pods in extremely dense skyscrapers is a staple of cyberpunk dystopias.
As the perfect complement to the parent comment, you're conveniently ignoring the qualifier "close to the city center". No part of the American dream has ever claimed the suburban paradise to be in the middle of Manhattan. It's a contradiction by definition.
To go on a bit of a tangent, this is what bugs me so much about the housing conversation. People take fragments of thoughts and stitch them together into belief systems that are trivially incoherent. I'd be happy to live and let live if these people didn't also vote....
To go on a bit of a tangent, this is what bugs me so much about the housing conversation. People take fragments of thoughts and stitch them together into belief systems that are trivially incoherent. I'd be happy to live and let live if these people didn't also vote....
Close to the whole problem is that “city center” the development pattern ends at very short radius from the center in most metro areas (New York excepted), while “close to city center” the geographical fact continues on for several more miles that are currently developed as the suburban dream.
Most cities have a downtown core, and even some high-density housing in that downtown core, but so little of it that you can walk the whole thing in a few minutes.
Most cities have a downtown core, and even some high-density housing in that downtown core, but so little of it that you can walk the whole thing in a few minutes.
Hah, as the others said such a silly premise.
Only higher wages make it possible to have taller apartments in some idealized frictionless capitalist system!
(In the real world, we can and should build taller not matter what, but certainly unionization doesn't hurt with this.)
Only higher wages make it possible to have taller apartments in some idealized frictionless capitalist system!
(In the real world, we can and should build taller not matter what, but certainly unionization doesn't hurt with this.)
[deleted]
This is still true for young people in countries with strong unions, So it might be more of an effect of the population pyramid inversion.
Neither side can really claim it, but both will half heartedly do so.
Sadly I suspect unionization to backfire. It won’t fix the housing issue and could lead to a similar predicament as police and teachers unions. Protecting corrupt and bad employees
>unionization at an Amazon facility is more than symbolic: It will encourage -- and serve as a blueprint for -- employees at other Amazon facilities to do the same.
It really depends on how things play out. E.g. what the extra union dues' payments will be in relation to the extra benefits received from union representation. Or maybe Amazon responds with a "business decision" to close JFK8 fulfillment center.
So it can have the opposite effect. The strong union at the Boeing factory in Seattle WA negatively influenced the Boeing workers in South Carolina. The SC workers voted in 3 different elections to reject the union. The last voting count was 74% against the union.
We have to wait and see what the union can "win" from Amazon.
It really depends on how things play out. E.g. what the extra union dues' payments will be in relation to the extra benefits received from union representation. Or maybe Amazon responds with a "business decision" to close JFK8 fulfillment center.
So it can have the opposite effect. The strong union at the Boeing factory in Seattle WA negatively influenced the Boeing workers in South Carolina. The SC workers voted in 3 different elections to reject the union. The last voting count was 74% against the union.
We have to wait and see what the union can "win" from Amazon.
> maybe Amazon responds with a "business decision" to close JFK8 fulfillment center
Given the current labor market, that union could probably bulk sell its labor to someone else willing to come in and pick up where Amazon left off. This is another, less-mentioned benefit of collective bargaining: it aggregates labor.
Given the current labor market, that union could probably bulk sell its labor to someone else willing to come in and pick up where Amazon left off. This is another, less-mentioned benefit of collective bargaining: it aggregates labor.
Why would any company actually want to do this when they could just get non union labor in any of the thousands of right-to-work cities?
> Why would any company actually want to do this when they could just get non union labor in any of the thousands of right-to-work cities?
Because they can't. Not easily, not certainly.
If you've been given direction to quickly deploy a warehouse, being able to sign a single agreement and know you have your work force is valuable. (The alternative involves creating a hiring pipeline, staffing it, running it and lining all of that up with everything else. If you're a scaling company that's a lot of non-core B.S.)
Put another way, all business is bundling and unbundling. A recently-fired union is a bundle of labor. That isn't valuable to everyone. But it's definitely valuable to at least some labor buyers.
Because they can't. Not easily, not certainly.
If you've been given direction to quickly deploy a warehouse, being able to sign a single agreement and know you have your work force is valuable. (The alternative involves creating a hiring pipeline, staffing it, running it and lining all of that up with everything else. If you're a scaling company that's a lot of non-core B.S.)
Put another way, all business is bundling and unbundling. A recently-fired union is a bundle of labor. That isn't valuable to everyone. But it's definitely valuable to at least some labor buyers.
Presumably you still need to fulfill shipping needs in New York because people still buy things there.
It’s a last-mile facility for service to NYC.
It's expensive to do business in those sorts of places.
Alabama lost a Toyota plant to Ontario because literacy is so poor they would need to translate their documentation into Ikea-like pictograms.
Alabama lost a Toyota plant to Ontario because literacy is so poor they would need to translate their documentation into Ikea-like pictograms.
That’s false. That decision had to do with currency values not literacy.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/suv-shuffle-mdx-production-m...
https://www.motortrend.com/news/suv-shuffle-mdx-production-m...
That’s Honda.
The Toyota RAV-4 decision was made back in 2005. In don’t think education has improved in Alabama since. Also, IIRC, the higher Canadian wages were partially offset by not having to provide health benefits.
I cite it as I’m somewhat familiar with it as a friend and colleague worked for a supplier pricing out a in-region facility.
The Toyota RAV-4 decision was made back in 2005. In don’t think education has improved in Alabama since. Also, IIRC, the higher Canadian wages were partially offset by not having to provide health benefits.
I cite it as I’m somewhat familiar with it as a friend and colleague worked for a supplier pricing out a in-region facility.
Given SC rejected the union is interesting, given the quality issues that resulted in Boeing's plant in SC. The reports of managers putting defective parts back into service was horrifying (this was reported by a whistleblower).
The SC quality issues were so severe, some customers were rejecting product created there.
src https://www.fitsnews.com/2021/10/17/more-boeing-blues-for-so...
src https://www.fitsnews.com/2021/10/17/more-boeing-blues-for-so...
As somebody that works in an office in this factory, the micro-union votes down have been very contentious.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, but it certainly seemed like the situation with our PNW union sites did not boost support down here.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, but it certainly seemed like the situation with our PNW union sites did not boost support down here.
Do you have evidence to support that the strong union in Seattle negatively influenced the SC voters?
SC has the lowest union membership in all 50 states - there's a lot of ingrained bias against unions there, and I'm not sure I see the connection to the Seattle, WA plant or workforce.
SC has the lowest union membership in all 50 states - there's a lot of ingrained bias against unions there, and I'm not sure I see the connection to the Seattle, WA plant or workforce.
I work in an office in the SC factory, that comment does indeed reflect the truth. Of course, SC unions are weak and relatively unpopular but that isn’t the whole story here.
Just trying to provide some detail.
Just trying to provide some detail.
but how?
[Replying to multiple commenters with the same questions]
>SC has the lowest union membership in all 50 states - there's a lot of ingrained bias against unions there,
>South Carolina has anti-union laws [...] the least unionized state, works to prevent workers from organizing there,
Anti-union bias does not fully explain the South Carolina Boeing factory rejection vote because the workers did previously have a union.
Fyi... The original South Carolina aircraft factory (formerly Vought doing subcontract work on Boeing fuselages) was unionized in 2007. Then in 2009, they voted to decertify the union as they no longer wanted IAM (International Association of Machinists) to represent them for collective bargaining. (75% voted to get rid of the union.) This happened around the time Boeing acquired the Vought factory. For various reason(s) (see below), the Vought/Boeing workers didn't feel the ~$1000/year union dues were worth the benefits the IAM union negotiated for them.
Since being being voted out, IAM has repeatedly tried to re-establish union membership at SC but multiple elections have voted against it by wide margins. The last 2017 vote was 74% against. In 2018, IAM tried a new approach of establishing a "micro" union of 175 subset of employees instead of the entire ~3000 employees. The IAM won that micro vote but the Labor Board invalidated the micro union as a collective bargaining unit.
Boeing workers' (current) anti-union stance is based on their real-world experience and not ignorance. The SC workers already know what collective bargaining benefits they had with the union. They got rid of the union anyway. Maybe someday, factors will change and Boeing workers will vote for union representation again.
> Do you have evidence to support that the strong union in Seattle negatively influenced the SC voters?
>, but in your calculus "The strong union at the Boeing factory in Seattle WA negatively influenced the Boeing workers in South Carolina"
No, not my calculus. The SC workers reported it. One example: The workers in South Carolina didn't like the IAM directed union strike in Washington. Excerpt from https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...:
>Another sore point that affected Thursday’s vote was that many in the Charleston [South Carolina] work force were laid off last fall during the two-month IAM strike in the Puget Sound region due to the lack of production in Everett.
>SC has the lowest union membership in all 50 states - there's a lot of ingrained bias against unions there,
>South Carolina has anti-union laws [...] the least unionized state, works to prevent workers from organizing there,
Anti-union bias does not fully explain the South Carolina Boeing factory rejection vote because the workers did previously have a union.
Fyi... The original South Carolina aircraft factory (formerly Vought doing subcontract work on Boeing fuselages) was unionized in 2007. Then in 2009, they voted to decertify the union as they no longer wanted IAM (International Association of Machinists) to represent them for collective bargaining. (75% voted to get rid of the union.) This happened around the time Boeing acquired the Vought factory. For various reason(s) (see below), the Vought/Boeing workers didn't feel the ~$1000/year union dues were worth the benefits the IAM union negotiated for them.
Since being being voted out, IAM has repeatedly tried to re-establish union membership at SC but multiple elections have voted against it by wide margins. The last 2017 vote was 74% against. In 2018, IAM tried a new approach of establishing a "micro" union of 175 subset of employees instead of the entire ~3000 employees. The IAM won that micro vote but the Labor Board invalidated the micro union as a collective bargaining unit.
Boeing workers' (current) anti-union stance is based on their real-world experience and not ignorance. The SC workers already know what collective bargaining benefits they had with the union. They got rid of the union anyway. Maybe someday, factors will change and Boeing workers will vote for union representation again.
> Do you have evidence to support that the strong union in Seattle negatively influenced the SC voters?
>, but in your calculus "The strong union at the Boeing factory in Seattle WA negatively influenced the Boeing workers in South Carolina"
No, not my calculus. The SC workers reported it. One example: The workers in South Carolina didn't like the IAM directed union strike in Washington. Excerpt from https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...:
>Another sore point that affected Thursday’s vote was that many in the Charleston [South Carolina] work force were laid off last fall during the two-month IAM strike in the Puget Sound region due to the lack of production in Everett.
> ...Boeing workers in South Carolina. The SC workers voted in 3 different elections to reject the union.
South Carolina has the lowest unionization rate in the US, a country that itself has a 6.1% private unionization rate. A Boeing executive said to the Seattle Times Boeing was opening a production line in South Carolina to avoid unionization and strikes. South Carolina has anti-union laws that Washington does not.
Boeing purposefully moves to the least unionized state, works to prevent workers from organizing there, but in your calculus "The strong union at the Boeing factory in Seattle WA negatively influenced the Boeing workers in South Carolina".
South Carolina has the lowest unionization rate in the US, a country that itself has a 6.1% private unionization rate. A Boeing executive said to the Seattle Times Boeing was opening a production line in South Carolina to avoid unionization and strikes. South Carolina has anti-union laws that Washington does not.
Boeing purposefully moves to the least unionized state, works to prevent workers from organizing there, but in your calculus "The strong union at the Boeing factory in Seattle WA negatively influenced the Boeing workers in South Carolina".
I think it has more to do with politics. Conservative SC politicians have made it clear that they would rather not have good jobs if they are unionized, they don't wont workers getting ideas
Woah, woah, woah.
Hold it there, sparky.
Management (now in Chicago to put distance between them and the unionized workforce) established the South Carolina facility to try to escape the union, and as a result, saw such a sharp drop in Quality over and above what was going on because of the financialization of Boeing entire nations refused to take delivery of aircraft from that facility.
Hold it there, sparky.
Management (now in Chicago to put distance between them and the unionized workforce) established the South Carolina facility to try to escape the union, and as a result, saw such a sharp drop in Quality over and above what was going on because of the financialization of Boeing entire nations refused to take delivery of aircraft from that facility.
> Or maybe Amazon responds with a "business decision" to close JFK8 fulfillment center.
It's quite possible. They'll need to unionize several more Amazon facilities in that region to prevent that outcome. Not sure how many more are in process.
It's quite possible. They'll need to unionize several more Amazon facilities in that region to prevent that outcome. Not sure how many more are in process.
The other vote in Alabama failed, by more than 10%.
New York had a long history of powerful unions. Alabama had a long history of not having unions.
https://www.reuters.com/business/amazons-union-vote-counts-s...
It’s currently… 47% pro-union to 53% no-union in Alabama, with over 15% (400+ ballots) challenged by both sides. It could go either way, but “more than 10%” is not backed by any metrics.
It’s currently… 47% pro-union to 53% no-union in Alabama, with over 15% (400+ ballots) challenged by both sides. It could go either way, but “more than 10%” is not backed by any metrics.
From the article I read in the NY Times it was a gap of over 10% https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/technology/amazon-union-e...
The final decision is not here yet. Resolving the contested ballots could still swing it either way (as of this moment).
"facilities in that region"
> Or maybe Amazon responds with a "business decision" to close JFK8 fulfillment center.
Given the specifics at hand here, that would likely be seen as a retaliatory move to discourage unionization in other branches, which is illegal. There's actually precedent in some cases for forcing an employer to reopen a branch if it was found to be closed as retaliation for union activity.
Given the specifics at hand here, that would likely be seen as a retaliatory move to discourage unionization in other branches, which is illegal. There's actually precedent in some cases for forcing an employer to reopen a branch if it was found to be closed as retaliation for union activity.
Maybe the union can win Amazon warehouse workers more bathroom breaks.
You shouldn't have to wear adult diapers to work to avoid getting fired because you need to go to the bathroom twice during a shift and they're a 10 minute walk away, & good luck hitting your performance targets with that chunk of time lost.
Depends on what the union does. My father in law worked in various unionized jobs and isn’t exactly a fan of them.
I would like to see a wave of unionization, but I’m skeptical that unions as currently structured can actually deliver for workers. In the last few decades, as private sector union membership has declined, unions have lost influence within the larger left. They find themselves as followers rather than leaders within the Democratic Party. Even a couple of decades ago lots of workers like my father in law griped about the unions not delivering benefits that justified the dues. That’s only gotten worse as unions increasingly get enmeshed in generic progressive causes the workers themselves often don’t support.
It doesn’t appear that Amazon Labor Union affiliated with one of the big national unions, which is a positive sign. If they can deliver real benefits for workers, other locations may unionize too. But they’ll have to be laser focused on benefitting Amazon Workers and resist the urge to get over their skates.
I would like to see a wave of unionization, but I’m skeptical that unions as currently structured can actually deliver for workers. In the last few decades, as private sector union membership has declined, unions have lost influence within the larger left. They find themselves as followers rather than leaders within the Democratic Party. Even a couple of decades ago lots of workers like my father in law griped about the unions not delivering benefits that justified the dues. That’s only gotten worse as unions increasingly get enmeshed in generic progressive causes the workers themselves often don’t support.
It doesn’t appear that Amazon Labor Union affiliated with one of the big national unions, which is a positive sign. If they can deliver real benefits for workers, other locations may unionize too. But they’ll have to be laser focused on benefitting Amazon Workers and resist the urge to get over their skates.
> It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization.
One can only hope. Collective bargaining is the most powerful tool to dismantle income inequality and corporate greed.
One can only hope. Collective bargaining is the most powerful tool to dismantle income inequality and corporate greed.
Or persistent labor strikes and disruptions. See France
Unions in France are weaker and less prevalent than in many European countries. They organize strikes more often because that's often their only bargaining chip.
I'd gladly give up convenience and the need to have everything available to me at all times, for more collective bargaining and better treatment of human beings. If a labor force goes on strike, you should probably ask yourself why, and if you would do the same, rather than just taking it as a disruption to your life. Would you rather get your crap from Amazon in one day, or would you rather support better treatment and benefits for 10s of thousands of human beings?
It's not really a convincing argument for most people, many would pick the former, and that's why Amazon is successful despite bad labor practices or unionization.
Oh no, 5 weeks of paid time off, 35 hours work week, universal retirement fund, physically hard jobs getting to retire early. And once a month some trains don't come in, and they dare warn you a week in advance. France is truly unlivable, a socialist hellscape :(
that doesn’t sound like an employee problem
This is not true at all in the case of unions. Salaries are much higher in the US than in other equivalent economies with higher levels of unionisation.
Now worker representatives in boards, that would be very beneficial.
Now worker representatives in boards, that would be very beneficial.
It's interesting to see the cyclical rise and fall of workers unions in the US. I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between worker and employer rights - however it seems that, at least in the US, that balance swings back and forth quite often.
It seems like anti-union proponents will remind you of the bad times when unions had too much power, and union supporters will remind you of the bad times when the employers had too much power. These days we actually see a lot more of the latter. Will we swing back and forth indefinitely? Probably.
It seems like anti-union proponents will remind you of the bad times when unions had too much power, and union supporters will remind you of the bad times when the employers had too much power. These days we actually see a lot more of the latter. Will we swing back and forth indefinitely? Probably.
It is really hard to make a case there ever was a "bad time workers had too much power" in the US.
MAYBE you could in Europe, where in 1980s there was some decline in private sector investment concurrent with lower profit rates, but that never happened here.
MAYBE you could in Europe, where in 1980s there was some decline in private sector investment concurrent with lower profit rates, but that never happened here.
>> I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between worker and employer rights
But that's not what we're talking about here. If I am making $8 an hour at my current job and Amazon is willing to pay me $15 an hour but the union says no, first of all we insist on $20 an hour and second of all we decide who gets those jobs and your name isn't on the list, that isn't worker rights, is it?
It's not worker rights or employer rights, it's union rights. Wise up. There's a long history here - certainly on Staten Island - about how this all plays out and where the money goes.
But that's not what we're talking about here. If I am making $8 an hour at my current job and Amazon is willing to pay me $15 an hour but the union says no, first of all we insist on $20 an hour and second of all we decide who gets those jobs and your name isn't on the list, that isn't worker rights, is it?
It's not worker rights or employer rights, it's union rights. Wise up. There's a long history here - certainly on Staten Island - about how this all plays out and where the money goes.
And you go straight to fulfill OPs prophecy: "It seems like anti-union proponents will remind you of the bad times when unions had too much power,"
BTW, the way you characterise unions are interesting. Very different from how they work here in Northern Europe. I wonder if American unions really are as corrupt and screwed up as the Internet makes them sound.
BTW, the way you characterise unions are interesting. Very different from how they work here in Northern Europe. I wonder if American unions really are as corrupt and screwed up as the Internet makes them sound.
It's not a matter of a union having too much power, it's a matter of why would a union have any power over me whatsoever?
I didn't elect a union. If I want to work for a company and they want to hire me, how does a union have the power to tell me I can't work for them and the company can't hire me?
I didn't elect a union. If I want to work for a company and they want to hire me, how does a union have the power to tell me I can't work for them and the company can't hire me?
The employees at this Amazon warehouse just _did_ elect to unionize. This is the free market at work. If Employers can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly, or if their employees can't earn a living wage, and if the employee's government is doing nothing to help (raising minimum wage), then who is to say the employees can't band together and demand higher pay? Even if unions never actually materialize, just the _threat_ of a union should be enough to wake up company leadership and make them say "oh shit, maybe we should treat our employees better".
I understand unions have caused problems in the past. They've caused huge problems, and have had to be scaled back. But that's exactly the balance I'm talking about. We're just swinging on the pendulum towards workers rights at this time. I'm 100% sure if more unions spring up, we'll be hearing horror stories about work stoppages and companies shutting down product lines. But we hear plenty of horror stories about companies mistreating employees right now. We're just riding the free market pendulum.
It doesn't exactly get me out of my seat to think that Amazon might have to make a little less profit, or pay their executives $50 million less next year, or hell, even that prices might rise a little, if it means the free market is actually at work. In an ideal world the pendulum would stop swinging, and we would be in the middle forever. That should theoretically be the job of our government. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
I understand unions have caused problems in the past. They've caused huge problems, and have had to be scaled back. But that's exactly the balance I'm talking about. We're just swinging on the pendulum towards workers rights at this time. I'm 100% sure if more unions spring up, we'll be hearing horror stories about work stoppages and companies shutting down product lines. But we hear plenty of horror stories about companies mistreating employees right now. We're just riding the free market pendulum.
It doesn't exactly get me out of my seat to think that Amazon might have to make a little less profit, or pay their executives $50 million less next year, or hell, even that prices might rise a little, if it means the free market is actually at work. In an ideal world the pendulum would stop swinging, and we would be in the middle forever. That should theoretically be the job of our government. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
That's not my understanding, no. IIRC there was specific legislation that a union has to represent every worker in the shop, and that legislation was specifically introduced to misalign the incentives between workers and unions.
I predict the Staten Island warehouse will soon be closed due to redundancy as part of a strategic rebalancing of their logistics operations due to changing consumer demand. Someone at Amazon is probably already touring all the warehouse sites in Jersey. Doubt they accept this loss.
I’m having a hard time seeing that work for them. Amazon’s tactics here fundamentally depend on there being an effectively inexhaustible pool of talent elsewhere that can be used to threaten any given store that considers unionizing, combined with the plausible threat of moving to get non union labor. Close up shop, hire non-union labor elsewhere, etc.
That might have been true of Walmart stores, which are relatively small and cheap to build, but I do not think it’s true for Amazon. The cost of relocating a warehouse is high, the number of places they can put a replacement warehouse is low, and the risk of another unionization push is non-trivial. Especially since Amazon is already beginning to hit head count issues; treating people as disposable drones doesn’t work when you need so many workers in a hot job market. They are probably making their unionization problems worse due to the way they view and treat their warehouse workers.
To be clear, I think they’ll try. What we’re seeing from Amazon is a real inability to react and innovate to new labor markets. I just don’t think it’ll work out as well for them as it did for say, Walmart.
That might have been true of Walmart stores, which are relatively small and cheap to build, but I do not think it’s true for Amazon. The cost of relocating a warehouse is high, the number of places they can put a replacement warehouse is low, and the risk of another unionization push is non-trivial. Especially since Amazon is already beginning to hit head count issues; treating people as disposable drones doesn’t work when you need so many workers in a hot job market. They are probably making their unionization problems worse due to the way they view and treat their warehouse workers.
To be clear, I think they’ll try. What we’re seeing from Amazon is a real inability to react and innovate to new labor markets. I just don’t think it’ll work out as well for them as it did for say, Walmart.
There are large warehouses regularly available all along I-95 in New Jersey. They also may not need as huge of a footprint as you think - I believe they have some large warehouses just across the border in PA as well (<2 hours away), so this one may only be critical for same day delivery. Yes, it would be expensive, more expensive than closing a Wal-Mart store, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon finds the alternative worse.
Of course. This “win” will just mean thousands of people making good money doing short term work (Amazon warehouses are not a career - most workers use it to fill in) won’t have this option.
Some of the workers live hours away from the warehouse. The President of the Amazon Labor Union lived in New Jersey[1] when he was working there.
So there might be a lot of, or a least enough to make a difference, overlap in the hiring pool, depending how far they relocate.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krKjNgLaiyU
So there might be a lot of, or a least enough to make a difference, overlap in the hiring pool, depending how far they relocate.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krKjNgLaiyU
I was thinking the exact same thing, most likely that'll be the move.
I'd say this is partly demographic/generation shifts, unions have extremely strong support among younger age groups and this is just one of the first visible results. Teamsters, to name one union, just had leadership change over and will be taking a much more aggressive posture going forward, and I don't think that's a unique story.
Yup, that's exactly what this potential success story means.
And is precisely why Amazon fought so fiercely (and underhandedly) to derail a similar effort in Alabama around this time last year.
And is precisely why Amazon fought so fiercely (and underhandedly) to derail a similar effort in Alabama around this time last year.
[deleted]
I want you to be right, I really do. The problem as far as I can see it is that Amazon can simply shift the work load away from that facility and then close it, and open a new one somewhere else. Unions no longer have the protections they need. Technically, Amazon could simply shut down that facility for 1 year and 1 day, and then reopen it and the Union will no longer exist. I have serious doubts about whether Amazon cares about the negative press they would get for doing exactly that.
The particularly interesting thing here is that this isn’t an effort by a larger, established union. This is a self-organized Amazon employees union spearheaded by a fired Amazon worker who Amazon spent a lot of money smearing over the past couple years. Arguably, along rather racist lines.
The more things change…
The more things change…
Robert Reich has a good interview with the recent Starbucks labor organizers.
you will see a wave of robotization as well because unions will take successful companies to the ground.
It will also encourage downsizing and expediting the shift to replacing humans with robots.
That shift already exists plenty, as one can see from the high degree of automation of those warehouses. The only thing that Unions would change there is that they can bargain e.g. for re-training of the workers made redundant.
Unions have not only fought for retraining, but for compensation for workers whose jobs were outsourced or automated away. Compensation is important in order for workers to transition careers without their families ending up homeless.
They've been encouraging that forever, but it's just not there yet. They weren't going to wait until it was less convenient than people, they're going to do that the moment that it's viable, but as of yet, it still needs work.
Relatively fewer but higher quality jobs isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially in an industry where growth can absorb the efficiencies, rather than needing to resort to layoffs.
Great! It’s only because of our stupid system that removing the need for thousands of humans to spend their lives doing unnecessary labor is a bad thing.
>It’s only because of our stupid system that removing the need for thousands of humans to spend their lives doing unnecessary labor is a bad thing.
That stupid system will still be there after all of those jobs are automated away.
That stupid system will still be there after all of those jobs are automated away.
That sounds like a good thing. An Amazon warehouse job is grueling, terrible work. The more we can get machines to do the crappy jobs, the better.
Next is Walmart ?
[deleted]
I totally agree with you, Amazon is like that.
https://www.google.com/
https://www.google.com/
Freakonomics ran a recent episode on unions [1]. A pair of interesting stats were presented near the start: the approval rating for unions stands at 70% in the US (even higher among the young) at the same time that union membership stands at 10%. Both numbers are at multi-decade extremes.
I don't think it's any coincidence that this success at Amazon comes right now. After the GFC all regulatory efforts turned to keeping financial markets solvent. That has meant unwavering support for policies that favor those with assets over those who don't.
The pandemic happened in early 2020 just as the wheels were flying off the US economy yet again. So what would have played out got masked by many other factors, including direct government transfers.
Those stimmie checks of yore are long gone, and it will be a very steep uphill battle to bring anything remotely like that back given the rip-roaring yr/yr increase in CPI and PPI now underway. Those checks are being blamed for the ongoing inflation that more than just the lunatic fringe now thinks is the start of Weimar-style hyperinflation.
So with the 2/10 year yield curve now inverted [2], it's just a matter of time before the economic chickens come home to roost once more. Will it be different this time? Will unions step in to fill the gap that government can not?
[1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-unions-still-work/
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/us-bonds-treasury-yields-inv...
I don't think it's any coincidence that this success at Amazon comes right now. After the GFC all regulatory efforts turned to keeping financial markets solvent. That has meant unwavering support for policies that favor those with assets over those who don't.
The pandemic happened in early 2020 just as the wheels were flying off the US economy yet again. So what would have played out got masked by many other factors, including direct government transfers.
Those stimmie checks of yore are long gone, and it will be a very steep uphill battle to bring anything remotely like that back given the rip-roaring yr/yr increase in CPI and PPI now underway. Those checks are being blamed for the ongoing inflation that more than just the lunatic fringe now thinks is the start of Weimar-style hyperinflation.
So with the 2/10 year yield curve now inverted [2], it's just a matter of time before the economic chickens come home to roost once more. Will it be different this time? Will unions step in to fill the gap that government can not?
[1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-unions-still-work/
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/us-bonds-treasury-yields-inv...
I like the idea of unions more than the reality.
My first job was earning minimum wage working full-time at Safeway. After working there for about 9 months I quit because I didn't want to pay union dues to join the union. I was already only making minimum wage, it wasn't like the union was improving my salary. The required hour long lunch breaks might have been thanks to the union, but I hated having to take hour long breaks. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Listening to that episode didn't change my thoughts much. One of the bigger problems I have with unions is that they always want to grow to gain more power/influence. If I'm paying dues I don't want 20% or whatever of those dues to go to what is essentially advertising/marketing.
My ideal union would have low fees, not try to expand into other companies, and would be optional for employees.
My first job was earning minimum wage working full-time at Safeway. After working there for about 9 months I quit because I didn't want to pay union dues to join the union. I was already only making minimum wage, it wasn't like the union was improving my salary. The required hour long lunch breaks might have been thanks to the union, but I hated having to take hour long breaks. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Listening to that episode didn't change my thoughts much. One of the bigger problems I have with unions is that they always want to grow to gain more power/influence. If I'm paying dues I don't want 20% or whatever of those dues to go to what is essentially advertising/marketing.
My ideal union would have low fees, not try to expand into other companies, and would be optional for employees.
You cannot have optional and union in the same sentence, that defeats the purpose of a union.
What you are saying is I want the union to do all the work without me being hands on on its function. Unions are useless if the workers just sit idle and wait for the representatives to do all the work.
Participation of all workers is what make a union powerful.
What you are saying is I want the union to do all the work without me being hands on on its function. Unions are useless if the workers just sit idle and wait for the representatives to do all the work.
Participation of all workers is what make a union powerful.
In Northern Europe we put optional and union in the same sentence, and it works well. But there is social pressure to join, and many places everyone, or almost everyone is union members. And maybe more importantly, the unions are usually big enough that they have power even if not everyone are members.
I don't see how the union was doing any worthwhile work for me back when I was making minimum wage at a grocery store. All I saw was that they wanted to skim hundreds of dollars off my meager paychecks every year.
You didn't understand what the benefits of collective action against a hostile employer are. That's the fault of the union for failing to explain what they do for members (unions are about much more than just wages). That doesn't mean there's no benefit though.
a union is not an unalloyed good for the employees. I also worked at a unionized grocery for about 3 months. At our shop, it was clear that the union was set up to protect the senior employees at the expense of the junior employees. There were about 10-ish people on the checkout stands during my shifts, 4 of them were employees who had been working there for 10+ years, and 6 of them were people who had been working there for less than a year. The senior employees worked maybe 15% of their shift when it was particularly busy, otherwise they'd have "meetings" in the break room or hang outside smoking. The junior employees were worked hard and burned out and left.
That has nothing to do with unions though, obviously. If you look at any organisation you tend to see people who have been there a long time without moving upwards or onwards are pretty lazy people who know how to play the system. They don't need a union for that.
A lot of people who are anti-unions appear to think the union is the cause of everything bad without noticing the same things happen everywhere else as well. Keeping shitty staff around is much more a function of employers who don't track how good their staff are than anything to do with unionization.
Also, forming an opinion about unions based on one job that lasted 3 months with 10 co-workers, the majority of who were hard-workers, is appalling. That isn't anywhere near enough information. You really need to try harder.
A lot of people who are anti-unions appear to think the union is the cause of everything bad without noticing the same things happen everywhere else as well. Keeping shitty staff around is much more a function of employers who don't track how good their staff are than anything to do with unionization.
Also, forming an opinion about unions based on one job that lasted 3 months with 10 co-workers, the majority of who were hard-workers, is appalling. That isn't anywhere near enough information. You really need to try harder.
I'm sorry I didn't cover the industrial and labor relations courses I took in college in my 5 sentence long comment on an online posting board
Works for Boeing.
I see what you're saying but an "optional" union is pretty much bound to collapse inevitably.
But why shouldn't it? No, seriously. If union isn't providing enough value to justify overhead it creates - it's just a parasite and everyone will benefit once it's gone.
Boeing’s other union (SPEEA) is optional and has been for decades.
That’s only because there’s a union to begin with. If the option was union or no union that would be a story - is it possible to not be in the union at all and not pay dues?
Why would a union be company specific? It makes a lot of sense for a union to represent all workers doing e.g. car manufacturing.
This is how the NLRA has been set up unions in the US--generally to make unions weaker.
Other countries have sectoral bargaining, which is what you describe
A single-company union is generally a weak union, unless the company is gigantic. Expanding to other companies is how unions gain power to negotiate more effectively, the same way that companies gain price negotiation benefits by expanding into new markets.
[deleted]
>It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Buy better food? I don't understand how a person can eat their food and digest it in 30 minutes.
Buy better food? I don't understand how a person can eat their food and digest it in 30 minutes.
Nowadays when I work downtown I'll sometimes take a leisurely lunch that involves walking to a restaurant, ordering food, waiting for it, eating it, and then returning. That can take me up to an hour if things are really slow.
Back then I worked in the Safeway deli. I'd often make a sandwich for myself and set it aside, walk around the counter and buy it when lunch started, and then finish eating in 15-20 minutes. And then I'd be stuck sitting around in the break room with nothing to do waiting out the remaining 40 minutes.
Sure I usually read books or watched tv on a little Archos media player. But I would have rather finished work earlier and done that in the comfort of my home.
Back then I worked in the Safeway deli. I'd often make a sandwich for myself and set it aside, walk around the counter and buy it when lunch started, and then finish eating in 15-20 minutes. And then I'd be stuck sitting around in the break room with nothing to do waiting out the remaining 40 minutes.
Sure I usually read books or watched tv on a little Archos media player. But I would have rather finished work earlier and done that in the comfort of my home.
Depends on whether you want to have a long lunch in the middle of the day or get Done with the workday as quickly as possible.
Unions as institutions run by non-workers kinda suck; they're just another hierarchy that exploits workers, and have little knowledge of worker conditions. Most animosity towards unions is towards these ossified institutions.
Unions as worker-led orgs are much better; you have faith that your reps actually know your working conditions, and you often perosnally know the rep in some capacity.
This victory is because of worker-led unions.
Unions as worker-led orgs are much better; you have faith that your reps actually know your working conditions, and you often perosnally know the rep in some capacity.
This victory is because of worker-led unions.
There's a big difference and do you approve of the general concept of unit Union and do you personally want to be part of one. Freakonomics is a great introduction but very much pop economics with all of the problems of Journalism. They love to cherry-pick extremes and ignore detail and nuance
If an inverted yield curve means that investors are spooked about the current economy, and thus they favor longer term bonds, does that mean then that the market is not expecting inflation? Who wants to own a 10 or 30yr bond if they expect inflation to soar?
Why do you say the wheels were flying off the economy in 2020?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_events_in_the_U...
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/12/31/2019s-yie...
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/12/31/2019s-yie...
There appears to be technical issues that caused #1, something about timing rather than a cause that points to more serious problems. If so, the analysis in #2 is based on a data point disconnected from those of the trend.
Also the trend in #2 consists if 3 data points. It might be an accurate interpretation, but curves before the '73, '80, '81 recessions didn't follow this pattern. We'd need an explanation for why that's the case, and what changed in the '90s. Without that we're just drawing a bullseye around 3 dots coincidentally close together.
Was there other evidence for a recession? I know that some people were saying we were "due" for one based simply on average timing, but that's no very compelling either if GDP growth had been relatively steady.
Meanwhile, this article [0] indicates that right before the pandemic got huge we weren't checking the boxes on a variety of things that would be warning signs.
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/06/her...
Also the trend in #2 consists if 3 data points. It might be an accurate interpretation, but curves before the '73, '80, '81 recessions didn't follow this pattern. We'd need an explanation for why that's the case, and what changed in the '90s. Without that we're just drawing a bullseye around 3 dots coincidentally close together.
Was there other evidence for a recession? I know that some people were saying we were "due" for one based simply on average timing, but that's no very compelling either if GDP growth had been relatively steady.
Meanwhile, this article [0] indicates that right before the pandemic got huge we weren't checking the boxes on a variety of things that would be warning signs.
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/06/her...
Growth was already slowing in 2019, which is why the fed started dropping rates in June. In fact 2019 was the lowest growth in the entire decade, the lowest since 2008.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50234626
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50234626
That same article, in analyzing the trends, gave the opposite opinion though: that we were less likely to enter a recession than some had thought:
"Wednesday's figures, suggesting resilient consumer spending and strong-than-expected housebuilding, is likely to ease fears that the US will enter recession."
"Wednesday's figures, suggesting resilient consumer spending and strong-than-expected housebuilding, is likely to ease fears that the US will enter recession."
The private sector unionization rate in 2021 was 6.1%.
While productivity increased over the past half century, inflation-adjusted hourly wages are about what they were 50 years ago (it goes up and down - they were slightly lower in 2018 than 1972, a few cents higher in 2019). All productivity gains have been hovered up by the heirs and aristocracy.
As it was in the Silicon Valley wage cartel which collapsed in 2014. So FAANG wages have been high for 8 years, which is a historic anomaly.
While productivity increased over the past half century, inflation-adjusted hourly wages are about what they were 50 years ago (it goes up and down - they were slightly lower in 2018 than 1972, a few cents higher in 2019). All productivity gains have been hovered up by the heirs and aristocracy.
As it was in the Silicon Valley wage cartel which collapsed in 2014. So FAANG wages have been high for 8 years, which is a historic anomaly.
Cartel is a pretty strong word for what happened and the fact that wages remained high is likely not an anomaly. E.g. Hedge funds which make similarly large amounts of money have paid their employees just as well for many years.
The FAANGs had soft agreements to work together on labor by not hiring each other's workers. That seems to fit the definition of a cartel:
"group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market"
I suppose we might argue that even the FAANGs together aren't large enough to constitute the full market. Other companies compete over the workforce of FAANG-eligible workers. The long tail of such SV employers with lower employee headcount a is still probably large in the aggregate. Though even apart from no-poaching agreements I've seen it speculated that FAANGs may employ large #s of talented people somewhat unnecessarily purely to keep them out of the hands of current competitors or potential startups that could grow into competition. That's a bit too conspiratorial for me though, at least without more evidence
"group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market"
I suppose we might argue that even the FAANGs together aren't large enough to constitute the full market. Other companies compete over the workforce of FAANG-eligible workers. The long tail of such SV employers with lower employee headcount a is still probably large in the aggregate. Though even apart from no-poaching agreements I've seen it speculated that FAANGs may employ large #s of talented people somewhat unnecessarily purely to keep them out of the hands of current competitors or potential startups that could grow into competition. That's a bit too conspiratorial for me though, at least without more evidence
Notably the F did not take part in the collusion.
A recruiter at Google was fired simply for reaching out to an employee at Apple. Cartel feels like an appropriate word.
When this has happened at individual Walmart stores in the past, the company would immediately shut down the store and everyone would lose their jobs. A couple years later they would build a new store within 20 or so miles of the old store, free of the union. This was obviously financially painful for Walmart, but it served as such a strong signal to employees to not even try to unionize that it must have paid for itself many times over given Walmart's thousands of stores. I wonder if Amazon has been taking notes from them on this.
The capital cost to build a modern Amazon Fulfillment Center is absolutely staggering. I used to be part of a team that helped launch them.
Go watch one of those "inside the Amazon warehouse" videos on YouTube. The box/tote sorting machines are millions of dollars each, and there are probably 3 big ones and maybe 2 or 3 more small ones. The ubiquitous conveyor belts are cheap individually, but there are miles of them. The robots moving the storage shelves are not cheap, and there are hundreds of them per floor, and typically 4 floors.
Amazon's strategy for the last decade has been to make these huge capital costs to keep variable costs low. They don't just shut an FC down.
Go watch one of those "inside the Amazon warehouse" videos on YouTube. The box/tote sorting machines are millions of dollars each, and there are probably 3 big ones and maybe 2 or 3 more small ones. The ubiquitous conveyor belts are cheap individually, but there are miles of them. The robots moving the storage shelves are not cheap, and there are hundreds of them per floor, and typically 4 floors.
Amazon's strategy for the last decade has been to make these huge capital costs to keep variable costs low. They don't just shut an FC down.
I understand the robots are expensive, but dismantling a distribution center doesn't mean destroying the robots. They can just ship them to a new distribution center elsewhere, pay for relocation and setup, but it's not like they have to destroy them and lose all value.
The robots, yes. The sorters and conveyance, far less so. A huge portion of their cost is just the installation.
For a big, high speed 'shoe'[0] sorter, you're talking about a machine more than 100m long that is heavily, heavily bolted into the cement floor. I believe that particular building has four such sorters.
[0] Not a sorter of shoes for your feet, but a sorter that uses little boxes called 'shoes' to carefully knock packages off at the right place.
For a big, high speed 'shoe'[0] sorter, you're talking about a machine more than 100m long that is heavily, heavily bolted into the cement floor. I believe that particular building has four such sorters.
[0] Not a sorter of shoes for your feet, but a sorter that uses little boxes called 'shoes' to carefully knock packages off at the right place.
from an outside of perspective, these don't seem to be compelling reasons why Amazon might not do the same.
Amazon can choose to lose a LOT of money and bear tight margins in the retail business (as they do already). And they can just move the equipment, they don't have to lose them.
I think the reason Amazon might just not do it is there is a lot of scrutiny and discourse against Amazon is politically favorable, that they would embellish their brand as "evil" even further - whether it be real or not.
Amazon can choose to lose a LOT of money and bear tight margins in the retail business (as they do already). And they can just move the equipment, they don't have to lose them.
I think the reason Amazon might just not do it is there is a lot of scrutiny and discourse against Amazon is politically favorable, that they would embellish their brand as "evil" even further - whether it be real or not.
Oh yes they do. See: Rust Belt.
I think you’re drastically underestimating the influence of unionization.
I think you’re drastically underestimating the influence of unionization.
They have so much money it’s not really a thing. This particular warehouse will be made an example of. The sad part is the workers had a good thing going. A fair thing. But a few agitators ruined it to make their own profit. Sad.
I don't think Amazon wants to shut this warehouse down, my rough understanding is that it's a hugely important warehouse, serving NYC's millions of customers.
So? Why can't it be in Long Island, New Jersey, Newark, or any other place around NYC?
It's a sad state of affairs when corporations are allowed to screw citizens over.
It's a sad state of affairs when corporations are allowed to screw citizens over.
I’m a 46yro male from the US. When have corporations NOT been allowed to screwed over citizens? I think thats been true for the entirety of my life.
And here in Sweden I come from decades of strong unions, strong government oversight. So much so that people are looking to the other side, voting for privatization without understanding the consequences. Voting for parties that promote less government oversight and more control to corporations.
Government regulation isn't there to stifle development, it's there to PROTECT. THE. CITIZENS.
Government regulation isn't there to stifle development, it's there to PROTECT. THE. CITIZENS.
The consequences are dire. In the US, We the People only now exist to line the pockets of the uppermost classes, whose disdain for the rest of us is, well its really getting tiring at this point.
Staten Island is in a pretty central location. You can go straight to brooklyn / queens / long island without having to go through the city like you would from NJ.
There are two bridges connecting Staten Island to New Jersey. One is part of I-278 which then continues onto Long Island via the Verrazano Narrows bridge.
With that said, I haven’t looked at the toll situation for either of the NJ bridges in years, so maybe tolls alone would be enough to remove any alleged savings from non-union labor.
With that said, I haven’t looked at the toll situation for either of the NJ bridges in years, so maybe tolls alone would be enough to remove any alleged savings from non-union labor.
I'd imagine the tolls for bridges and tunnels are prohibitively expensive for last-mile shipping going from Jersey to NYC. Tolls are absent from NYC to Jersey in some cases, though.
That area also has some of the longest commutes and traffic in the country. In my mind, it doesn't make much sense for time sensitive deliveries or efficiency.
That area also has some of the longest commutes and traffic in the country. In my mind, it doesn't make much sense for time sensitive deliveries or efficiency.
> Why can't it be in Long Island, New Jersey, Newark, or any other place around NYC?
Because they already have fulfillment centers in all of those places, and during the holiday season (peak) they are maxed out.
Because they already have fulfillment centers in all of those places, and during the holiday season (peak) they are maxed out.
I know people and it’s already in shut down mode. Do you really think they designed their infra to be that vulnerable?
It’s time to make a point and turn the community against the agitators. They destroyed good jobs.
It’s time to make a point and turn the community against the agitators. They destroyed good jobs.
> make a point and turn the community against the agitators.
Time and time again this is the proven strategy.
Time and time again this is the proven strategy.
Another direction is more automation. Cover more tasks by humans with robots (this union stuff acts as a selection pressure for innovation). Then just staff the place with qualified robot overlords.
Or robotics that are controlled by humans in a 3rd country.
How's that even legal? Aren't there laws to prevent corporate anti-union bullying?
I really don’t understand this push tbh. Amazon is already the industry leader in pay and benefits for these roles. Why was this needed?
In 2022, the only time I tend to see a union do anything, it’s to disrupt and create mob like holds on things (shipping, trucking etc). There seems to be waaay more corruption in anything union related than without.
Can someone seriously explain why this is needed or a good thing? Who actually wins in Amazons case outside of corrupt, power hungry union leaders who get to create roles for themselves?
In 2022, the only time I tend to see a union do anything, it’s to disrupt and create mob like holds on things (shipping, trucking etc). There seems to be waaay more corruption in anything union related than without.
Can someone seriously explain why this is needed or a good thing? Who actually wins in Amazons case outside of corrupt, power hungry union leaders who get to create roles for themselves?
Pay and Benefits are one thing. Working conditions are another. You can pay me 15 an hour (Only $30K a year) but if I have to pee in a bottle or don't have enough schedule consistency to see my kids it's not worth it.
Amazon may pay well for now, but let's be honest, Amazon is a monopolistic project. What happens when there's less competition than there is right now? Do you think wages stay where they're at without some kind of pressure?
A union is the only ways employees can have any real power in the workplace. Democratically run unions give employees real negotiating power over what it means to go to work day to day. Unions are not perfect but what group of humans ever is?
I'd take a union job over a non-union job any day of the week.
Amazon may pay well for now, but let's be honest, Amazon is a monopolistic project. What happens when there's less competition than there is right now? Do you think wages stay where they're at without some kind of pressure?
A union is the only ways employees can have any real power in the workplace. Democratically run unions give employees real negotiating power over what it means to go to work day to day. Unions are not perfect but what group of humans ever is?
I'd take a union job over a non-union job any day of the week.
> Democratically run unions give employees real negotiating power over what it means to go to work day to day.
I've been part of a few and this has never been the case in my experience.
I've been part of a few and this has never been the case in my experience.
My wife was in a union and was able to decline membership. She was straight up bullied/harassed by her union-belonging peers when she left (saving some serious cash — relatively speaking — by not having to pay dues anymore).
Nothing about her job changed when she left the union.
I have no issues with unions, provided the employees have the choice to belong. But there’s the rub many (most?) states require membership (and dues) if there’s a union. And that’s never sat right with me.
Nothing about her job changed when she left the union.
I have no issues with unions, provided the employees have the choice to belong. But there’s the rub many (most?) states require membership (and dues) if there’s a union. And that’s never sat right with me.
If everyone could reape the benefits but don't pay there would be no unions.
Did your wife also try to skip paying taxes? Do you have "no problems with taxes as long as they're not mandatory"?
Did your wife also try to skip paying taxes? Do you have "no problems with taxes as long as they're not mandatory"?
> If everyone could reape the benefits but don't pay there would be no unions.
Right to work states exist for this reason, and they do fine. Unions in a right to work state are not mandatory.
Right to work states exist for this reason, and they do fine. Unions in a right to work state are not mandatory.
I’ve been sound a few and have seen the same. The wannabe politicians and “negotiators” that are attracted to these union roles are the bullies or powerbrokers from middle school who tend to love the power that comes from those roles. They’re also actively motivated to be at odds with the employer which tends to make them part of the problem not the solution.
I genuinely see this as bad for online retail.
I genuinely see this as bad for online retail.
Spent a long time in Australian mines, some are heavily unionised, what you say is right it does attract the most toxic people, but at the same time even the truck drivers earn a fantastic living they can use to support a family. This is only possible because of the decades of strong unions negotiating better pay so the mines had to share the wealth. So to answer your question, the poorest people in the company benefit, despite the toxicity it can create.
> but at the same time even the truck drivers earn a fantastic living they can use to support a family. This is only possible because of the decades of strong unions negotiating better pay so the mines had to share the wealth.
How is this to do with unions and not just lack of labor supply, i.e. lack of people with a right to work in Australia who also want to be a truck driver in the middle of nowhere.
How is this to do with unions and not just lack of labor supply, i.e. lack of people with a right to work in Australia who also want to be a truck driver in the middle of nowhere.
This effort started over unsafe COVID working conditions. Not dying at work seems like a win.
15$/hr ~ 30k$/year - That doesn't sound like a lot to be honest.
15$/hr ~ 30k$/year - That doesn't sound like a lot to be honest.
Not a lot sure. But WAY above minimum wage in many many states.
These aren’t highly skilled jobs. They come with healthcare and leave benefits. That’s game changing. Yet people seem enraged… I just don’t get it.
These aren’t highly skilled jobs. They come with healthcare and leave benefits. That’s game changing. Yet people seem enraged… I just don’t get it.
Are you suggesting that
* Those workers should not earn more, a union would make them earn more, therefore they should not unionize
Or that
* The union would not make those workers earn more, therefore they should not unionize
?
* Those workers should not earn more, a union would make them earn more, therefore they should not unionize
Or that
* The union would not make those workers earn more, therefore they should not unionize
?
Perhaps it's your privilege blinding you? Just a thought.
You act like minimum wage is fair.
$20 minimum wage would be more keeping in line with historic buying power.
$20 minimum wage would be more keeping in line with historic buying power.
Can someone provide examples of when unions are bad?
> Employees cast 2,654 votes to be represented by Amazon Labor Union and 2,131 against, giving the union a win by more than 10 percentage points, according to the National Labor Relations Board. More than 8,300 workers at the building
This is just sad. Just a hair over 50% of the eligible voters voted; weirdly, approximately the same voter turnout for US elections historically. Does half of any given population just not care enough to vote for something?
This is just sad. Just a hair over 50% of the eligible voters voted; weirdly, approximately the same voter turnout for US elections historically. Does half of any given population just not care enough to vote for something?
Part of anti-unionization tactics is making employees uncomfortable about even discussing or associating with the topic. Management uses captive audience meetings to personally guilt the employees, which makes employees just want the whole thing to be over with because it’s so uncomfortable. Nobody likes being made to feel guilty but they need a job and don’t really know whats going on; they just want the drama to be over with so they avoid it as best they can.
Not care is a part of it. But "they're both the same," "it doesn't matter," "I think ___ crazy thing from the internet" are more common imho.
I work in politics and it drives me nuts the self reinforcing idea that your vote doesn't matter.
Combined with false equivalences and inflexibility to see a larger viewpoint (that no one will get 100% 1:1 policy representation) just lets older people who consistently vote run away with it.
There is also entrenched structural problems as a result of R control, especially state & county level. That is also a part of low turnout.
I work in politics and it drives me nuts the self reinforcing idea that your vote doesn't matter.
Combined with false equivalences and inflexibility to see a larger viewpoint (that no one will get 100% 1:1 policy representation) just lets older people who consistently vote run away with it.
There is also entrenched structural problems as a result of R control, especially state & county level. That is also a part of low turnout.
Perhaps roughly half of the eligible voters correctly estimated that the chance of their vote affecting the outcome is exceedingly low and that the cost of voting (even if it's just a few minutes of time) is not worth that small chance of affecting the outcome.
Or scared of repercussions for voting one way or the other, from employer on one hand or peers on the other.
So, approximately, 25% of the workforce feel strongly about wanting a union so as to vote for it. Admittedly, only 20% feel strongly against it so to try and stop it. Makes it tough for either side to claim a proper mandate.
Getting involved puts them at risk of retaliation. I wouldn't be surprised if that causes chilling effects on voter turnout or involvement in organizing.
all of which is illegal, but proving it is damn hard and expensive.
Basically 30% of the workforce is setting rules for the whole. The vote should require a majority of all workers, not just those not voting, to approve the union.
Short answer? Yes.
Long answer probably involves value systems and what individuals are actually doing on that day…
Long answer probably involves value systems and what individuals are actually doing on that day…
[deleted]
Most people are just doing the job for a few weeks for extra cash. It’s not a career. That’s the benefit to most people. This union is a joke.
I am very naïve on this, but unions seems to always been portrayed as negative to business and I really don't understand this view.
Of course, if you are paying more money from getting the same amount of value from an employer, that is bad for business.
But this is not necessarily what can happen, giving more benefits, more stable schedule, better wages, more WLB means being more competitive in the labour market, it means retaining worker more easily. If the company is not wise enough to do it by itself, still it doesn't means that it cannot be a net positive for the company itself.
The whole idea of treating humans as leaking, opexed, robots will need to be fixed, but it can be done and it can bring benefits.
Of course, if you are paying more money from getting the same amount of value from an employer, that is bad for business.
But this is not necessarily what can happen, giving more benefits, more stable schedule, better wages, more WLB means being more competitive in the labour market, it means retaining worker more easily. If the company is not wise enough to do it by itself, still it doesn't means that it cannot be a net positive for the company itself.
The whole idea of treating humans as leaking, opexed, robots will need to be fixed, but it can be done and it can bring benefits.
The issue employers have with unions is much less about wage bargaining an almost entirely about the duplicative work/labor unions tend to lead to. As a hypothetical, lets say you run a widget factory. Line workers at your widget factory spend 6 hour of their shift making widgets, and 2 hours of their shift packing widgets up after they have completed making their widgets. A union comes in and will say "we can have experts in widget making, and experts in packing, these are 2 jobs, people who make widgets do not have the expertise to pack, and people who pack do not have the expertise to make widgets. From now on, we will have 2 separate job roles, widget makers and widget packers, and a packer will never ever be able allowed to make widgets, and widget makes will never ever be allowed to pack widgets". The company, which used to have a staff of 8 people who did both tasks, will now need a staff of 8, 6 widget makers and 2 widget packers. Seems OK right? Well christmas comes around and there are too many widgets to be packed, last year all 8 people were packing widgets 8 hours per day around the christmas rush, and there wasn't much widget making to be done because after christmas is low on sales. The company needs to hire an additional 6 temporary widget packers to pack widget and the 6 widget makers will be either idle or working with reduced efficiency. This increases the companies expenses with no real value created.
Lol, what a load of bs that comment is. Straight anti-union propaganda.
Why would the workers insist on this? Most workers want their company to succeed, just not succeed because of exploiting people.
Why would the workers insist on this? Most workers want their company to succeed, just not succeed because of exploiting people.
"Why would the workers insist on this?"
The empirical evidence we have shows that unions consistently make these choices. There is a huge duplication of labor and responsibilities in construction unions, the trades, etc. The workers are trying to get the company to pay more money to labor, sometimes that means more increasing the pay per hour, sometimes that means increasing the total number of hours worked. I am pretty strongly in favor of germany style labor unions, sectoral barganing and labor codetermination. The caselaw and regulations around unionization in the US are bad and often lead to poor outcomes for workers and management.
The empirical evidence we have shows that unions consistently make these choices. There is a huge duplication of labor and responsibilities in construction unions, the trades, etc. The workers are trying to get the company to pay more money to labor, sometimes that means more increasing the pay per hour, sometimes that means increasing the total number of hours worked. I am pretty strongly in favor of germany style labor unions, sectoral barganing and labor codetermination. The caselaw and regulations around unionization in the US are bad and often lead to poor outcomes for workers and management.
If unions are good for both the company and the workers why don't companies eventually implement the petitions of unions by themselves without any external pressure?
You're making it seem like companies are too dumb to know what's best for them.
I'm in favor of unions but that there's no doubt they can be detrimental to companies and to some of the workers, who maybe prefer more risk and higher rewards.
You're making it seem like companies are too dumb to know what's best for them.
I'm in favor of unions but that there's no doubt they can be detrimental to companies and to some of the workers, who maybe prefer more risk and higher rewards.
It is a unique feature of the American landscape, this aversion to unions.
Deeply rooted in complicated history of labor in the US from what I understand.
Here in Eastern Europe labor unions were at a certain point the source of political power, both for the establishment under socialism, and for the opposition movements before/after the iron curtain dropped. So, here banning or fighting against unions is unthinkable - they are considered a “good” thing.
It’s hard to think about this labor/business tension when you realize that all thought on this subject is constantly being monitored, lobbied and influenced.
Deeply rooted in complicated history of labor in the US from what I understand.
Here in Eastern Europe labor unions were at a certain point the source of political power, both for the establishment under socialism, and for the opposition movements before/after the iron curtain dropped. So, here banning or fighting against unions is unthinkable - they are considered a “good” thing.
It’s hard to think about this labor/business tension when you realize that all thought on this subject is constantly being monitored, lobbied and influenced.
I had a boss who was an expensive consultant for unions.
He explained the reason unions in the US were shrinking is that they are too powerful. They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers, especially in closed shop situations.
Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smaller geographic regions, and in general, all of the heavy lifting for healthcare and pensions and worker rights is handled by the government. So the unions' focus is entirely on the collective bargaining piece. Also, unions tend to be more regulated - they can't carry so much bloat. All in all, everyone, companies included, have less reason to combat unions.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has experience with both and can gauge the accuracy.
He explained the reason unions in the US were shrinking is that they are too powerful. They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers, especially in closed shop situations.
Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smaller geographic regions, and in general, all of the heavy lifting for healthcare and pensions and worker rights is handled by the government. So the unions' focus is entirely on the collective bargaining piece. Also, unions tend to be more regulated - they can't carry so much bloat. All in all, everyone, companies included, have less reason to combat unions.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has experience with both and can gauge the accuracy.
>He explained the reason unions in the US were shrinking is that they are too powerful. They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers, especially in closed shop situations.
This is interesting. I'm a government employee with a union, a pension, health insurance, the whole deal. The union does not control the pension or healthcare in any way whatsoever.
The governmental entity that I'm employed by, my employer, controls both, subject to collective bargaining to some extent. That is, my contract says I can join the pension, that I pay X% into the pension, that I can also join a 401k-style program if I wish, I'd pay Y% in that case. But it doesn't say anything about the operation of the pension or offer any real control. Same with my healthcare - it needs to meet certain criteria (e.g., premiums will be so many dollars for single coverage, employer must pay X% of actuarial value, etc.)
So, who are these unions who actually have union-run pensions and healthcare plans?
This is interesting. I'm a government employee with a union, a pension, health insurance, the whole deal. The union does not control the pension or healthcare in any way whatsoever.
The governmental entity that I'm employed by, my employer, controls both, subject to collective bargaining to some extent. That is, my contract says I can join the pension, that I pay X% into the pension, that I can also join a 401k-style program if I wish, I'd pay Y% in that case. But it doesn't say anything about the operation of the pension or offer any real control. Same with my healthcare - it needs to meet certain criteria (e.g., premiums will be so many dollars for single coverage, employer must pay X% of actuarial value, etc.)
So, who are these unions who actually have union-run pensions and healthcare plans?
Private corporations no longer offer pension (i.e. defined benefit) plans, so if employees want a pension it's going to be managed by a union, assuming they even have a union. That's probably for the better because these days (as opposed to 70 years ago), unions will be far more responsible managers of a pension fund than corporations, partly because of stricter government oversight.
Some other countries have nationally managed pension funds. All the U.S. has is Social Security, a minimalist safety-net pension, and it's a heavy political lift just to maintain that, so I don't see things changing here.
Also, don't unions literally sit on the board of corporations in countries like Germany? The notion that U.S. unions have too much power just seems like a typically American spin on the efficacy of unions--a bias veiled as a criticism. There's a host of reasons unions aren't more prevalent in the U.S., and they feed back onto each other, but if you had to boil them all down, IMO it's because our culture is rather hostile to unions, and it's always been that way. Even at their peak popularity in early- and mid-20th century, mainstream unions (as opposed to the infamous Wobblies, which never had significant membership) were remarkably conservative as compared to their counterparts in Europe, reflecting the general culture.
Some other countries have nationally managed pension funds. All the U.S. has is Social Security, a minimalist safety-net pension, and it's a heavy political lift just to maintain that, so I don't see things changing here.
Also, don't unions literally sit on the board of corporations in countries like Germany? The notion that U.S. unions have too much power just seems like a typically American spin on the efficacy of unions--a bias veiled as a criticism. There's a host of reasons unions aren't more prevalent in the U.S., and they feed back onto each other, but if you had to boil them all down, IMO it's because our culture is rather hostile to unions, and it's always been that way. Even at their peak popularity in early- and mid-20th century, mainstream unions (as opposed to the infamous Wobblies, which never had significant membership) were remarkably conservative as compared to their counterparts in Europe, reflecting the general culture.
This is the exact distinction I'd like to make, in fact. The pension probably isn't managed by a union, it's managed by a board and management structure that will usually include both employees (who might be former employees, or members of one union, or a different union, or management) and representatives of the employer. The union most likely negotiates certain details of the pension in their contract, but actual management is not typically done by a union.
Hence, they cannot easily use management of the pension fund (they don't manage it) against the employer, as the OP claims.
Hence, they cannot easily use management of the pension fund (they don't manage it) against the employer, as the OP claims.
Unions have more hard power in the US. More control.
Stuff like 'everyone who works has to be union'. Only X job can do Y. And Unions seek to increase their control as a defense against companies trying to take it back.
European (dutch specifically) Unions have soft power. The only real control they have is declaring a strike. Everything else is bargaining for better terms of employment. The underlying trick is that entire sectors (willingly) have collective terms of employment.
European (dutch specifically) Unions have soft power. The only real control they have is declaring a strike. Everything else is bargaining for better terms of employment. The underlying trick is that entire sectors (willingly) have collective terms of employment.
> Stuff like 'everyone who works has to be union'
So-called closed shops haven't been legal in the U.S. for 75 years, and union shops for over 35 years. What you're probably thinking of are compulsory agency fees, which admittedly have escalated to as much as 1/3 to 2/3 of full union dues. Full union dues are typically 1%-3% of wages. (According to the Teamsters website, full monthly dues are 2.5 times hourly wages, which IIUC is 1.5%, assuming 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year.)
But the Netherlands have mandatory Works Councils for any company with 50 or more employees, and the company is required to pay all the expenses, including legal and litigation expenses of the councils. So it's functionally the same thing, except the cost is hidden from the employee.
Granted, the relationship between management and workers is much less hostile in Europe, so transactional costs are presumably substantially less. I wouldn't be surprised (but can't find numbers) if Works Councils budgets or comparable budgets for equivalent union representation are much less in Europe. But I also imagine the wage premium that union power in general provides European workers, whether workers are in a union or not, is substantially greater than in the U.S., so overall "costs" (i.e. surplus value shifting) incurred by corporations would be greater.
Because management has always been so hostile to unions in the U.S., unions certainly have had to fight harder, and there's consequently more friction and acrimony. But it doesn't seem particularly fair to place that blame only on unions. IMO, management is much more culpable in that regard, but from a third-party observers' perspective one could easily simply chalk it up to American culture (and especially business and work culture) in general.
So-called closed shops haven't been legal in the U.S. for 75 years, and union shops for over 35 years. What you're probably thinking of are compulsory agency fees, which admittedly have escalated to as much as 1/3 to 2/3 of full union dues. Full union dues are typically 1%-3% of wages. (According to the Teamsters website, full monthly dues are 2.5 times hourly wages, which IIUC is 1.5%, assuming 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year.)
But the Netherlands have mandatory Works Councils for any company with 50 or more employees, and the company is required to pay all the expenses, including legal and litigation expenses of the councils. So it's functionally the same thing, except the cost is hidden from the employee.
Granted, the relationship between management and workers is much less hostile in Europe, so transactional costs are presumably substantially less. I wouldn't be surprised (but can't find numbers) if Works Councils budgets or comparable budgets for equivalent union representation are much less in Europe. But I also imagine the wage premium that union power in general provides European workers, whether workers are in a union or not, is substantially greater than in the U.S., so overall "costs" (i.e. surplus value shifting) incurred by corporations would be greater.
Because management has always been so hostile to unions in the U.S., unions certainly have had to fight harder, and there's consequently more friction and acrimony. But it doesn't seem particularly fair to place that blame only on unions. IMO, management is much more culpable in that regard, but from a third-party observers' perspective one could easily simply chalk it up to American culture (and especially business and work culture) in general.
Indeed the Netherlands has mandatory works councils. I am even a part of one. It took me a while to realize that a works council is quite similar to a "one company union". Though normal works councils don't negotiate salaries (mine does because I fall outside of a collective employment agreement).
As for costs I believe works councils don't have mandated budgets just some general 'reasonable to do the job' law. I actually should find out what budget my works council has. Though I expect it would be high, both because of salary negotiations, and just because the company wants a strong works council.
As for costs I believe works councils don't have mandated budgets just some general 'reasonable to do the job' law. I actually should find out what budget my works council has. Though I expect it would be high, both because of salary negotiations, and just because the company wants a strong works council.
The 1930s 1940s upswing wasn't so conservative, but there were some purges with the cold war and then things took a self-defeating turn.
I believe Teamsters is the biggest. But there are enough that taxpayers ended up bailing out a ton this year: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/business/dealbook/bailout...
But even if your union doesn't directly control your healthcare plan, I would still assume it was part of the collective bargaining?
But even if your union doesn't directly control your healthcare plan, I would still assume it was part of the collective bargaining?
Multi-employer pension plans are usually governed by a board of trustees. Depends on the plan but typically labor and management share power equally (broadly speaking).
And yeah, pensions, healthcare are all part of collective bargaining. Do you control the healthcare plan where you work? I assume it's part of negotiating the terms of your employment, so you could always ask for a really good one.
And yeah, pensions, healthcare are all part of collective bargaining. Do you control the healthcare plan where you work? I assume it's part of negotiating the terms of your employment, so you could always ask for a really good one.
> The union does not control the pension or healthcare in any way whatsoever.
Pretty much all teachers unions negotiate healthcare and pensions, I think. That is, what plans you have access to, the contributions you need to make for them, and the dept. of ed.'s contribution and eligibility rules. The union and the state dept. of ed negotiate together.
Pretty much all teachers unions negotiate healthcare and pensions, I think. That is, what plans you have access to, the contributions you need to make for them, and the dept. of ed.'s contribution and eligibility rules. The union and the state dept. of ed negotiate together.
Historically the government is better at procuring benefit plans. Back in the 70s and 80s, .gov would throw benefits at employees because they are better at procurement and could grant benefits at $0.80 on the dollar. Companies would throw money at unions to cap liability.
But it does happen, especially with dental and similar plans.
But it does happen, especially with dental and similar plans.
> So, who are these unions who actually have union-run pensions and healthcare plans?
Skilled trade unions. IBEW (electrical) has union-run pensions and healthcare, I’m not familiar enough with pipefitters or steelworkers but I’d guess their unions do too.
Skilled trade unions. IBEW (electrical) has union-run pensions and healthcare, I’m not familiar enough with pipefitters or steelworkers but I’d guess their unions do too.
This is also my experience with unions. I don't know if it is different for things like electricians/etc. where you might not have a single shop you work for but you get jobs through the union.
Cases like this you really need to be extremely specific about what powerful means. I think a lot of left leaning folks could agree with such statements but made too broadly it can be taken a number of different ways.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone pro union who'd say unions have too much influence or sway in the lives of US citizens. Most workers don't have union representation and unions don't have much say in worker pay in a great majority of sectors. Especially where it could help like warehouse work which has seen wages plummet with the advent of Amazon.
Now, compare that to two unions which are extremely powerful and not always good for the public or their members!
1) Teachers unions. Extremely powerful (at least Oregon where I know about them), but they don't necessarily help teachers! Pay is low because they haven't flexed their power and are fully at the whim of taxes. Since their funding is low the most teacher's union can guarantee their workers is that they will have a consistent job. Which sucks! Also, when COVID occurred there was little room for teachers to get a say as to how classes would be virtual, when kids would be back in schools, or when and how the mask mandate would be lifted. Supposedly a union would help!
2) Police unions: super strong, extremely political, extremely effective. Also nigh impossible to fire a cop unless they offend their union or a fellow cop. Rarely do police budgets ever get cut or does cop pay go down. Do most folks want this? Do most people in New York want their police force to have a budget larger than military of a mid sized country? Probably not? But hey, they're too powerful to do anything about.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone pro union who'd say unions have too much influence or sway in the lives of US citizens. Most workers don't have union representation and unions don't have much say in worker pay in a great majority of sectors. Especially where it could help like warehouse work which has seen wages plummet with the advent of Amazon.
Now, compare that to two unions which are extremely powerful and not always good for the public or their members!
1) Teachers unions. Extremely powerful (at least Oregon where I know about them), but they don't necessarily help teachers! Pay is low because they haven't flexed their power and are fully at the whim of taxes. Since their funding is low the most teacher's union can guarantee their workers is that they will have a consistent job. Which sucks! Also, when COVID occurred there was little room for teachers to get a say as to how classes would be virtual, when kids would be back in schools, or when and how the mask mandate would be lifted. Supposedly a union would help!
2) Police unions: super strong, extremely political, extremely effective. Also nigh impossible to fire a cop unless they offend their union or a fellow cop. Rarely do police budgets ever get cut or does cop pay go down. Do most folks want this? Do most people in New York want their police force to have a budget larger than military of a mid sized country? Probably not? But hey, they're too powerful to do anything about.
>Do most people in New York want their police force to have a budget larger than military of a mid sized country? Probably not?
Pareto distribution strikes again! Apparently new york city has a GDP that ranks 15 in the world, above mexico[1][2] and ranks 59 in the world in terms of population[3], so the fact that new york exceeds "a mid sized country" (median?) in some statistic isn't surprising. If you want to make the argument that the US is over-policed, use some statistic like officers per 100,000 people or something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Pareto distribution strikes again! Apparently new york city has a GDP that ranks 15 in the world, above mexico[1][2] and ranks 59 in the world in terms of population[3], so the fact that new york exceeds "a mid sized country" (median?) in some statistic isn't surprising. If you want to make the argument that the US is over-policed, use some statistic like officers per 100,000 people or something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Unlike Mexico, New York City does not need to maintain its borders or enforce a monopoly on the use of force and a supreme law -- because New York City is not a Westphalian state, it is just a municipal government covering a few hundred square miles!
It is completely bonkers to have this many uniformed officers and this much money poured into security forces, and so little positive result of any of it.
The reason that comparisons to Mexico are alarming is that it plainly does not make sense for a municipal government enclosed within a large and heavily militarized state to have an army of its own! It is strange to compare a city government to a large country! It is SUPPOSED to sound strange!
It is completely bonkers to have this many uniformed officers and this much money poured into security forces, and so little positive result of any of it.
The reason that comparisons to Mexico are alarming is that it plainly does not make sense for a municipal government enclosed within a large and heavily militarized state to have an army of its own! It is strange to compare a city government to a large country! It is SUPPOSED to sound strange!
> Unlike Mexico, New York City does not need to maintain its borders or enforce a monopoly on the use of force and a supreme law -- because New York City is not a Westphalian state, it is just a municipal government covering a few hundred square miles!
you'd think that's the case, but it seems fairly normal for countries to have more police officers than soldiers[1][2]. Just looking at g8 countries:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-...
you'd think that's the case, but it seems fairly normal for countries to have more police officers than soldiers[1][2]. Just looking at g8 countries:
soldiers police officers
Canada 67,400 67,425
France 203,250 282,612
Germany 183,500 279,200
Italy 165,500 276,750
Japan 247,150 296,700
United Kingdom 148,500 148,893
United States 1,388,100 686,665
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-...
But that was not what he was saying. His argument was that just because NY has such a high GDP does not mean they need to spend that much on their police force. The number of police (+soldiers) you need is more a function of the number of citizens and area.
Just taking your numbers above. The NY police has 50,000 police for ~8.5 M people. Germany has ~280k police for 80 M people, and that number likely includes border police, customs police, federal police (all jobs the NY police does not do). So NY has probably around 2x as many (regular) police per citizen as Germany.
Just taking your numbers above. The NY police has 50,000 police for ~8.5 M people. Germany has ~280k police for 80 M people, and that number likely includes border police, customs police, federal police (all jobs the NY police does not do). So NY has probably around 2x as many (regular) police per citizen as Germany.
NY deals with more violent crime than Germany tbf.
Crime statistics are not well-known for following GDP. I am not sure why you would use that as a comparison point. Population? Sure. Surface area? Sure. Total local government revenue? Sure. But GDP?
> Also, when COVID occurred there was little room for teachers to get a say
This may have been a positive. The teachers and their unions are only motivated for them to stay home and "safe", forever. It's the customers (parents) who need the leverage to get the teachers to actually deliver the service they're getting paid for, rather than trying to hide from their job indefinitely as many would be happy to do.
Unions can be important to protect workers' rights, but it's also easy for them to go too far into not even providing the service the job is supposed to do. Particularly in an area with captive customers and government-mandated demand, like education.
This may have been a positive. The teachers and their unions are only motivated for them to stay home and "safe", forever. It's the customers (parents) who need the leverage to get the teachers to actually deliver the service they're getting paid for, rather than trying to hide from their job indefinitely as many would be happy to do.
Unions can be important to protect workers' rights, but it's also easy for them to go too far into not even providing the service the job is supposed to do. Particularly in an area with captive customers and government-mandated demand, like education.
This is uncaring towards those working hardest on the challenges of education. Teachers more than those in most occupations are driven by care for their customers - their students. The low pay and hard work drives many of them away. Righteous parents even more.
Teachers pay can actually be good considering benefits, hours worked, time of, and benefits. There’s hover paying jobs, but also lots of worse career choices
Yeah, but the job they’re supposed to do is educate not necessarily babysit and covid made that separation front and center in a way that was felt by every parent.
There’s lots of “well then maybe that should be their mission” but no one wants to put up the capital for public daycare.
There’s lots of “well then maybe that should be their mission” but no one wants to put up the capital for public daycare.
It's one of the biggest problems of the US. The population craves a high level of government services like in developed European or Asian countries, but isn't willing to pay for them. So instead the government is stuck playing politics to make the budget work instead of actually taking a cost efficiency mindset. Schools double as daycare because taxpayers don't want to pay for actual daycare. Local road construction is subsidized by the federal government despite maintenance being unsustainable. Budgets by the federal government never balance.
What are you talking about? We pay way more per capita to educate kids and give people healthcare in this country than in a lot of other well developed countries where these things are more unified by government directive. Dysfunctionally, of course, but we pay a lot for it.
Education spend is in the upper range but still close to other OECD countries [1]. Healthcare is the outlier there [2].
[1]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd
[2]: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/ae3016b9-en/1/3/1/index....
[1]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd
[2]: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/ae3016b9-en/1/3/1/index....
One of the obvious primary social purposes of public education is free day-care so that both parents can work. People who claim that this isn’t (a major part of) the mission of teachers and schools are just wrong.
jethro_tell(1)
>Extremely powerful (at least Oregon where I know about them)
So, they don't get their employees good pay, they don't get a say in their working conditions. In what sense are they powerful, as you claim?
So, they don't get their employees good pay, they don't get a say in their working conditions. In what sense are they powerful, as you claim?
Powerful in their ability to control their members without helping them!
They end up being another source of control.
That’s likely why there were a slew of wildcat teacher strikes.
They end up being another source of control.
That’s likely why there were a slew of wildcat teacher strikes.
> Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smaller geographic regions, and in general, all of the heavy lifting for healthcare and pensions and worker rights is handled by the government. So the unions' focus is entirely on the collective bargaining piece. Also, unions tend to be more regulated - they can't carry so much bloat. All in all, everyone, companies included, have less reason to combat unions.
I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany.
I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany.
> I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany.
I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension).
It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand.
The union system is the U.S. is completely broken. I think unions in the U.S. should be both more widespread but much less powerful.
I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension).
It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand.
The union system is the U.S. is completely broken. I think unions in the U.S. should be both more widespread but much less powerful.
>It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand.
Do a search on governmentjobs.com for a job title you're familiar with and decide whether the unions have been successful at bleeding the government dry via high salaries. My anecdotal experience: you need to get to one level below Chief where I work to draw a salary close to a FAANG programmer, union pay tops out at 150k.
Do a search on governmentjobs.com for a job title you're familiar with and decide whether the unions have been successful at bleeding the government dry via high salaries. My anecdotal experience: you need to get to one level below Chief where I work to draw a salary close to a FAANG programmer, union pay tops out at 150k.
> I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension).
You mean how shareholders and boardmembers are happy to completely dismantle perfectly functioning companies for a short term stock gain? I would argue workers generally have much more skin in the game than shareholders. Hardly any large shareholder is going to loose their livelihood if a company goes down, workers do.
You mean how shareholders and boardmembers are happy to completely dismantle perfectly functioning companies for a short term stock gain? I would argue workers generally have much more skin in the game than shareholders. Hardly any large shareholder is going to loose their livelihood if a company goes down, workers do.
I dunno, that german situation sounds like the power isn't less or more, but rather in a different place. It's a place that actually can affect the how the company runs in a direct fashion.
man, if you think workers holding 35-50% of the company, wait until you learn about spanish worker co-ops!
one employee = one share = one vote.
no absentee owners.
one employee = one share = one vote.
no absentee owners.
European Govs have more regulation in place to allow for unions. That is why there are more widespread than in the US.
Many of the union-busting activities American companies casually do would be flat out illegal in th EU.
Many of the union-busting activities American companies casually do would be flat out illegal in th EU.
They are illegal in the United States too, just culturally the laws are not enforced like they are in the European Union.
Its very on brand that the first response to this on HN is more or less:
"Okay, hear me out, but what if Unions in America are really _too strong_?".
Very counterintuitive thinking.
"Okay, hear me out, but what if Unions in America are really _too strong_?".
Very counterintuitive thinking.
I've seen what large unions can do (just search for some of the largest Mexican unions, like the PEMEX one). Any organization of a certain scale and power gets corrupt, including private companies and unions.
I strongly believe in unions, but I agree with OP that keeping them small and focused is better for both the interests of the company and the employees. Extreme power imbalances are seldom (and I'd dare say never) good. I've seen unions effectively bankrupt business during tough times. I've also seen what unchecked corporate power can do. The right mixture of regulation and collective bargaining is a good thing, but like always, too much of a good thing can quickly turn bad. As an example, you can end up overprotecting unproductive or counter productive employees, reducing bonuses and pay for the other hard working employees because of reduced profitability.
I strongly believe in unions, but I agree with OP that keeping them small and focused is better for both the interests of the company and the employees. Extreme power imbalances are seldom (and I'd dare say never) good. I've seen unions effectively bankrupt business during tough times. I've also seen what unchecked corporate power can do. The right mixture of regulation and collective bargaining is a good thing, but like always, too much of a good thing can quickly turn bad. As an example, you can end up overprotecting unproductive or counter productive employees, reducing bonuses and pay for the other hard working employees because of reduced profitability.
> Any organization of a certain scale and power gets corrupt
That's the problem. And why you need the four pillars of human organization: Corporations, Government, Religion and Unions to be setup to be opposed to each other.
Instead in the United States Corporations own the Government, Religions are all tax sheltered Corporations and Unions are decimated.
That's the problem. And why you need the four pillars of human organization: Corporations, Government, Religion and Unions to be setup to be opposed to each other.
Instead in the United States Corporations own the Government, Religions are all tax sheltered Corporations and Unions are decimated.
> Extreme power imbalances are seldom (and I'd dare say never) good. I've seen unions effectively bankrupt business during tough times.
Please be specific.
Please be specific.
Interstate Bakeries. They opened their books to multiple unions and (IIRC), all but one agreed/realized that the money wasn’t there for the demands being made. That one holdout was the coup de grace and IB went bankrupt only to be bought out by some Mexican conglomerate.
The question was directed to fgonzag and about what they had seen. Have you actually seen this happen to Interstate Bakeries or have you read about it in a paper?
Counterintuitive to what? Do you have stories or facts you want to share that argue unions in US are actually comparatively weaker than their European counterparts?
The only thing you illustrated was that you were personally astonished by OP's comment, but I don't think that carries as much weight as you think it does.
The only thing you illustrated was that you were personally astonished by OP's comment, but I don't think that carries as much weight as you think it does.
One of my favorite unionization stories comes from Denmark when unions in various industry sectors joined together to force McDonalds to adhere to union rules.[1] The US has so few weak and disparate unions that that story could never play out there - even up here in Canada we're pretty anti-union in general.
1. https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-de...
1. https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-de...
Thanks for the article; it was a fun read. I actually had the privilege of working for a start up that was spun up in Denmark before it packed up everything and moved to the US. Because the CEO and a bunch of senior folks were Danish, they adopted what we called the Danish benefits: 6 weeks of vacation + multiple personal holidays. I miss it sorely, despite my current workplace offering "unlimited PTO" ugh.
Reading the article really reinforced how Denmark (most Scandinavian nations, actually) has a strong worker-first culture. I agree with you in that I don't ever see this scenario playing out in the US, for various reasons.
Reading the article really reinforced how Denmark (most Scandinavian nations, actually) has a strong worker-first culture. I agree with you in that I don't ever see this scenario playing out in the US, for various reasons.
The comment seemed like an honest question in that they're asking if it's accurate.
I think there is a point there. Looking back at the 60s-80s we see a clear concentration in corporate power as antitrust enforcement waned, followed by a similar consolidation in labor power. Unions certainly are not too strong relative to corporate power, but I don't think it's wrong to assert that unions failed at their height because they became large and corrupt - Jimmy Hoffa is a pop culture reference specifically because of it.
The parent comment really isn't at all descriptive of actual reality, somebody could really come away with the wrong impression reading it.
It's misleading to consider unions in other countries like the Nordics as anything other than much stronger and more powerful. They have almost universal membership, engage in sectoral bargaining, set minimum wages, run important parts the welfare state, and sit on company boards. It's often noted that the Nordics don't have legal minimum wages - this is because industrial bargaining agreements that set minimum wages make this unnecessary because they cover ~all workers.
In countries where union membership is declining (US and other anglo countries particularly), membership rates are low and optional, there's little sectoral bargaining, most industrial action is essentially outlawed. Sympathy and wildcat strikes are entirely illegal, and in Australia you cannot strike without prior permission from a government body.
It's misleading to consider unions in other countries like the Nordics as anything other than much stronger and more powerful. They have almost universal membership, engage in sectoral bargaining, set minimum wages, run important parts the welfare state, and sit on company boards. It's often noted that the Nordics don't have legal minimum wages - this is because industrial bargaining agreements that set minimum wages make this unnecessary because they cover ~all workers.
In countries where union membership is declining (US and other anglo countries particularly), membership rates are low and optional, there's little sectoral bargaining, most industrial action is essentially outlawed. Sympathy and wildcat strikes are entirely illegal, and in Australia you cannot strike without prior permission from a government body.
American unions are essentially required by law to take an adversarial relationship with employers as an accidental consequence of historical racism.
The short version is that there was a union that was declining to support dues paying members because they were black. It resulted in a case that went all the way to the USSC.
In contrast, European unions are allowed to be more realistic and accept that some members are knuckleheads and that it’s a positive for both the union and the employer if they are fired with minimum fuss.
The short version is that there was a union that was declining to support dues paying members because they were black. It resulted in a case that went all the way to the USSC.
In contrast, European unions are allowed to be more realistic and accept that some members are knuckleheads and that it’s a positive for both the union and the employer if they are fired with minimum fuss.
My understanding is that unions in the US are much weaker. It's hard to talk about all of Europe because...there's a lot of countries I'm with different histories, laws, and culture around this.
In the US a union is tied to a workplace. A single company, often a single location. This is by design of the NLRA.
Corporations fight to limit the size of the bargaining unit, to make the unions less powerful. This Amazon warehouse is unionized, but the other warehouses are not unionized and warehouses over a FooBar Corp. are not unionized. Each of these unions has to work out their own contract and bargain independently even if they all work for the same company.
This gives the workers less leverage and makes it easier for US Corps to pit workers against each other.
In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, unions are also organized by sector. You could have a national Warehouse workers union, which sets working conditions for all warehouse workers. This gives them significantly more leverage and makes it difficult to do the kind of "we shut down this store and open another" tactic that you see in the US.
I'm sure there's a variety of other differences, but I don't think it's fair to characterize EU unions are weaker.
In the US a union is tied to a workplace. A single company, often a single location. This is by design of the NLRA.
Corporations fight to limit the size of the bargaining unit, to make the unions less powerful. This Amazon warehouse is unionized, but the other warehouses are not unionized and warehouses over a FooBar Corp. are not unionized. Each of these unions has to work out their own contract and bargain independently even if they all work for the same company.
This gives the workers less leverage and makes it easier for US Corps to pit workers against each other.
In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, unions are also organized by sector. You could have a national Warehouse workers union, which sets working conditions for all warehouse workers. This gives them significantly more leverage and makes it difficult to do the kind of "we shut down this store and open another" tactic that you see in the US.
I'm sure there's a variety of other differences, but I don't think it's fair to characterize EU unions are weaker.
Which leads to the weird situation when a US-based company will fight to the bone their European unions just out of principle, no matter the topic discussed or its legal base. And with the EWCs (European Worker Councils), even worse.
Seems like someone really bad at his job. Unions in the US are much much weaker making it easier for companies to undermine them. Also there is more of an anti union attitude among US empoyers and sometimes illegal union busting techniques/consultants are much more developed. And to top it off the laws and politics are much worse for unions, some conservative Governors have said that they would rather not have good autoworker jobs if they are unionized
The RMT/Unite Union in the UK regularly cripples London by staging tube strikes when they all have well paying secure jobs so not entire sure I buy it.
RMT and ASLEF; Unite don't tend to organise train crew.
London transport is an interesting case. I wonder the extent to which they have well-paid secure jobs because they can and do disrupt London. Bus drivers have a much worse deal, for example, being easily replaceable.
I think from time to time about a statement made by Bob Crow, who was the former hardline chief of the RMT. He said that his members were now amongst the only working class Londoners who could afford to live decently in the city they served. Which (despite my dislike of his tactics) does seem like a reasonable point.
FWIW my union (UCU; academic) has traditionally been a lot quieter and more consensual, and we've been repeatedly shafted in recent years as a result. That kind of collaborative management/union relationship only works if both sides are committed to making a decent workplace operate, and our management no longer are.
London transport is an interesting case. I wonder the extent to which they have well-paid secure jobs because they can and do disrupt London. Bus drivers have a much worse deal, for example, being easily replaceable.
I think from time to time about a statement made by Bob Crow, who was the former hardline chief of the RMT. He said that his members were now amongst the only working class Londoners who could afford to live decently in the city they served. Which (despite my dislike of his tactics) does seem like a reasonable point.
FWIW my union (UCU; academic) has traditionally been a lot quieter and more consensual, and we've been repeatedly shafted in recent years as a result. That kind of collaborative management/union relationship only works if both sides are committed to making a decent workplace operate, and our management no longer are.
> staging tube strikes
> all have well paying secure jobs
I wonder if that's linked....
And $70k a year in London is not "well paid", it's 9% of the price of an average property in London.
> all have well paying secure jobs
I wonder if that's linked....
And $70k a year in London is not "well paid", it's 9% of the price of an average property in London.
I wonder how they got those well paying and secure jobs
i feel like I'm missing the causal link in your comment between controlling healthcare portfolios -> shrinking.
On a macro level, a US union is much more expensive per member than a EU union because members/companies have to front the cost of healthcare (as opposed to countries with universal healthcare).
On a micro level, traditional US unions have huge pension funds that they have won from employers and promised to existing members, and so they can be very restrictive on membership qualifications.
On a micro level, traditional US unions have huge pension funds that they have won from employers and promised to existing members, and so they can be very restrictive on membership qualifications.
Hm, in my experience, even in a union context, healthcare was supplied by the employer, it was just negotiated in the contract. I'm not sure why that would make a US union much more expensive.
Typically, you don't really get unions with dues unless they've managed to get a contract with a wage increase that covers the dues.
Typically, you don't really get unions with dues unless they've managed to get a contract with a wage increase that covers the dues.
A union is much less likely to allow a company to use the cheapest health plan possible. So their purview is larger, as they need to ensure their members have access to basic benefits other countries provide “as right” regardless of union membership.
This means the cost, to the company, of using union labor is even higher, but also that more of the union’s money and energy is spent dealing with healthcare as opposed to ensuring safe workspaces or wage sharing or PTO or other labor concessions.
This means the cost, to the company, of using union labor is even higher, but also that more of the union’s money and energy is spent dealing with healthcare as opposed to ensuring safe workspaces or wage sharing or PTO or other labor concessions.
But if you are paying your union $25 a month to argue on your behalf, that money would go further if healthcare wasn't one of the things they had to negotiate.
TBH, the additional overhead from also negotiating healthcare seems like a pretty marginal reason to explain the state of unions in the US today.
I think a more accurate point would be that employers force new employees to get worse benifits to undermine the union
I'm still not seeing what actually causes the US unions to shrink. The per-employee healthcare costs exist, of course, but that's a problem for companies without unions too.
I gathered that the casual link is the admin bloat and complexity of managing health insurance compared to more direct applications of collective bargaining and potential priorities.
> They control huge pension and healthcare portfolios and can completely control the relationship with employers
Employers already do all of this, except you have no say in it. In contrast, you're granted democratic decision making with a union, so you do get a say in those arenas.
Employers already do all of this, except you have no say in it. In contrast, you're granted democratic decision making with a union, so you do get a say in those arenas.
I agree that unions should have both more power but be less consolidated.
[deleted]
I have some family members that work at Amazon, my understanding is that the conditions at Amazon are hard to pin down because some warehouses are run just fine and others are abusive. That said, everyone working a job has a right to a union. Whether there's workplace abuse going on or not.
All human endeavors are corrupt, including gov't, business, and occasionally unions. Collective bargaining is something I wish I had at my disposal. Not to mention I could use it to make life better for my colleagues overseas. No reason they should be paid any or much less than anyone else. They work hard, and we should band together.
All human endeavors are corrupt, including gov't, business, and occasionally unions. Collective bargaining is something I wish I had at my disposal. Not to mention I could use it to make life better for my colleagues overseas. No reason they should be paid any or much less than anyone else. They work hard, and we should band together.
Everyone should have the right to collective bargaining.
The US is a closed shop country, which means that, once a union is in place, it has an effective monopoly for the workers that work for one of its companies.
If we switched to open shop, then unions would have to compete for membership. Of course, the existing unions are strongly against this. As an end result, everyone I know that's been a union member in the last twenty years strongly dislikes unions.
The US is a closed shop country, which means that, once a union is in place, it has an effective monopoly for the workers that work for one of its companies.
If we switched to open shop, then unions would have to compete for membership. Of course, the existing unions are strongly against this. As an end result, everyone I know that's been a union member in the last twenty years strongly dislikes unions.
>As an end result, everyone I know that's been a union member in the last twenty years strongly dislikes unions.
Hi! Union member from ~2005-2011. Appreciated being in mine and strongly support a more unionized workforce.
Hi! Union member from ~2005-2011. Appreciated being in mine and strongly support a more unionized workforce.
My mom's been in a union for 30+ years and is absolutely a fan of it despite not always liking every decision they make.
It's like hating democratic governance, not every democratic decision made is one you're going to agree with, but overall it gives you the ability to shape the future of your workplace in a way you'd never have the ability to otherwise.
It's like hating democratic governance, not every democratic decision made is one you're going to agree with, but overall it gives you the ability to shape the future of your workplace in a way you'd never have the ability to otherwise.
It is democracy in effect. "The worst system, except all the others" applies to both quite well.
[deleted]
This is a text-book example of being a victim of your own success. People have had the perks of union membership for so long, that they no long attribute them to the union. All they see are the costs of the union.
Also, I feel like it's safe to assume that you don't know any teachers or police officers? Both those groups seem to very much support their unions.
Also, I feel like it's safe to assume that you don't know any teachers or police officers? Both those groups seem to very much support their unions.
Most teachers I know, and I know a lot of them, don't really like their union because their union is ineffective. If it actually worked for them, they'd be making wages commensurate with their required education levels.
Eh, I think this ends up being a product of local school funding, at least in most smaller size school districts (i.e. not the size of LAUSD). I know my high school paid (and still pays now, a decade later) their teachers substantially more than the next district over. Most of the tenured teachers made 120k+. I don't think that was because they had a better union but because the school district made a conscious choice to try to be the best and to match private schools in quality. It all starts and ends with local parents willing to make a sacrifice in their quality of life to fund schools. Many cities around where I lived were much wealthier (higher home values by 50-100%, many high paying employers) but had much worse schools.
This seems to vary a ton state-by-state or even city-by-city. I can confirm that in my (red, midwestern) state the teachers union is totally fucking worthless. NEA's a little better, but neither is interested in actually working against things like pay freezes that are never undone, violations of contracts, et c. Not here, anyway.
Wages are typically one of many priorities for a union.
I know a couple teachers who tried the charter school thing and discovered non-union teaching has its own issues.
I know a couple teachers who tried the charter school thing and discovered non-union teaching has its own issues.
Non-elite private schools often have worse comp and/or working conditions than public schools in the same area. Which is surprising to some who assume "private school = big bucks", but there are lots of charter schools or religious private schools (which is most private schools, AFAIK) where that's definitely not the case.
When I lived in Los Angeles, a friend who taught at an "elite" private school also reported worse compensation than at comparable public schools.
Your pay is not due to your education level in this world. It's equal to your ability to demand it. Unions don't magically mean you have all the power in the world, it only helps to level the bargaining table.
My wife is a union teacher, and makes a six figure salary. She's hardly a victim, and it's all thanks to her union, and the work of many union members for decades prior.
It doesn't happen overnight, and that may be the problem your union teacher friends are running into.
My wife is a union teacher, and makes a six figure salary. She's hardly a victim, and it's all thanks to her union, and the work of many union members for decades prior.
It doesn't happen overnight, and that may be the problem your union teacher friends are running into.
coolso(1)
Police unions absolutely are not a good thing for society.
> The US is a closed shop country, which means that, once a union is in place, it has an effective monopoly for the workers that work for one of its companies.
This is not correct:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop
The US is not a closed shop country.
This is not correct:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop
The US is not a closed shop country.
Well it depends on the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Like a lot of things about employment, housing, medical insurance, etc. it varies quite a bit between states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Like a lot of things about employment, housing, medical insurance, etc. it varies quite a bit between states.
Weird, of the ~15 people I know who have been in unions, exactly two of them have been unhappy with them.
Meanwhile, of the hundreds of people I know, most of them have been unhappy with their employers at one point or another...
Meanwhile, of the hundreds of people I know, most of them have been unhappy with their employers at one point or another...
No, the US is not a closed shop country. Not since 1947. The US goes no further than a union shop. In a union ship, the employer can hire, the union can insist that the employee join the union, and the union must let them join.
The stockholders and board of a company have an effective monopoly on workers as well. Why not just have an open company where workers can choose their management in the circumstances in which their surplus labor time is being expropriated?
Isn't open-shop effectively "no union" in practice? What threat does a union have when the company can just hire non-union workers?
I was a union rep when working in Norway, I guess it was open-shop since we had two different unions. In practice we cooperated a lot, and the largest benefit was the it gave us access to lawyers that could answer questions quickly so the members were more willing to push back on unreasonable requests. We were never close to going to a lawsuit against the company, it was more "hey this is breaking the law, how do we work together to fix it".
> We were never close to going to a lawsuit against the company, it was more "hey this is breaking the law, how do we work together to fix it".
Yeah, but the article is about the US, were they invented the Pinkertons instead of addressing employee grievances :-)
Yeah, but the article is about the US, were they invented the Pinkertons instead of addressing employee grievances :-)
That’s hardly unique or even the night of 19th/20th century anti-Union violence.
There were pretty bad anti-union activity back in the day in Norway as well. The army was used to squash strikes.
These days not so much. I think part of the reason Norway works is that it has gotten past the insane hostility and there is not the all or nothing mentality. For example there is free healthcare, but there is also private insurance and hospitals if you want better care from a private provider. I think for a capitalistic society (and I don't think we have a better way yet), being able to have options is a must.
These days not so much. I think part of the reason Norway works is that it has gotten past the insane hostility and there is not the all or nothing mentality. For example there is free healthcare, but there is also private insurance and hospitals if you want better care from a private provider. I think for a capitalistic society (and I don't think we have a better way yet), being able to have options is a must.
Unions often train their members and self-enforce safety standards. Both of these things provide a higher quality labor pool for the employer.
Training members for an unskilled job doesn't really improve the value delivered by that worker. You can see why employers would not see that as a benefit of a union. Skilled jobs like the trades are already differentiated based on skill and reputation through the contract bidding process.
Is that relevant in our race-to-the-bottom world where every last corner is cut? I am strongly pro-union, but I don’t actually see corps seeing your point as a positive.
International unions would prevent that. Can't cut corners if everyone you hire is united to ensure everyone is treated equally by the company.
I'd say a proper union is efficient and useful enough that employees who are free to choose whether to join or not mostly choose to join of their own free will. If you have to force people to join, then maybe it's not actually that great. Or alternatively, it has less incentive to stay efficient and useful and police itself if everyone is forced to join.
Once you acknowledge that unions are useless and bad, yes, this is correct. If unions were actually beneficial to workers, then companies would have a very hard time hiring non-union workers.
In what way do you believe unions are useless and bad? That's like saying "companies are useless and bad" - some companies may be useless and bad, but you'd need to show an essential reason why the majority must end up that way.
FWIW, I think you're wrong and that unions are good at improving worker conditions and pay, and that's why companies engage in aggressive union-busting and anti-union propaganda to prevent unionisation and broadly keep union membership down.
FWIW, I think you're wrong and that unions are good at improving worker conditions and pay, and that's why companies engage in aggressive union-busting and anti-union propaganda to prevent unionisation and broadly keep union membership down.
Unions are definitely bad for companies, but the fact that companies don't want them doesn't automatically mean that they're good for workers. They're a parasitic drain that's bad for both.
Also, with the sole exception of Japanese bus drivers, every union I know of that's ever gone on strike has, in doing so, used innocent third parties as collateral damage.
Also, with the sole exception of Japanese bus drivers, every union I know of that's ever gone on strike has, in doing so, used innocent third parties as collateral damage.
Are the unions once damaging people or is it the companies that do not have sufficient contingencies when their employers take collective action? I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to take account potential issues with their employees. After all it is a free market and they could source services from somewhere else during these times.
You can claim they're a drain on both all you want, but you're just stating an unsubstantiated opinion that flies in the face of reason. Why would anybody join (and stay in) a union if they're unequivocally bad for everyone?
Are strikers holding people hostage? Or are they just refusing to do their jobs?
Are strikers holding people hostage? Or are they just refusing to do their jobs?
If Walmart closes its union store, which it has done, how is that not bad for everyone?
That's not unions being bad, that's Walmart being bad.
This makes zero sense, you're drawing huge conclusions based on a prisoner's dilemma situation. Of course it's beneficial to be a defector, you get all the benefit but none of the cost. Once no one is unionized at all or it's so small to not have any pull the benefit disappears.
It's like saying that taxes are useless because given the choice people would opt-out if they could, ignoring the consequences of if everyone did that.
It's like saying that taxes are useless because given the choice people would opt-out if they could, ignoring the consequences of if everyone did that.
There's a difference between "I don't want to join because I don't want to pay these dues (and I still get all the benefits)" and "I don't want to join because I disagree with them and they don't represent me, and I don't want them to purport to speak for me (and thus I also don't want to pay them to do so)".
The former is indeed a prisoner's dilemma. The latter is a valid complaint and an entirely valid thing to want. And the only answer I've ever seen given is "well then get involved and try to steer it in a direction you care about", with no allowance for people who don't agree with the direction it has taken and don't want to spend their whole career struggling (likely unsuccessfully) to change it.
I think collective bargaining is a powerful and useful tool, that in isolation, more people would likely support. I think it's unfortunate that that tool has lost a lot of its power, in part because it comes along with structures and assumptions that many people do not share.
As one of many examples: people often complain that a union shop values duration of tenure more than experience or skill, and devalues the latter because it's easy to objectively measure duration of tenure. I've seen people say "well, if you form a union, it doesn't have to work that way"; that's always spoken from the point of view of the people who put together or maintain the union. But that doesn't do any good if you weren't involved with the initial setup, and you're just faced with how it currently works. If you push for something else, you're tilting at a very large windmill. And it's valid for someone to say "I'd like to have collective bargaining, but if it's going to do something tenure-based then on balance I'd rather reject it".
The ability to individually choose to join or not isn't just a simple prisoner's dilemma where defecting is a loss; it's also something that gives actual teeth to a requirement to be representative of employees, if an employee believes they'd be better off with no representation other than themselves than they would with the current representation. That would have to be a pretty serious level of failure, if an employee believes that membership has negative value to them.
Conversely, it might also resolve the prisoner's dilemma problem if negotiated benefits were tied to union membership. While some negotiated benefits (e.g. working conditions) are inherently available to everyone, others (e.g. policies, vacation time, pay structure) may be such that they could be offered to those who are a member of the organization that bargained for them.
The former is indeed a prisoner's dilemma. The latter is a valid complaint and an entirely valid thing to want. And the only answer I've ever seen given is "well then get involved and try to steer it in a direction you care about", with no allowance for people who don't agree with the direction it has taken and don't want to spend their whole career struggling (likely unsuccessfully) to change it.
I think collective bargaining is a powerful and useful tool, that in isolation, more people would likely support. I think it's unfortunate that that tool has lost a lot of its power, in part because it comes along with structures and assumptions that many people do not share.
As one of many examples: people often complain that a union shop values duration of tenure more than experience or skill, and devalues the latter because it's easy to objectively measure duration of tenure. I've seen people say "well, if you form a union, it doesn't have to work that way"; that's always spoken from the point of view of the people who put together or maintain the union. But that doesn't do any good if you weren't involved with the initial setup, and you're just faced with how it currently works. If you push for something else, you're tilting at a very large windmill. And it's valid for someone to say "I'd like to have collective bargaining, but if it's going to do something tenure-based then on balance I'd rather reject it".
The ability to individually choose to join or not isn't just a simple prisoner's dilemma where defecting is a loss; it's also something that gives actual teeth to a requirement to be representative of employees, if an employee believes they'd be better off with no representation other than themselves than they would with the current representation. That would have to be a pretty serious level of failure, if an employee believes that membership has negative value to them.
Conversely, it might also resolve the prisoner's dilemma problem if negotiated benefits were tied to union membership. While some negotiated benefits (e.g. working conditions) are inherently available to everyone, others (e.g. policies, vacation time, pay structure) may be such that they could be offered to those who are a member of the organization that bargained for them.
How is it a prisoner's dilemma? Why would a union give its benefits to someone who didn't join?
Because not all the benefits of membership are excludable. Unions that hold employers accountable to following labor laws and safety regulations benefit all employees, same with annual raises, removing abusive managers, better benefits, overtime pay [1], etc. etc. Some benefits are excludable for sure, a union isn't going to fight a non-members wrongful firing case.
[1] Some unions manage to get payroll benefits for just union workers but it's vanishingly rare because it just pushes workers to the union if they don't give it to everyone.
[1] Some unions manage to get payroll benefits for just union workers but it's vanishingly rare because it just pushes workers to the union if they don't give it to everyone.
"Some benefits are excludable for sure, a union isn't going to fight a non-members wrongful firing case."
This is absolutely false. These are just a few anecdotes but there are several
"An arbitrator in 2007 found that teacher Alexis Grullon had victimized young girls with repeated hugging, "incidental though not accidental contact with one student's breast" and "sexually suggestive remarks." The teacher had denied all these charges. In the end the arbitrator found him "unrepentant," yet punished him with only a six-month suspension."
"In 2016 and 2017, Poway Unified School District officials found that Westview High School coaches Derek Peterson and Tim Medlock sent inappropriate text messages to underage students. Those officials found that they violated school policy and in response, issued each of them warnings. Both men continue to teach at Westview High."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443437504577547...
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2019/08/15/how-do-misbehaving-te...
This is absolutely false. These are just a few anecdotes but there are several
"An arbitrator in 2007 found that teacher Alexis Grullon had victimized young girls with repeated hugging, "incidental though not accidental contact with one student's breast" and "sexually suggestive remarks." The teacher had denied all these charges. In the end the arbitrator found him "unrepentant," yet punished him with only a six-month suspension."
"In 2016 and 2017, Poway Unified School District officials found that Westview High School coaches Derek Peterson and Tim Medlock sent inappropriate text messages to underage students. Those officials found that they violated school policy and in response, issued each of them warnings. Both men continue to teach at Westview High."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443437504577547...
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2019/08/15/how-do-misbehaving-te...
Are either of these cases of unions aiding a non-member, which is the topic of the sentence you quoted? I can't read all of the first one—which is an opinion piece anyway, as is the second—but the second doesn't seem to be about that.
At any rate, this, from your second link, is insightful:
> For Medlock and Peterson, it wasn’t necessarily the union that protected them. It was the district, which said they’ve been disciplined enough.
You wouldn't believe what districts cover up or ignore, even if the union's not a factor. It's routine.
At any rate, this, from your second link, is insightful:
> For Medlock and Peterson, it wasn’t necessarily the union that protected them. It was the district, which said they’ve been disciplined enough.
You wouldn't believe what districts cover up or ignore, even if the union's not a factor. It's routine.
Why is a union necessary to enforce labor laws and safety regulations? Can't individual employees report such violations to the government even in non-union shops?
It's much riskier and costlier for employees to report that kind of thing, in a non-union shop.
Union shop, if you're sure what you've been asked to do is a violation of rules, you tell your boss no, then to fuck off if they try to pressure you, and you'll be totally fine. If you're not sure if something's OK, you have the union as a resource to check with, not just other managers working for the company (whose interests may not be aligned with yours, and even asking questions might be risky).
Non-union shop... good luck with that. You can go to regulators, but it's more effort, the process for doing so is something you'll have to figure out yourself, and it's a case where even if you're right you can end up having a rough few months or even years getting it all sorted out and being fairly compensated for any e.g. retaliation that happened.
Ideally, you want reporting problems of this sort to have a low and consistent cost for the person reporting it, not a high and very uncertain cost. If you want effective enforcement, that is.
Union shop, if you're sure what you've been asked to do is a violation of rules, you tell your boss no, then to fuck off if they try to pressure you, and you'll be totally fine. If you're not sure if something's OK, you have the union as a resource to check with, not just other managers working for the company (whose interests may not be aligned with yours, and even asking questions might be risky).
Non-union shop... good luck with that. You can go to regulators, but it's more effort, the process for doing so is something you'll have to figure out yourself, and it's a case where even if you're right you can end up having a rough few months or even years getting it all sorted out and being fairly compensated for any e.g. retaliation that happened.
Ideally, you want reporting problems of this sort to have a low and consistent cost for the person reporting it, not a high and very uncertain cost. If you want effective enforcement, that is.
Do you think a government that was very popular and that most citizens thought was pretty damn good, would have any trouble if it made paying taxes optional?
If unions were actually beneficial to workers, then companies would have a very hard time hiring non-union workers.
And they do. Everyone wants to work at union shops where I live (midwest). UPS, or any other Teamster shop, John Deere, you name it. It's hard to get on.
You can get a job at any old non-union warehouse though. They can't keep people. I'm shocked you even made that statement, in the everyday world everyone wants a union shop job or government job. Most everything else is exploitation in pay, benefits and protection.
And they do. Everyone wants to work at union shops where I live (midwest). UPS, or any other Teamster shop, John Deere, you name it. It's hard to get on.
You can get a job at any old non-union warehouse though. They can't keep people. I'm shocked you even made that statement, in the everyday world everyone wants a union shop job or government job. Most everything else is exploitation in pay, benefits and protection.
[deleted]
maybe this is a naive perspective, but it seems to me that the union should have more to offer labor than simply middlemanning access to an employer. if people genuinely want to be in the union, it should be hard to find non-union workers.
They also often provide legal help and various sorts of insurance. They'll also usually provide representation & assistance for workers who come into conflict with management, which can be super important when it comes to enforcing safety standards, contract terms (e.g. working conditions, rules around time-off requests), and even legal requirements.
The trouble with completely optional membership is that it introduces the good ol' Free Rider Problem, bane of many an attempt to make things better without forcing anyone to do anything.
The trouble with completely optional membership is that it introduces the good ol' Free Rider Problem, bane of many an attempt to make things better without forcing anyone to do anything.
That could end badly because you don't want to have too many gatekeepers. I should be allowed to not be part of a group and work as I see fit. Unions are hit-or-miss. Bad ones have too much petty politics and corruption and that's why some people genuinely don't want to be in a union. Enforcing unions more strictly can make the good better but it can also make the bad worse.
it should be hard to find non-union workers.
It is. Everyone wants to work for union shops like UPS or John Deere, and people feel it's a great victory to be hired. While non-union shops are always hiring, because they drive people into the ground.
It is. Everyone wants to work for union shops like UPS or John Deere, and people feel it's a great victory to be hired. While non-union shops are always hiring, because they drive people into the ground.
> As an end result, everyone I know that's been a union member in the last twenty years strongly dislikes unions.
Been in a union for 8 years. Strong like.
Been in a union for 8 years. Strong like.
Union decline is correlated with the collapse in standard of living, which is only held up by (or was) by cheap goods from Communist countries. Not a great thing to support if you value your freedom.
My wife is in a union, and is not strongly against them. In fact, they're the reason she makes a six-figure salary. She also has a robust contract to prevent abuse. I am non-union as a developer and am pretty much over a barrel. It's a no brainer to work in a licensed, union career for most people. The only losers are the owners.
I have been a manager in a union shop though. And had no issues with the union. In fact, companies get the union that they deserve.
My wife is in a union, and is not strongly against them. In fact, they're the reason she makes a six-figure salary. She also has a robust contract to prevent abuse. I am non-union as a developer and am pretty much over a barrel. It's a no brainer to work in a licensed, union career for most people. The only losers are the owners.
I have been a manager in a union shop though. And had no issues with the union. In fact, companies get the union that they deserve.
> That said, everyone working a job has a right to a union.
Note for interest that this is not literally true. Some people work in jobs where unionisation is illegal, or where unionisation is legal but union action is illegal.
Note for interest that this is not literally true. Some people work in jobs where unionisation is illegal, or where unionisation is legal but union action is illegal.
It could be a sentiment rather than a statement of legal fact. Like "everyone has the right to free speech, healthcare, and three hot meals a day".
Should also have the right to work at a company and NOT have to join the union, and negotiate your own conditions / wages independently.
Yup, this is just as important in my view. Tangentially related: one of the places my wife worked at had a union that "pretty much everyone joins" because they charge union fees from every worker regardless of whether they join the union or not. I don't understand how they could mandate something like that, and the idea didn't sit well with me. It's a classic case of taxation without representation!
Why is it bad to be forced to deal with the union and contribute to union dues, but fine to be forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits?
Why is it bad? It's bad because it takes away freedom and agency from the working class, and workers rights is something I care about.
I'm not sure I get that, really. If you care about the material conditions of workers today, as they are experiencing them, the greatest threat to their agency by far is the asset owners they work for.
There is probably an abstract, theoretical future where worker freedom is significantly curtailed by union power, I guess. But being more concerned with that hypothetical than with the genuine exploitation that is the baseline for low wage labor doesn't read as caring about worker rights to me.
There is probably an abstract, theoretical future where worker freedom is significantly curtailed by union power, I guess. But being more concerned with that hypothetical than with the genuine exploitation that is the baseline for low wage labor doesn't read as caring about worker rights to me.
I assume you're writing this from the viewpoint that I consider unions to be ineffective or evil, even. I am not.
I share your concerns regarding the owners whose powers often go unchecked in corporate America, and I completely agree that we're reaching dangerous levels.
But I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. No, the anecdote I brought up is, in fact, the least hypothetical thing in this conversation thread. My wife examined the union pamphlet that was handed to her, decided that the union did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to pay the union dues. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever, and actively made her conditions worse by heaping on unwanted taxes that she felt was also priced disproportionately. Yet she had no voice in this matter.
Organize a union, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your union deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. Fight the greedy owners, great. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the union. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair. The fact that workers are already being exploited by greedy corporations does not excuse bad union behaviors, period.
I share your concerns regarding the owners whose powers often go unchecked in corporate America, and I completely agree that we're reaching dangerous levels.
But I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. No, the anecdote I brought up is, in fact, the least hypothetical thing in this conversation thread. My wife examined the union pamphlet that was handed to her, decided that the union did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to pay the union dues. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever, and actively made her conditions worse by heaping on unwanted taxes that she felt was also priced disproportionately. Yet she had no voice in this matter.
Organize a union, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your union deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. Fight the greedy owners, great. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the union. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair. The fact that workers are already being exploited by greedy corporations does not excuse bad union behaviors, period.
No, I wasn't quite assuming you are anti-union, but that is one of the most common bits of anti-union propaganda. There's a true issue there but I don't think it's proportional to the amount of time this specific problem gets in these discussions.
I think it comes down to what you expect from people who are being treated poorly. Do you only accept "pure" moral acts as valid? Is small unfairness to a few justified to prevent large unfairness to many? It seems like we have different answers to these questions, but I don't think either can be dismissed as inherently against worker freedom or agency.
I care very very much about practical power for people who need it right now. I care a lot less about abstract freedoms that material conditions prevent people from being able to act on.
I think it comes down to what you expect from people who are being treated poorly. Do you only accept "pure" moral acts as valid? Is small unfairness to a few justified to prevent large unfairness to many? It seems like we have different answers to these questions, but I don't think either can be dismissed as inherently against worker freedom or agency.
I care very very much about practical power for people who need it right now. I care a lot less about abstract freedoms that material conditions prevent people from being able to act on.
I think we reached a good point for the conversation. You're correct in your assessment: I do place a lot of faith and values in empowering individual freedom and agency, so any brush with authoritarian entities usually leave me grumpy. I hope for humanities sake that public opinion of unions in America never devolve into something like that of HOAs.
Thanks for engaging, and have a good one.
Thanks for engaging, and have a good one.
You're conflating democracy and capitalism. In a free and democratic society, individual freedom and agency is imperative. Capitalism is a top-down dictatorship, a mini-monarchy that anyone with money can spin up.
You can't try to misappropriate ideals meant for humanity in general, to a system that's a dictatorship. One you need to involve yourself in just to survive.
That's why there's unions, to help level the bargaining table. Otherwise there's too much power on one side, the one holding all the cards/capital. It stops the race to the bottom.
You can't try to misappropriate ideals meant for humanity in general, to a system that's a dictatorship. One you need to involve yourself in just to survive.
That's why there's unions, to help level the bargaining table. Otherwise there's too much power on one side, the one holding all the cards/capital. It stops the race to the bottom.
A very similar thing happened to my wife. My wife examined the company mission statement that was handed to her, decided that the company did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to contribute to shareholder profits. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever. Yet she had no voice in this matter.
Organize a corporation, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your corporation deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the shareholder profit contribution scheme. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair.
Organize a corporation, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your corporation deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the shareholder profit contribution scheme. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair.
Why does being forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits not take away freedom and agency from the working class?
When did I make this claim? I hate seeing these snarky takes on HN. Lots of things take away agency from the working class: like employer-centric insurance system, complex and regressive taxes, etc.
But you already knew these things and you also knew that the topic on hand was about unions. God forbid anyone say anything critical about THAT. If you have a point to make, get right to it instead of hiding behind snark.
Edit: nevermind guy. I can see others have already tried. Cheers.
But you already knew these things and you also knew that the topic on hand was about unions. God forbid anyone say anything critical about THAT. If you have a point to make, get right to it instead of hiding behind snark.
Edit: nevermind guy. I can see others have already tried. Cheers.
Where's the snark? I'm asking you why if you're opposed to mandatory contribution of union dues by employees, you're not similarly opposed to mandatory contribution to shareholder profits by employees. It's a 100% genuine question.
Your point is actually very interesting to me. I've never heard that before. I get it- maybe I "don't wanna" contribute to x, y, or z. What right do I have to do about those things? That "takes away my agency and freedom", right?
I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involved, you can just find another job! Same solution I'm presented if I prefer profits to go into my pocket, rather than someone else's.
I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involved, you can just find another job! Same solution I'm presented if I prefer profits to go into my pocket, rather than someone else's.
Thanks, I’m glad somebody has grasped the point I’m making - which is that the whole system is built around coercion, so singling out one arbitrary part of it as involuntary is completely inconsistent and ideological.
This is a textbook example of loosing at the prisoner's dilemma due to selfishness. The only way you get a better contract then the union is if the company intentionally does it to spite the union.
You are authoritarian - forcing people to do something that should be accomplished voluntarily is antithetical to freedom
The baseline condition of labor, that those doing it must continue to do it or they will die, is inherently much more authoritarian than this.
I'm not at all arguing for an "ends justify the means" position here, just pointing out that the condition we're talking about is already a morally compromised one, and so people won't always have the freedom to operate purely in line with their moral preferences. Or yours.
Because, importantly, which specific things "should be accomplished voluntarily" is an idealogical position we won't always share. There is already much coercion foundational to our society, maybe you can find another one to oppose on purely abstract moral grounds.
I'm not at all arguing for an "ends justify the means" position here, just pointing out that the condition we're talking about is already a morally compromised one, and so people won't always have the freedom to operate purely in line with their moral preferences. Or yours.
Because, importantly, which specific things "should be accomplished voluntarily" is an idealogical position we won't always share. There is already much coercion foundational to our society, maybe you can find another one to oppose on purely abstract moral grounds.
Nope I don’t want to join a union and any attempt to make me will be fought aggressively. Just my preference not to be forced to pay money to people I did not ask to represent me.
Well that would be a lot more things in life. But you only choose to use that logic against the ONE thing that actually could better your existence, along with millions of others? That just doesn't sit well. You have all sorts of government structures that you contribute to, that you never asked for. Ultimately, you can just find a job that suits you.
But if the world was 90% union, I guarantee you would NOT choose the remaining non-union jobs, because the difference in pay and treatment would be so stark (as it is today already), then you'd shed your views for your own betterment.
But if the world was 90% union, I guarantee you would NOT choose the remaining non-union jobs, because the difference in pay and treatment would be so stark (as it is today already), then you'd shed your views for your own betterment.
Then welcome to the fight we're trying to get rid of the cops next.
I don’t want to “get rid of the cops” either because I’m not a psychopath. I very much don’t want to be robbed and murdered!
Why is it authoritarian and bad to be forced to interact with the union, but fine to be forced to interact with management?
Can always get a new job. But if every company has a monopoly union, can’t avoid that.
Really don’t understand the reasoning to not making union membership voluntary. Completely illogical. Basically you agree it’s authoritarian but “it’s better than the alternative” which is bullshit.
Really don’t understand the reasoning to not making union membership voluntary. Completely illogical. Basically you agree it’s authoritarian but “it’s better than the alternative” which is bullshit.
Can always get a new job. But if every company has shareholders, can’t avoid that.
Really don’t understand the reasoning to not making contributing to shareholder profit voluntary. Completely illogical. Basically you agree it’s authoritarian but “it’s better than the alternative” which is bullshit.
There are worker co-ops and communal living groups. No one forces you to join a traditional corporation. You could also (gasp!) start your own company… But that’s a lot of work!
You've misunderstood. I want to work at the company, I just don't want to be forced to contribute shareholder profits - just like you want to work at the company but don't want to be forced to contribute union dues.
The goal of a for-profit business is to make money. There are plenty of non-profits and government jobs if you don’t want to get with the program. You may be shocked to find a lot of non-profits also need to make cash to survive, however.
Again you've seemed to misunderstand. I'm happy to work at the company and make money, I just don't want to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits, just like you don't want to be forced to contribute to union dues. Why should one be voluntary but not the other?
I voluntarily join a company. Me paying some third-party non-governmental organization to “represent” me when I never asked for it is the issue.
However we keep going in circles and it is clear you are illogical.
However we keep going in circles and it is clear you are illogical.
[deleted]
Indeed. And remember that any union that's actually good for workers would have no reason to oppose such a right.
Should you also have the right to work at the company and not be forced to contribute to shareholder profits? Surely any management that was actually good for workers would have no reason to oppose such a measure.
I'm not asking to be in the union but not pay the dues. I'm asking to not be in the union.
I’m not asking to be considered a profit contributor but not contribute to profits. I’m asking to not be a profit contributor.
[deleted]
Isn't that just not being an employee? And no company can not let you quit.
No, I want to be an employee. I simply don't want to be forced to join the shareholder profit contributors group, as that would be an attack on liberty, free association, and voluntarism.
"If cooperation is actually the better choice in the prisoner's dilemma, why do you care if I defect?"
What prisoners' dilemma? What part of collective bargaining agreements give benefits to employees who choose not to join the union?
All sorts of benefits bleed over to non-union employees. In fact, unions have had an upward effect on wages and benefits for management in many corporations that I've worked at. Along with upward effects on wages within society overall.
Why should you have the right to work at a company withing joining the union, but not have the right to work at the company without generating money for shareholders?
The summary says workers voted "by a wide margin" for a union, but it looks like it was 2,654 votes for, 2,131 against, which is 55.5% to 44.5% or a margin of 11%. I wouldn't call that a wide margin, but maybe it could be considered so in these sorry-ass times of perpetual 51-to-49 deadlock.
In light of the fairly small margin of victory, maybe some employees were too undecided to vote. I also wouldn't be surprised if the demands of the job left some without the capacity to engage with the question. I share your disappointment, though.
Unions are disastrous in some countries. See Italy, Argentina, and Brazil. Boiling pot of corruption and extortion.
Companies are disastrous in many countries. It's a broad organizational structure that can be run many different ways.
I just know that at work I am alone and weak. With everyone else I would be on more equal footing with my employer. Instead of quitting, why not make my workplace better?
I just know that at work I am alone and weak. With everyone else I would be on more equal footing with my employer. Instead of quitting, why not make my workplace better?
It’s better in the short term. After one generation or two of unions getting stronger, everybody ends up losing. There were very strong unions (and rackets) already some decades ago. See how it ended up.
Nope. Union membership has been extremely high in Sweden for ~5 generations and everyone benefits greatly from them. You'll find similar in a lot of Europe.
Not a big fan of most modern day unions, but I hope they unionize the shit out of Amazon. I am happy to pay more. Their treatment of the rank and file is despicable. Here in Seattle I have met very few people who enjoyed their time working at Amazon, and that includes tech folk.
At what point should we be ok with low-level Amazon jobs sucking?
I worked at a fast food restaurant. That sucked. But I was also a high school kid with no marketable skills. So I sort of understood I was “putting in my time” and this is the way it goes. I never thought “we should unionize and demand more money.”
If Amazon needs career people in these positions, they’ll be forced to treat the employees as career people and not like the fast food industry treats employees like myself.
I worked at a fast food restaurant. That sucked. But I was also a high school kid with no marketable skills. So I sort of understood I was “putting in my time” and this is the way it goes. I never thought “we should unionize and demand more money.”
If Amazon needs career people in these positions, they’ll be forced to treat the employees as career people and not like the fast food industry treats employees like myself.
"I had it bad therefore other should too"..?
Why does working in a restaurant have to suck? I've worked at plenty here in Norway during my youth, was always nice. They pay according to a collective agreement, with extra pay for evening and night work. So a pay it was possible to survive on.
Why demand that "unskilled" labor should suck? Why want to inflict that pain on others?
Why does working in a restaurant have to suck? I've worked at plenty here in Norway during my youth, was always nice. They pay according to a collective agreement, with extra pay for evening and night work. So a pay it was possible to survive on.
Why demand that "unskilled" labor should suck? Why want to inflict that pain on others?
I’m sympathetic to that perspective, and it’s the one I would normally take. But the working conditions at Amazon warehouses and for their delivery people seem to include things like peeing and pooping into bottles, breaks too short to get to a bathroom across the warehouse, etc. I had menial jobs myself but never quite so demeaning or physically punishing—holding it in all day seems like hell.
To be clear, I don’t disagree with this perspective. While I do remember getting yelled at for taking a, literally, 10 second drink break (“you need to ask”), I never found myself peeing in a bottle.
My dad (manager at a non-union manufacturing company) always said "companies who have a union usually deserve it." From what I've heard about working conditions in Amazon's warehouses, this may be the problem they've run into.
A good news for anyone work inAmazon robotics branch, I guess?
I remember all these promises of how quick tech bros would be able to automate minimum wage and so-called “unskilled” jobs. Now for the past 18 months every Subway sandwich shop (and the like) in my area is begging people (not robots) to work.
I wouldn’t be betting on robots just yet.
I wouldn’t be betting on robots just yet.
The supermarkets I go to have been growing their self-checkout sections in recent years.
Can Amazon now just shut down that warehouse and fire all the workers?
It would seem like a sensible business move, even if it involves a little bit of service disruption for users in New York.
It would seem like a sensible business move, even if it involves a little bit of service disruption for users in New York.
Yes, but I believe this warehouse employs 8,000 of people. It would probably cost hundreds of millions to rebuild it which is what they'd have to do in this situation. Might be worth it for them, but they'd take a huge pr hit which could tip the scales to not shutting down the warehouse. I think it's likely they build smaller warehouses in the future to make a shut down in response to unionization more palatable.
8300 is just the size of the bargaining unit, there are almost certainly far more people working there than just that.
> It would seem like a sensible business move, even if it involves a little bit of service disruption for users in New York.
It only seems like a sensible business move if you ignore the incredibly negative PR that'd come from it. You're laying off a lot of local workers and publicly making a target of yourself after the vote passes. Usually businesses will shut down sites before the union vote while they can still sort of BS their way into saying "Well, it looked like the vote would've failed anyways - look at this internal polling" - doing it after unionization is going to add a lot of vitriol to the situation, much more so than the underhanded techniques they use to sway the vote.
It only seems like a sensible business move if you ignore the incredibly negative PR that'd come from it. You're laying off a lot of local workers and publicly making a target of yourself after the vote passes. Usually businesses will shut down sites before the union vote while they can still sort of BS their way into saying "Well, it looked like the vote would've failed anyways - look at this internal polling" - doing it after unionization is going to add a lot of vitriol to the situation, much more so than the underhanded techniques they use to sway the vote.
NYC is one of amazon's largest markets, and this is the biggest warehouse in the city. There are 8300 employees in the bargaining group which doesn't include management, engineers who do repair work for the robotics and so on.
They cannot afford to close this shop, and it's obviously playing a big role as to why this location has successfully unionized while the location in Alabama has not.
They cannot afford to close this shop, and it's obviously playing a big role as to why this location has successfully unionized while the location in Alabama has not.
May the opposite be the case? If Amazon really wants to prevent unions appearing in their employment relations, doesn't Amazon need to close this down now?
I'm not saying that's good. But I'm saying Amazon might think it can't afford to let the employees unionise.
I'm not saying that's good. But I'm saying Amazon might think it can't afford to let the employees unionise.
It's a matter of near totally shutting down their operations in NYC or not, a place where Amazon is currently the largest retailer. They might be able to stop gap it by sending all their packages in NYC through UPS/USPS, but it would be a major disruption to their operations.
Amazon has historically had the capacity to be ruthless. For example in it's fight against collecting state taxes, it shutdown third-party sellers in states that introduced laws requiring Amazon to collect state taxes. Eventually Amazon lost that battle, which paved the way for Amazon opening more fulfilment centres in more states.
I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon announced the closure of this fulfilment centre. It would seem dramatic but if it kept other centres from unionizing I could see Amazon taking the short-term discomfort.
I don't know what Amazon's calculation will be in these circumstances. If Jeff was still in charge I reckon the fulfilment centre would be closed down.
I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon announced the closure of this fulfilment centre. It would seem dramatic but if it kept other centres from unionizing I could see Amazon taking the short-term discomfort.
I don't know what Amazon's calculation will be in these circumstances. If Jeff was still in charge I reckon the fulfilment centre would be closed down.
> I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon announced the closure of this fulfilment centre. It would seem dramatic but if it kept other centres from unionizing I could see Amazon taking the short-term discomfort.
I think you're underestimating the long term pain Amazon is opening themselves up to by closing a recently unionized site. With a labour shortage and extremely high churn Amazon is already having hiring issues - scabs aren't really on the menu if you're already scraping the barrel and a large employer in the local market.
I think you're underestimating the long term pain Amazon is opening themselves up to by closing a recently unionized site. With a labour shortage and extremely high churn Amazon is already having hiring issues - scabs aren't really on the menu if you're already scraping the barrel and a large employer in the local market.
Yes, Amazon is allowed to do that. The main caveat is that they have to argue in court that the warehouse would be unprofitable given the union's demands.
>they have to argue in court that the warehouse would be unprofitable given the union's demands.
They would? Why? How does the existence of a union prevent a company from firing everyone if it wants to? My understanding is that the only power of a union is that all of its members use collective leverage to get better deals. There is no collective leverage action if everyone is fired.
They would? Why? How does the existence of a union prevent a company from firing everyone if it wants to? My understanding is that the only power of a union is that all of its members use collective leverage to get better deals. There is no collective leverage action if everyone is fired.
Federal law.
Amazon could sell the fulfilment center building to a third party to run.
Then make all the workers redundant, but let the third party offer them employment.
Then if the union makes undue demands, the third party can go bust and Amazon buy back the centre for pennies on the dollar, but without most of the staff.
Then make all the workers redundant, but let the third party offer them employment.
Then if the union makes undue demands, the third party can go bust and Amazon buy back the centre for pennies on the dollar, but without most of the staff.
Are you advocating this course of action?
I don’t think they are, they’re just worried about what might happen if Amazon brings down the ban hammer.
Please don’t ask leading questions like this, they’re not helpful to the discussion.
Please don’t ask leading questions like this, they’re not helpful to the discussion.
Is he not allowed to?
It seems like somebody like you has to pop in and imply (accuse) a commenter of being anti-labor or whatever, whenever it's pointed out that unions can have downsides.
Unions have upsides, and downsides. Discussing them helps people make good decisions. Pretending it's all flowers and rainbows does not.
Unions have upsides, and downsides. Discussing them helps people make good decisions. Pretending it's all flowers and rainbows does not.
I don't believe he did what you're claiming. Please keep the strawmen at home and undamaged.
What's sad is that this is a "stunning win". It should be a routine event.
Now, McDonalds and WalMart.
Now, McDonalds and WalMart.
Yes, and this is after Amazon personally contested a large percentage of the ballots, and after past events like them making fake drop boxes that allegedly led to failed votes in previous amazon unionization situations.
This is fantastic news. Well done, Amazon employees! I'm glad to see that Amazon's anti-union propaganda was taken for the nonsense that it is.
Hopefully the employees of other Amazon warehouses will be inspired to do the same, after this win for workers.
Hopefully the employees of other Amazon warehouses will be inspired to do the same, after this win for workers.
Their software engineers should, too. You don't actually have to get pipped, get pinged 24/7, and be ground to dust and thrown away to be a successful software engineer.
I will fight tooth and nail to keep our industry from unionizing. One can simply look at the public school system and how well it performs with one of the strongest unions in the country. You don't have well paid teachers (except those who have been teaching for a long time, at the detriment to new teachers),you don't serve the children well and you now have to navigate both a career and politics of a union.
Unions benefit those who play the social game more so the job requirements, as it allows for an alternative power structure to be climbed.
Those are the exact people I love being able to avoid in the software field.
Unions benefit those who play the social game more so the job requirements, as it allows for an alternative power structure to be climbed.
Those are the exact people I love being able to avoid in the software field.
Have you worked somewhere (big enough to no longer support a flat hierarchy) where there were no office politics or social games? I don't think unions are the cause of that.
Yes. Office politics can exist anywhere, the problem is people. But unions can cause more of it, just like Diversity & Inclusion, or minority incentive programs. The point is things get in the way of the work.
I have to strongly disagree with this assessment,for a simple reason: There are many different public school organizations, not just one, with a vast array of outcomes among each organization. Sure, there certainly are some bad school systems, but it is very hard to generalize over such a massive system.
The total salary of all of the public school teachers in the US is probably well over $150 billion. That's the market cap of many "huge" companies.
Just saying -- it's easy to criticize when you're overgeneralizing a huge dataset based on one subset of that dataset.
The total salary of all of the public school teachers in the US is probably well over $150 billion. That's the market cap of many "huge" companies.
Just saying -- it's easy to criticize when you're overgeneralizing a huge dataset based on one subset of that dataset.
My experience with private schools where the teachers aren't unionized suggests the non-unionized situation can be even more fraught. Chaotic, manipulative principals, skeevy board members, low pay in exchange for "prestige", etc.
My experience with public schools includes sexual abusers keeping their jobs due to union protection.
My direct experience is the more tenured teachers not showing up at all. Spent a significant amount of my high school roaming the halls because some of the teachers didn’t show up. This was opposed to the younger teachers who cared and put the work in, but also had second jobs, etc.
> One can simply look at the public school system and how well it performs with one of the strongest unions in the country.
Except that states that outlaw teacher's unions have lower teacher pay and worse average scores/outcomes. They're totally comparable too, public daycare ahem school and software engineering.
Except that states that outlaw teacher's unions have lower teacher pay and worse average scores/outcomes. They're totally comparable too, public daycare ahem school and software engineering.
Non union private schools have higher test scores than union public schools in the same states
Private vs. public school comparison introduces a lot of compounding variables including skirting the requirement to adhere to the same teaching standards - a lot of private schools embed either religious or political ideologies into their teaching which drives private interest groups who share those interests to financially underwrite them.
Sadly due to how strange private education in the US can be I don't think any comparisons between private and public education are really fair.
Sadly due to how strange private education in the US can be I don't think any comparisons between private and public education are really fair.
That seems like an incredibly misleading comparison at best. There are about a million other variables factoring into that, obviously including the money spent per kid, and the background of the people attending the school.
My understanding of the public school system is that administrators and football takes up all the money, and the government will forcefully end teachers strikes.
The teachers union is probably the only thing keeping public schools running in a country where a political party explicitly wants them to fail and will sabotage them for political gain
The teachers union is probably the only thing keeping public schools running in a country where a political party explicitly wants them to fail and will sabotage them for political gain
You think in rich states (like california) with liberal, democratic legislation and liberal governors that the political parties are the ones keeping schools from being effective?
Why can private schools run perfectly fine without unions?
Because when a kid is truly problematic, they can kick them out, and kicking them out means kicking them into the public school system? The public school system has to either spend a disproportionate amount of time/money on troubled children or completely neglect them. Private schools can do the math to decide if the child is profitable, and kick them out if they are not.
It feels very disingenuous to try to make an argument about teacher's unions and then use private non-union schools made up of those who can afford the tuition or qualify for a merit based scholarship and public schools made up of everyone else.
It feels very disingenuous to try to make an argument about teacher's unions and then use private non-union schools made up of those who can afford the tuition or qualify for a merit based scholarship and public schools made up of everyone else.
If you look at CA, teachers aren't getting rich, but they're making decent wages at 9 months a year, with some fairly nice benefits depending on the size of the district and level they teach. We need to raise some of these numbers, but I suspect smaller schools are in more remote areas of California where it is certainly cheaper to live than say SF, or LA.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/sa/cefavgsalaries.asp
"The average salary of public school teachers in 2019–20 for the State of California was $84,531."
That averages out to be about 58 dollars an hour if we assume the teacher works 9 months out of the year with 20 working days per month or 180 days a year. This only includes summer, not winter breaks or spring break or other observed holidays, which is quite a few. Again, not a great number but certainly better than plenty of other folks.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/sa/cefavgsalaries.asp
"The average salary of public school teachers in 2019–20 for the State of California was $84,531."
That averages out to be about 58 dollars an hour if we assume the teacher works 9 months out of the year with 20 working days per month or 180 days a year. This only includes summer, not winter breaks or spring break or other observed holidays, which is quite a few. Again, not a great number but certainly better than plenty of other folks.
It looks like you used 8 hours per working day in your calculations? Anecdotally, I haven't encountered a teacher who does a flat 40hrs a week. Also, summer break is only 2 months in LAUSD, not sure of the smaller districts.
You can see here on the LAUSD calendar the schedule is for 180 days:
https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Doma...
As a parent of someone who went to an LAUSD school, my experience is completely different. Half the teachers didn't even bother to show up for parent/teacher night and were never available. The only teacher I'll give props to is the robotics club teacher, he was heavily involved, stayed late, but outside of him, that bell rang and it was a ghost town 20 minutes later.
https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Doma...
As a parent of someone who went to an LAUSD school, my experience is completely different. Half the teachers didn't even bother to show up for parent/teacher night and were never available. The only teacher I'll give props to is the robotics club teacher, he was heavily involved, stayed late, but outside of him, that bell rang and it was a ghost town 20 minutes later.
There are IT/engineering/developer unions in Europe. Their popularity varies between countries and between sectors.
However, "union shops" or "closed shops" don't exist, so the situation isn't directly comparable to the USA.
However, "union shops" or "closed shops" don't exist, so the situation isn't directly comparable to the USA.
Instead of looking at the US teachers union I'd really suggest you look at the Canadian teachers union - culturally we're almost identical and both countries have a strong general anti-union sentiment. But, IMO, due to the red scare being much more subdued in Canada our unions haven't been stripped down to the bare minimum.
1000% agree. Unions promote individual rights at the expense of the customer, product, and company. In reality they facilitate corruption and union rights over individual rights.
I understand everyone wants to feel valued at their company, but value should be evaluated on merit and unions essentially lower the bar to keep more people paying dues and less product/service running efficiently. WE ALL HAVE THE OPTION TO FIND A BETTER JOB!
The automotive industry is a great example of how unions made factory operating conditions worse. Employees had piece rates and controlled their time and pay. I.E. get 100 parts done in 4 hours get paid the same as someone who takes 8 hours to make 100 parts. Then unions stepped in, now everyone works 8 hours, with half the work force slacking to fill the time.
I understand everyone wants to feel valued at their company, but value should be evaluated on merit and unions essentially lower the bar to keep more people paying dues and less product/service running efficiently. WE ALL HAVE THE OPTION TO FIND A BETTER JOB!
The automotive industry is a great example of how unions made factory operating conditions worse. Employees had piece rates and controlled their time and pay. I.E. get 100 parts done in 4 hours get paid the same as someone who takes 8 hours to make 100 parts. Then unions stepped in, now everyone works 8 hours, with half the work force slacking to fill the time.
> WE ALL HAVE THE OPTION TO FIND A BETTER JOB!
For now most of us in this industry do. This is not a long term solution to anything.
> Unions promote individual rights at the expense of the customer, product, and company.
Individual rights? It's collective bargaining of workers, no?
For now most of us in this industry do. This is not a long term solution to anything.
> Unions promote individual rights at the expense of the customer, product, and company.
Individual rights? It's collective bargaining of workers, no?
I very much agree. Every worker should unionize, for the good of us all. Far too much power has been ceded to companies pushing for abusive working practices, that are now largely culturally normalized.
Well, no, I can bargain individually better than a group could try to on my behalf.
You probably think that you do, but in reality you don't.
Large corporations have been proven to fix wages for tech workers[1]. There's literally no way that you could have any possible way of bargaining your way around that as a single person.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297...
Large corporations have been proven to fix wages for tech workers[1]. There's literally no way that you could have any possible way of bargaining your way around that as a single person.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297...
>>There's literally no way that you could have any possible way of bargaining your way around that as a single person.
Actually you do, by walking across the street and getting a big fat raise to join a different company. That is one of many reasons engineers by and large don't feel a need to have someone else bargain for them - they negotiate with their feet.
Actually you do, by walking across the street and getting a big fat raise to join a different company. That is one of many reasons engineers by and large don't feel a need to have someone else bargain for them - they negotiate with their feet.
If you clicked the Parent's link, you would have seen it was discussing the anti-poaching collusion / wage fixing that was going on.
You couldn't walk across the street, because the company across the street agreed not to hire employees from the other company across the street.
The free market isn't always free.
You couldn't walk across the street, because the company across the street agreed not to hire employees from the other company across the street.
The free market isn't always free.
If you clicked the parents link you would have seen that it involved 2 companies, not the market itself
There were far more than two involved. That article just covered the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
And that’s just the ones they had enough evidence against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
And that’s just the ones they had enough evidence against.
Looks like the US government "bargained" for me there, without the need for a union.
Sure, but there's no guarantee they'll do that in every case or at every employer. Here there was a smoking gun, so the government could easily act on it; do you think that'd be the case for everyone in our field?
Unions of professional athletes are some of the most successful unions in the US. These are people that are highly paid and have very specific skills that can't easily be replaced. These are people who already spend as much as 15% or 20% of their salary paying others to negotiate on their personal behalf. Yet these athletes still want a union to represent them as a collective class.
I don't know if the general software developer really needs a union. Some niches certainly do. Game developers are the obvious example of a group of workers who are treated worse than people with comparable skills who do comparable work in other industries. But the idea that we don't need a union because we are already paid well, we are skilled, or we can negotiate for ourselves is naive. Anytime an industry is as wildly profitable as the tech industry is, workers can benefit from a union.
I don't know if the general software developer really needs a union. Some niches certainly do. Game developers are the obvious example of a group of workers who are treated worse than people with comparable skills who do comparable work in other industries. But the idea that we don't need a union because we are already paid well, we are skilled, or we can negotiate for ourselves is naive. Anytime an industry is as wildly profitable as the tech industry is, workers can benefit from a union.
Without the NBA union, players like Labron James would make much more than they do today.
Maybe, but there are also a few hundred non-LeBron like players in the NBA. You can argue that the union negotiates away the rights of players like LeBron to benefit those few hundred players. But you can also argue that LeBron is only in the position to make as much money because the union has been fighting for him before he was even born. Would the NBA have free agency, guaranteed contracts, and players making tens of millions of dollars a year without the union?
Plus LeBron would be a near billionaire even without cashing a single game check. He makes way more money from being an ambassador of the game than from the game itself. Therefore he has a vested financial interest in the health of the league overall and the hundreds of other players in the NBA.
Back to software development, the question is are you the LeBron James of software development? Are you one of the handful of the best developers on the planet? If you are, I can totally understand why you might be against a union. If you aren't, you could probably benefit from a union.
Plus LeBron would be a near billionaire even without cashing a single game check. He makes way more money from being an ambassador of the game than from the game itself. Therefore he has a vested financial interest in the health of the league overall and the hundreds of other players in the NBA.
Back to software development, the question is are you the LeBron James of software development? Are you one of the handful of the best developers on the planet? If you are, I can totally understand why you might be against a union. If you aren't, you could probably benefit from a union.
We don't have to guess if someone like Labron would make as much as he makes now without a union because MJ got paid about as much. That said, you're right that the median NBA salary is much higher now. The question is whether that came at the expense of players like Labron or at the expense of the teams.
The responses you got are borderline religious. Pro union people need to acknowledge and be up front about the cons of a union. It’s just another entity with power over a group of people and suffers from the same pros and cons. It’s not a panacea.
Deriding legitimate concerns is not how you convince people, and makes it look like you have an agenda.
Deriding legitimate concerns is not how you convince people, and makes it look like you have an agenda.
Convincing staunch anti union folks that a union would help them is like trying to convince a Southern Baptist god doesn't exist. You don't bother, you organize folks who recognize the benefit and understand the tradeoffs, people who don't think of them as individual exceptionalists.
Wanting better pay and benefits for workers is an agenda, and if making that clear isn't enough (even after accounting for a cons of collective bargaining, union costs, etc), ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Wanting better pay and benefits for workers is an agenda, and if making that clear isn't enough (even after accounting for a cons of collective bargaining, union costs, etc), ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
You'd be mistaken to think I'm some staunch anti-union person - I think it's great that these warehouse workers unionized! I think the benefits far outweigh the cons for them.
Difference between them and myself is, we work completely different jobs, in completely different markets, with completely different incentives.
Difference between them and myself is, we work completely different jobs, in completely different markets, with completely different incentives.
But it's not just about yourself; it's about your colleagues and others in the same industry. Your incentives are not their incentives, and their work experience is not your work experience. Important points to remember imho about why people might desire collective bargaining in order to have better pay and working conditions. Setting pay aside for a moment (which is admittedly a complex topic in this context), not everyone has the ability, agency, or leverage to obtain better working conditions (without collective bargaining).
I wouldn't mind for my pro-union co-workers to form a union but the part I hate is that they have the power to force me to pay their organization which I don't support and they also have the power to negotiate my employment contract without my consent.
“They’re too stupid to know what they want so I have to lie about facts to them.”
Why is that an acceptable strategy for your side but not the other side? Could it be that you might both have valid viewpoints?
Why is that an acceptable strategy for your side but not the other side? Could it be that you might both have valid viewpoints?
You misunderstand my comment perhaps, my apologies if I poorly communicated the idea. I never suggested lying to staunch anti union folks, but to ignore them out of effort efficiency. If they believe their viewpoint is valid, the effort to persuade is better spent elsewhere. Majorities win, simple as that (as demonstrated by this unionization vote, as well as those ongoing at Starbucks locations).
Unions are helpful in two scenarios:
1) When workers want systemic reform of an organization.
2) When workers are more-or-less interchangeable.
Software engineers aren't interchangeable at all compared to a factory worker, which is why they have such great individual bargaining power and why (historically) they don't really feel a huge need for a union to represent them. Today, software workers have a bit more interest in unionizing because they want to change their organization's high-level goals (e.g. environmental responsibility, not making tools for warfare, hiring diversity, etc).
But both scenarios apply to Amazon warehouse workers, and union representation would almost certainly be a massive benefit for them.
1) When workers want systemic reform of an organization.
2) When workers are more-or-less interchangeable.
Software engineers aren't interchangeable at all compared to a factory worker, which is why they have such great individual bargaining power and why (historically) they don't really feel a huge need for a union to represent them. Today, software workers have a bit more interest in unionizing because they want to change their organization's high-level goals (e.g. environmental responsibility, not making tools for warfare, hiring diversity, etc).
But both scenarios apply to Amazon warehouse workers, and union representation would almost certainly be a massive benefit for them.
Developers are absolutely interchangeable. If they weren't then job hopping every 2 years wouldn't be the optimal career strategy.
Saying that software engineers are not interchangeable is being delusional. We have some bargaining power because this is a skilled office job where the demands outweighs the supply and our added value to the business is many times what we get paid. But many SWE job hob every two years or so at best, and they absolutely get replaced without a second thought.
Your mistake is thinking a large corporation gives a single flying fuck about you as an individual employee (who's proven themselves rowdy by trying to bargain).
Every single time I put a notice in a large corporation, they tried to bargain with me to stop me from quitting, offering raises and improved working condition, eg. projects with more leadership roles. So no, they do care in some industries, especially when the cost of hiring a single worker is higher than Amazon warehouse workers entire yearly pay.
> mistake is thinking a large corporation gives a single flying fuck about you as an individual employee
You aren't negotiating against the corporation. You're negotiating against the people who determine your compensation. (This is a seemingly-minor, oft-overlooked and enormously-important distinction.)
Many on this forum have leverage over those people. (Some over the corporation.) For those people, unionization could be a net negative. Recognizing that doesn't mean the idea isn't worth pursuing.
You aren't negotiating against the corporation. You're negotiating against the people who determine your compensation. (This is a seemingly-minor, oft-overlooked and enormously-important distinction.)
Many on this forum have leverage over those people. (Some over the corporation.) For those people, unionization could be a net negative. Recognizing that doesn't mean the idea isn't worth pursuing.
[deleted]
There are certainly areas where this isn't true in the tech industry. It's very rare that an engineer can just say that they will no longer be willing to do on call work for example while staying on a team that maintains an online service. You can always ask for more money, but that's not everything that would be on a negotiating table.
That's awesome - I'm a skilled laborer who isn't really comfortable bargaining on my own behalf. Do you mind sharing your people skills while I share my engineering skills so that we can both get a better outcome overall?
Unless you are at the top echelon of ICs at your org (principal engineer or something equivalent), I guarantee you that you are viewed by your organization as nothing more than a replaceable "resource". To think otherwise is inexperience, or delusion. If you ever get the opportunity to observe what goes on during org-wide planning or engineer leveling, it'll be a bit of a wake up call when you see how little anyone cares about you as an individual.
So you can singlehandedly get a corporation to improve their working conditions? That's incredible
The company caters to _me_, not the other way around. Welcome to being in a high-demand job.
I guess that's good if you only care about you?
Correct. I don't care that other people don't learn to bargain their own highly paid, highly in-demand jobs to be even better.
The tech job market is favorable for workers for now. That will most likely not always be the case.
Tech is not the only field that people have jobs in. Consider the Amazon warehouse workers that just unionized which is the topic of this article
HN is not a political forum. I get that we like to talk politics here, and that's all well and good. But having someone make a brand new account to make a political opinion post that has little to no intellectual content seems like it should be unwelcome.
Given that many people are likely putting their jobs on the line by voicing support for unions, it’s unfair to forbid new accounts from taking place in these discussions.
I don't think the conclusion you reach follows from the premises.
There is unfairness in the world. That does not mean that HN is obligated to be a soapbox for all unfairness.
Anyway, comments on HN should be intellectually substantive. That one was not.
Yes, we should discuss this on HN. No, we should not have brand new accounts posting cheap opinion comments that are devoid of intellectual content.
There is unfairness in the world. That does not mean that HN is obligated to be a soapbox for all unfairness.
Anyway, comments on HN should be intellectually substantive. That one was not.
Yes, we should discuss this on HN. No, we should not have brand new accounts posting cheap opinion comments that are devoid of intellectual content.
Not every comment needs to be intellectually substantive. It's okay to be human and express some excitement now and then.
The problem is that political comments lead to unpleasant flame wars. Sure, people can express excitement. I didn't speak against that. You're doing a bait and switch by presenting it that way. Expressing excitement is very different than starting a political flame war.
Instead of having new accounts post empty pro-union comments and the anti-union people having to argue against them, it's better if we just not talking about that---unless it's an intellectually substantive conversation, in which case it's fine.
That's all I'm asking---I know it's too much for you to give.
Instead of having new accounts post empty pro-union comments and the anti-union people having to argue against them, it's better if we just not talking about that---unless it's an intellectually substantive conversation, in which case it's fine.
That's all I'm asking---I know it's too much for you to give.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404
> Why don't we have some politics but discuss it in thoughtful ways? Well, that's exactly what the HN guidelines call for, but it's insufficient to stop people from flaming each other when political conflicts activate the primitive brain. Under such conditions, we become tribal creatures, not intellectually curious ones. We can't be both at the same time.
> A community like HN deteriorates when new developments dilute or poison what it originally stood for. We don't want that to happen, so let's all get clear on what this site is for. What Hacker News is: a place for stories that gratify intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive comments. What it is not: a political, ideological, national, racial, or religious battlefield.
> Why don't we have some politics but discuss it in thoughtful ways? Well, that's exactly what the HN guidelines call for, but it's insufficient to stop people from flaming each other when political conflicts activate the primitive brain. Under such conditions, we become tribal creatures, not intellectually curious ones. We can't be both at the same time.
> A community like HN deteriorates when new developments dilute or poison what it originally stood for. We don't want that to happen, so let's all get clear on what this site is for. What Hacker News is: a place for stories that gratify intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive comments. What it is not: a political, ideological, national, racial, or religious battlefield.
Seems like you are agreeing with me?
Well, cast a downvote then.
Well, I’m expecting Amazon to get more expensive
I was in a union (not by choice) the first ten years or so of my professional life. To put it in simple terms: I despise them. Yes, of course, they had reason to exist in the dark ages. Today, I think they are in a range between counterproductive and dangerous.
Before anyone make a move for the jugular: I make a distinction between union members and union management (the entity). Union members are hard working folks, just like anyone else. They want the best for their families. That's their driving force. Nothing wrong with that at all. We all want the same things. Union management, on the other hand, well, I the tend to be between evil and criminal.
Today, US unions, in my opinion, destroy jobs. And they have done this in massive numbers. I still remember having a long conversation with a guy who retired from the printing industry. He explained, in great detail, how the union that ruled his industry absolutely decimated it. He lost his pension, benefits, etc.
The problem with US unions is that they exist to squeeze as much from companies as humanly possible. One of the most egregious examples I have seen of this is what the UAW (United Auto Workers) contracts that made US auto companies have more than 10,000 employees getting paid full wages and benefits (about $130K/year) to do nothing. Non-US car companies don't have this unbelievably destructive expense.
The effect of squeezing every possible drop out of a business is that you simply cannot be competitive over the long run. The other side effect is that economics and competitive pressures will force you to move portions of your process offshore and automate as much as you possibly can.
So, yeah, union leaders likely gave themselves a huge pat in the back for pulling that one off. And they made millions themselves (they get paid very well). And yet, a the ground level, they destroyed jobs, damaged companies, likely caused people to have serious psychological problems and damaged the long term viability of jobs.
When a company had hundreds of millions of dollars in dead-weight over head for years and years, sooner or later, there will be consequences. This is like fundamental laws of physics that cannot be violated.
In my little slice of the universe, as we are building a new manufacturing business, everything that can be automated will be so. There is no way we can pay someone $15 per hour (EDIT: to put screws into holes). If there was a way to do so and remain viable, I would have no problem with it. The truth of the matter is, this wage is a job killer. The US is already not competitive due to the huge cost of doing business here. This makes it worse.
On top of that, the combination of the $15/hr minimum wage, pandemic and other world issues has resulted in serious inflationary issues. Which means that the people who got that $15/hr wage (if they have a job at all), did not, in reality, get a raise at all. So, all we've done by pushing this nonsense is increase costs and destroy jobs.
Brilliant.
I know they look at all of this in China and cannot believe the US seems intent on destroying itself from the inside. I know because I also manufacture in China and talk to our suppliers all the time. They always tell me about how they are getting new customers because the cost of doing business in the US increases year after year.
As I said. Brilliant.
Sadly, people will not learn this lesson until things are bad enough to be obvious to nearly everyone. To be fair, what I am saying above requires having a reasonable understanding of business and skin in the game. Most people, the vast majority of people, go through life in complete ignorance of these realities. And so it is to be expected that, when the time comes to make decisions (voting) they are easily swayed into making truly dumb choices from the perspective of those who do have context.
Before anyone make a move for the jugular: I make a distinction between union members and union management (the entity). Union members are hard working folks, just like anyone else. They want the best for their families. That's their driving force. Nothing wrong with that at all. We all want the same things. Union management, on the other hand, well, I the tend to be between evil and criminal.
Today, US unions, in my opinion, destroy jobs. And they have done this in massive numbers. I still remember having a long conversation with a guy who retired from the printing industry. He explained, in great detail, how the union that ruled his industry absolutely decimated it. He lost his pension, benefits, etc.
The problem with US unions is that they exist to squeeze as much from companies as humanly possible. One of the most egregious examples I have seen of this is what the UAW (United Auto Workers) contracts that made US auto companies have more than 10,000 employees getting paid full wages and benefits (about $130K/year) to do nothing. Non-US car companies don't have this unbelievably destructive expense.
The effect of squeezing every possible drop out of a business is that you simply cannot be competitive over the long run. The other side effect is that economics and competitive pressures will force you to move portions of your process offshore and automate as much as you possibly can.
So, yeah, union leaders likely gave themselves a huge pat in the back for pulling that one off. And they made millions themselves (they get paid very well). And yet, a the ground level, they destroyed jobs, damaged companies, likely caused people to have serious psychological problems and damaged the long term viability of jobs.
When a company had hundreds of millions of dollars in dead-weight over head for years and years, sooner or later, there will be consequences. This is like fundamental laws of physics that cannot be violated.
In my little slice of the universe, as we are building a new manufacturing business, everything that can be automated will be so. There is no way we can pay someone $15 per hour (EDIT: to put screws into holes). If there was a way to do so and remain viable, I would have no problem with it. The truth of the matter is, this wage is a job killer. The US is already not competitive due to the huge cost of doing business here. This makes it worse.
On top of that, the combination of the $15/hr minimum wage, pandemic and other world issues has resulted in serious inflationary issues. Which means that the people who got that $15/hr wage (if they have a job at all), did not, in reality, get a raise at all. So, all we've done by pushing this nonsense is increase costs and destroy jobs.
Brilliant.
I know they look at all of this in China and cannot believe the US seems intent on destroying itself from the inside. I know because I also manufacture in China and talk to our suppliers all the time. They always tell me about how they are getting new customers because the cost of doing business in the US increases year after year.
As I said. Brilliant.
Sadly, people will not learn this lesson until things are bad enough to be obvious to nearly everyone. To be fair, what I am saying above requires having a reasonable understanding of business and skin in the game. Most people, the vast majority of people, go through life in complete ignorance of these realities. And so it is to be expected that, when the time comes to make decisions (voting) they are easily swayed into making truly dumb choices from the perspective of those who do have context.
The simple fact is that an adult needs X amount of money to be able to live with roommates, eat, drive their car to your job, etc.
That amount of money is about $15 most places in the country at absolute minimum and that will be a struggle.
If you can't afford to pay someone enough money at 40 hours a week that they can live with 1 other person in an apartment, eat, buy a car, maintain a car, buy gas, and have a small amount of cash left over--then your business isn't a viable business man.
It's "simple economics"
That amount of money is about $15 most places in the country at absolute minimum and that will be a struggle.
If you can't afford to pay someone enough money at 40 hours a week that they can live with 1 other person in an apartment, eat, buy a car, maintain a car, buy gas, and have a small amount of cash left over--then your business isn't a viable business man.
It's "simple economics"
> The simple fact is that an adult needs X amount of money to be able to live with roommates, eat, drive their car to your job, etc.
Sure. Let's pay everyone $50 an hour then?
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to base a minimum wage on what an adult needs to live with roommates?
It's a need. Of course it is a need. However, forcing a minimum wage isn't the solution at all. If it were, we could "fix it" by paying everyone $20, $30, $50, $500 per hour. Anyone but a complete moron can easily understand what happens if we set a minimum wage of $100 per hour. EVERY JOB THAT CAN BE EXPORTED WILL BE EXPORTED.
For everything else, inflation will absolutely explode. Which means that your $100 per hour won't buy you anything except for everything made in China (which will have higher prices because the Chinese are not stupid and will raise their prices to make more money). Home will cost 10x more and cars will double or triple in price. So, the $100 per hour quickly turns into a real $10 per hour. All we've done is play with numbers to create funny money. The ONLY ONES who benefit are the Chinese because they are doing everything they have to do in order to grow their economy and become the dominant economy in the world for the next 200 years.
That's the game and the stakes. People are allowing politicians to run us into the ground (or below it).
Your "simple economics" isn't real economics. It's wishful thinking. In the real world, with a globally integrated economy, a job and a standard of living can only exist in the context of where goods and services can be delivered more effectively.
This isn't even about greed. Anyone who has migrated work to China and other shores understands this very well. Only the ignorant equate this to greed. The truth of the matter is that market forces push pricing down. Since you won't pay more than $99 for a blender, everyone has to make them in China and margins are narrow. Nobody is making 300% margins because they went to China. If they do, those margins will collapse very quickly as competitors move their ops to China and push pricing down. That's economic reality. Like it or not.
Try to make something not-trivial in the US or Europe and see what happens. Most people would be horrified by the reality those of us in manufacturing understand all too well. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Sure. Let's pay everyone $50 an hour then?
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to base a minimum wage on what an adult needs to live with roommates?
It's a need. Of course it is a need. However, forcing a minimum wage isn't the solution at all. If it were, we could "fix it" by paying everyone $20, $30, $50, $500 per hour. Anyone but a complete moron can easily understand what happens if we set a minimum wage of $100 per hour. EVERY JOB THAT CAN BE EXPORTED WILL BE EXPORTED.
For everything else, inflation will absolutely explode. Which means that your $100 per hour won't buy you anything except for everything made in China (which will have higher prices because the Chinese are not stupid and will raise their prices to make more money). Home will cost 10x more and cars will double or triple in price. So, the $100 per hour quickly turns into a real $10 per hour. All we've done is play with numbers to create funny money. The ONLY ONES who benefit are the Chinese because they are doing everything they have to do in order to grow their economy and become the dominant economy in the world for the next 200 years.
That's the game and the stakes. People are allowing politicians to run us into the ground (or below it).
Your "simple economics" isn't real economics. It's wishful thinking. In the real world, with a globally integrated economy, a job and a standard of living can only exist in the context of where goods and services can be delivered more effectively.
This isn't even about greed. Anyone who has migrated work to China and other shores understands this very well. Only the ignorant equate this to greed. The truth of the matter is that market forces push pricing down. Since you won't pay more than $99 for a blender, everyone has to make them in China and margins are narrow. Nobody is making 300% margins because they went to China. If they do, those margins will collapse very quickly as competitors move their ops to China and push pricing down. That's economic reality. Like it or not.
Try to make something not-trivial in the US or Europe and see what happens. Most people would be horrified by the reality those of us in manufacturing understand all too well. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
They’re already exporting jobs.
Raise costs and they export even more jobs. As many as possible.
I see it in what I am doing every day. I truly want to manufacture in the US. I really do. I am angry about this whole situation because of it. Stupid policies prevent me from having the option to manufacture in the US. Policies that are so destructive that you are left with no option but to send the work to China. The only other option is to go out of business.
I do not want to do this! Yet my government and the ignorant masses who vote for them and support their ignorant ways effectively forces me to take that path. It does not have to be this way at all. Yet, on the current path, things are not trending towards getting better at all.
My partners and I have already discussed moving all manufacturing to China. All of it. Just like Apple, we would design here and manufacture there. I am the only one who is stubbornly holding that decision back. And I know I am going to lose. There's nothing I can do about it. It's like fighting the laws of physics. And then I post here and people who don't have a clue refuse to even think about this and attempt to understand. How have we become so ignorant.
It isn't about a single policy. It isn't just about minimum wage. It's death by a thousand cuts.
I'll give you another example that won't be popular. What we are doing with the southern border is absolutely criminal. I haven't kept up with numbers. I think the last estimate I read was that over 1.5 million people got in...and that's the ones we know about.
BY DEFINITION: Every single one of them is unemployed. Yet, they are not counted in unemployment statistics because, well, they don't exist. Even worse, we are not creating 1.5 million NEW jobs per year for them. If we were, there could be justification for accepting people with the right skill sets. We are not. Which means we are importing unemployment. We might even be importing people who will be abused and work for menial wages in the shadows. No matter how you look at it, this isn't a plan for economic growth and stability at all. We are losing jobs and we are importing unemployment.
What's another layer of stupidity? Energy policy. It is beyond belief that we are letting people like AOC even have a word in this conversation. Solar energy is fantastic. I built a 13 kW array. As an engineer, I know everything there is to know about solar and then some. I also know that we need to build nuclear power plants like there is no tomorrow. Solar is far from clean. A solar power plant equivalent to a nuclear plant consumes so much land and resources most would be horrified. Not to mention effects on wildlife, etc.
If we are going to achieve the dream of converting our ground transportation fleet to electric vehicles we are going to need to DOUBLE our power generation capacity (and power transmission infrastructure). You cannot do this with solar. Solar is unreliable and expensive. You have to do it with nuclear, at least a majority of it. That means duplicating the entire US's power generation capacity. We need twice the power. That means we need an ADDITIONAL 1200 GW. A typical nuclear power plant is rated at 1 GW. Yes, that means we need to build somewhere in the order of 1000 nuclear power plants, or maybe 500 and make-up the rest with solar, natural gas, etc.
The other one is the war against oil. This is so ridiculous it hurts to even think about it.
Simple concept: We all want clean cars and clean energy. At scale (300 million vehicles) this means undertaking the largest set of infrastructure projects in the history of this nation. Yes, heavy construction and manufacturing throughout the land.
What do we need to move materials, dirt, concrete, rebar, solar panels, grade and dig the land, etc.? OIL! With oil at $130 per barrel there is no way in hell we can afford the infrastructure development that would be required to transition a nation like the US to clean energy. We need $20 per barrel oil for 25 years. With a mission. In other words, it can't be about lower the cost of oil so we can have cheaper gasoline and diesel. It has to be: We need cheap gasoline and diesel so we can build thousands of solar, wind and nuclear power plants as well as upgrade our entire power delivery infrastructure over 25 to 50 years so we can transition to more those power sources.
Once again, politicians drive the narrative that is most convenient for them in order to secure jobs and remain in power until they retire with nice benefits and pensions. The carnage and long term destruction they create is lost on everyone living for the moment. Sadly, most people don't exercise much in the way of critical and strategic thinking when they vote for and support these charlatans.
Anyhow, yeah, I am angry and frustrated because I want to work in my country and create jobs here but my government and the people who support their dumb policies prevents me from doing this. Even trying to educate people about these realities is futile.
What happens to a lot of business owners --after getting tired of hitting their heads against the wall-- is to capitulate and take a "if you can't beat them, join them" position where they make good money for themselves and stop caring about not being able to create jobs and build full companies here (or in Europe, same problems).
I see it in what I am doing every day. I truly want to manufacture in the US. I really do. I am angry about this whole situation because of it. Stupid policies prevent me from having the option to manufacture in the US. Policies that are so destructive that you are left with no option but to send the work to China. The only other option is to go out of business.
I do not want to do this! Yet my government and the ignorant masses who vote for them and support their ignorant ways effectively forces me to take that path. It does not have to be this way at all. Yet, on the current path, things are not trending towards getting better at all.
My partners and I have already discussed moving all manufacturing to China. All of it. Just like Apple, we would design here and manufacture there. I am the only one who is stubbornly holding that decision back. And I know I am going to lose. There's nothing I can do about it. It's like fighting the laws of physics. And then I post here and people who don't have a clue refuse to even think about this and attempt to understand. How have we become so ignorant.
It isn't about a single policy. It isn't just about minimum wage. It's death by a thousand cuts.
I'll give you another example that won't be popular. What we are doing with the southern border is absolutely criminal. I haven't kept up with numbers. I think the last estimate I read was that over 1.5 million people got in...and that's the ones we know about.
BY DEFINITION: Every single one of them is unemployed. Yet, they are not counted in unemployment statistics because, well, they don't exist. Even worse, we are not creating 1.5 million NEW jobs per year for them. If we were, there could be justification for accepting people with the right skill sets. We are not. Which means we are importing unemployment. We might even be importing people who will be abused and work for menial wages in the shadows. No matter how you look at it, this isn't a plan for economic growth and stability at all. We are losing jobs and we are importing unemployment.
What's another layer of stupidity? Energy policy. It is beyond belief that we are letting people like AOC even have a word in this conversation. Solar energy is fantastic. I built a 13 kW array. As an engineer, I know everything there is to know about solar and then some. I also know that we need to build nuclear power plants like there is no tomorrow. Solar is far from clean. A solar power plant equivalent to a nuclear plant consumes so much land and resources most would be horrified. Not to mention effects on wildlife, etc.
If we are going to achieve the dream of converting our ground transportation fleet to electric vehicles we are going to need to DOUBLE our power generation capacity (and power transmission infrastructure). You cannot do this with solar. Solar is unreliable and expensive. You have to do it with nuclear, at least a majority of it. That means duplicating the entire US's power generation capacity. We need twice the power. That means we need an ADDITIONAL 1200 GW. A typical nuclear power plant is rated at 1 GW. Yes, that means we need to build somewhere in the order of 1000 nuclear power plants, or maybe 500 and make-up the rest with solar, natural gas, etc.
The other one is the war against oil. This is so ridiculous it hurts to even think about it.
Simple concept: We all want clean cars and clean energy. At scale (300 million vehicles) this means undertaking the largest set of infrastructure projects in the history of this nation. Yes, heavy construction and manufacturing throughout the land.
What do we need to move materials, dirt, concrete, rebar, solar panels, grade and dig the land, etc.? OIL! With oil at $130 per barrel there is no way in hell we can afford the infrastructure development that would be required to transition a nation like the US to clean energy. We need $20 per barrel oil for 25 years. With a mission. In other words, it can't be about lower the cost of oil so we can have cheaper gasoline and diesel. It has to be: We need cheap gasoline and diesel so we can build thousands of solar, wind and nuclear power plants as well as upgrade our entire power delivery infrastructure over 25 to 50 years so we can transition to more those power sources.
Once again, politicians drive the narrative that is most convenient for them in order to secure jobs and remain in power until they retire with nice benefits and pensions. The carnage and long term destruction they create is lost on everyone living for the moment. Sadly, most people don't exercise much in the way of critical and strategic thinking when they vote for and support these charlatans.
Anyhow, yeah, I am angry and frustrated because I want to work in my country and create jobs here but my government and the people who support their dumb policies prevents me from doing this. Even trying to educate people about these realities is futile.
What happens to a lot of business owners --after getting tired of hitting their heads against the wall-- is to capitulate and take a "if you can't beat them, join them" position where they make good money for themselves and stop caring about not being able to create jobs and build full companies here (or in Europe, same problems).
Your view is massively in the wrong. Companies are wasting waaaay more money on stock buybacks, huge compensation packages for executives, nepotism and corruption in business deals and other similar things than they are on employee wages.
This is pure fantasy. Minimum wage in the US is 2-10x what it is in low cost regions. Not even touching regulations. US experts travel to those regions to hand-hold every step necessary in order to make any product not forced to be built in the US by taxes or regulation. I did this for years and I hate it. I have worked for years in both American and foreign factories and I can assure you that they can automate just as well so there is no hope without government intervention in the form of tariffs. US labor currently competes on a global market.
Sure, but the problem is it's not just minimum wages that are 2-10x higher in the US. It's all wages. I don't know the manufacturing sector personally, but I can look at the tech sector.
I am a senior software engineer in Romania working for an American company. I am well appreciated and currently have a significant hand in designing major pieces of one of our bigger products, working with a Romanian team, a US team and a team in India. I'm explaining this just to make it clear I am not some contractor code monkey working in a sweatshop. My salary though, which is quite good for my country, is 5-10x smaller than the kinds of salaries software devs expect in California, and even Atlanta or Austin. I am higher up the corporate ladder, and better appreciated, and have brought more value to this company than many of those people - and so have many of my colleagues from Romania and India.
You can't tell me that it's OK for software devs to make 150k+/year, for sales people to make similar salaries (with bonuses), for layers and layers of middle management (who often have negative value for the company when evaluated objectively) to do the same, for executives to make tens or hundreds of millions, for shareholders to make record profits; but then if the assembly line workers get 31k/year, THAT is what's bleeding the company dry.
You're not wrong about the lack of US manufacturing, and the lack of motivation for it. But you are dead wrong about the reasons behind it.
I am a senior software engineer in Romania working for an American company. I am well appreciated and currently have a significant hand in designing major pieces of one of our bigger products, working with a Romanian team, a US team and a team in India. I'm explaining this just to make it clear I am not some contractor code monkey working in a sweatshop. My salary though, which is quite good for my country, is 5-10x smaller than the kinds of salaries software devs expect in California, and even Atlanta or Austin. I am higher up the corporate ladder, and better appreciated, and have brought more value to this company than many of those people - and so have many of my colleagues from Romania and India.
You can't tell me that it's OK for software devs to make 150k+/year, for sales people to make similar salaries (with bonuses), for layers and layers of middle management (who often have negative value for the company when evaluated objectively) to do the same, for executives to make tens or hundreds of millions, for shareholders to make record profits; but then if the assembly line workers get 31k/year, THAT is what's bleeding the company dry.
You're not wrong about the lack of US manufacturing, and the lack of motivation for it. But you are dead wrong about the reasons behind it.
While I absolutely understand and sympathize with what you are saying, the issue cannot be analyzed by simply comparing executive pay to that of the lowest paid employees. I know it is popular to make these comparisons, I get it, one gets a sense of righteousness from discussing things in those terms. However, these comparisons make no sense at all.
Wage scales are what they are for a reason. Simple example, in the US an engineer might graduate with somewhere between $100K and $300K US in student loans. That, right there, starts to impose a baseline on what someone can reasonably earn in order for it to be worth it to have that job. Just like a business isn't going to exist to just break even, people tend not to work just to break even. Everyone has to make a profit.
To that you start adding professional and personal necessities and you might quickly realize that $150K a year living in Los Angeles might very well be equivalent to 1/2 or 1/5 of that salary elsewhere in the world.
I'll give you another simple example: It costs my family $1200 per month for healthcare. It used to be $600 per month. Then Obamacare was instituted --under the laughable "Affordable Care Act"-- and our healthcare tripled to $1800 US per month. We eventually moved to a $1200 per month plan where we accept greater risk and higher costs. I did the math, we have to spend somewhere in the order of $25K in a year before our health insurance really starts paying for things.
In other words, context is always important in judging how much people get paid.
An executive that is responsible for managing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue should make enough money to reflect the degree of responsibility he or she has. If they don't do their job, hundreds of people lose their jobs. You simply can't compare executive pay to that of a warehouse worker who is operating at an entirely different level of responsibility and accountability.
The problem isn't pay scales. The problem is the overall cost structure, which starts at artificially forced costs --be it wages or regulatory-- imposed in complete violation of free market principles.
Here's an example of these costs, something I learned about a couple of decades ago and just astounded me. In Los Angeles County (for those outside the US, the region where the city of Los Angeles is located) we have a tax called "Los Angeles County Business Property Tax". What is this? Well, to put it in simple terms, look around your office. The County of Los Angeles makes businesses pay taxes on everything you see: Your desk, your computer, your printer, fax machine, chair, table, lights, trash can, even any improvements you may have made to your building (dividers, painting, electrical, etc). LA County makes you pay a tax on every physical product the company owns. FOR FUCKING EVER.
This is some of the context that is missed from most of these conversations and the kinds of things only people who have to deal with them would know. As is always the case, life is a complex multivariate problem that is never well represented by a single simple variable.
Wage scales are what they are for a reason. Simple example, in the US an engineer might graduate with somewhere between $100K and $300K US in student loans. That, right there, starts to impose a baseline on what someone can reasonably earn in order for it to be worth it to have that job. Just like a business isn't going to exist to just break even, people tend not to work just to break even. Everyone has to make a profit.
To that you start adding professional and personal necessities and you might quickly realize that $150K a year living in Los Angeles might very well be equivalent to 1/2 or 1/5 of that salary elsewhere in the world.
I'll give you another simple example: It costs my family $1200 per month for healthcare. It used to be $600 per month. Then Obamacare was instituted --under the laughable "Affordable Care Act"-- and our healthcare tripled to $1800 US per month. We eventually moved to a $1200 per month plan where we accept greater risk and higher costs. I did the math, we have to spend somewhere in the order of $25K in a year before our health insurance really starts paying for things.
In other words, context is always important in judging how much people get paid.
An executive that is responsible for managing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue should make enough money to reflect the degree of responsibility he or she has. If they don't do their job, hundreds of people lose their jobs. You simply can't compare executive pay to that of a warehouse worker who is operating at an entirely different level of responsibility and accountability.
The problem isn't pay scales. The problem is the overall cost structure, which starts at artificially forced costs --be it wages or regulatory-- imposed in complete violation of free market principles.
Here's an example of these costs, something I learned about a couple of decades ago and just astounded me. In Los Angeles County (for those outside the US, the region where the city of Los Angeles is located) we have a tax called "Los Angeles County Business Property Tax". What is this? Well, to put it in simple terms, look around your office. The County of Los Angeles makes businesses pay taxes on everything you see: Your desk, your computer, your printer, fax machine, chair, table, lights, trash can, even any improvements you may have made to your building (dividers, painting, electrical, etc). LA County makes you pay a tax on every physical product the company owns. FOR FUCKING EVER.
This is some of the context that is missed from most of these conversations and the kinds of things only people who have to deal with them would know. As is always the case, life is a complex multivariate problem that is never well represented by a single simple variable.
It has been my experience that most folks commenting on this matter on HN have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. None. They comment based on pure ideology or, possibly worse, a delusion driven into their heads by our lovely universities.
Those of us, like you, who actually have or had skin in the game --real experience actually trying to make real things in the context of the real world-- know better. We know and understand exactly what's going on and where this is likely headed. Nobody here wants to hear about it. The reaction ranges from the most uninformed comments to flagging and effectively cancelling what they don't want to hear.
The worse of it is that reality doesn't care about flagging comments and down-votes, reality keeps moving forward. The path we are on is 180 degrees from what we should be doing if we actually want to have a shot a maintaining a reasonable standard of living for generations to come.
To be fair, at this point, it is almost impossible. The kind of leadership and cultural shift we need in order to do the things we have to do might be impossible to achieve given what we have done to our society. This is the most disconcerting part for me. We have devoted years destroying this nation from the inside. Europe hasn't done much better than this.
Those of us, like you, who actually have or had skin in the game --real experience actually trying to make real things in the context of the real world-- know better. We know and understand exactly what's going on and where this is likely headed. Nobody here wants to hear about it. The reaction ranges from the most uninformed comments to flagging and effectively cancelling what they don't want to hear.
The worse of it is that reality doesn't care about flagging comments and down-votes, reality keeps moving forward. The path we are on is 180 degrees from what we should be doing if we actually want to have a shot a maintaining a reasonable standard of living for generations to come.
To be fair, at this point, it is almost impossible. The kind of leadership and cultural shift we need in order to do the things we have to do might be impossible to achieve given what we have done to our society. This is the most disconcerting part for me. We have devoted years destroying this nation from the inside. Europe hasn't done much better than this.
It’s genuinely terrifying. There seems to be no recognition that you cannot have labor unions and environmental protections with out tariffs to even the playing field with less scrupulous countries. We are rapidly approaching a time where only the military industrial complex retains any manufacturing expertise.
I have designed and manufactured systems for aerospace applications. I spent months dealing with ITAR issues due to the reality that you simply cannot build almost anything out of US/European components. The metal and a few high-tech items, mostly in the materials domain. Almost everything else is not made in the US or Europe.
I thought that people were going to wake up to some of these realities when they finally saw reality in the form of not even being able to manufacture face masks in the US. We don't make the cloth and other materials, we don't even make the machines you need to manufacture them.
This and related realities should have been covered in great detail by our media. For people outside of manufacturing this was news. Most people go through life having no understanding whatsoever of how and where the stuff they use every day comes from, how it's made, etc.
The pandemic should have shocked everyone into pushing for massive changes that would, over time, increase self reliance. Yet, none of that happened. It was starting to, at the highest levels, but then political forces changed and now we are more concerned about giving people free money than actually securing their futures and that of the next generation. Brilliant.
I thought that people were going to wake up to some of these realities when they finally saw reality in the form of not even being able to manufacture face masks in the US. We don't make the cloth and other materials, we don't even make the machines you need to manufacture them.
This and related realities should have been covered in great detail by our media. For people outside of manufacturing this was news. Most people go through life having no understanding whatsoever of how and where the stuff they use every day comes from, how it's made, etc.
The pandemic should have shocked everyone into pushing for massive changes that would, over time, increase self reliance. Yet, none of that happened. It was starting to, at the highest levels, but then political forces changed and now we are more concerned about giving people free money than actually securing their futures and that of the next generation. Brilliant.
I don't even know how to respond to this fantasy you paint. As I told someone else, try to manufacture something non-trivial in the US or Europe and you might begin to understand.
So you won't even be making $15/hour at this new business?
No. That sentence should have read "There is no way I am paying someone $15/hr to put screws into holes".
The problem this forced wage has created is that you can't hire people without some pretty solid justification for what they will deliver in exchange. Businesses are forced to make an ROI choice on everything, including people and their wages. This is why you are seeing things like burger flipping and fries making robots. You just can't pay people that much and stay in business.
There will be plenty of high paid jobs. Just not jobs that cannot justify an artificially forced minimum wage that is not sustainable in the context of a global economy.
I'll give you a simple and real example from a recent job we sent out to bid to nearly two dozen manufacturers in the US and China. It consists of a part made by a wire forming machine and with some manual labor. The average US-cost for that part was in the order of $6.00 per unit PLUS shipping. The average cost of the same part made in China INCLUDING shipping, was $1.00. Now, somebody tell me how we can make that part in the US when minimum wage, taxes, regulatory costs, etc. make it impossible to get anywhere even close to Chinese prices. I mean, you can't make the part in the US for even TWICE the Chinese price. And, keep in mind that shipping from China costs 10x more today that it did not too long ago.
People might not like what I have to say. That does not invalidate the truth of it, you can't invalidate reality with a down-vote. Like it or not. Most people replying to my comment have never even tried to manufacture something at a non-trivial scale in the US. In other words, they don't even know what they are talking about, yet they are quick to have an opinion because words like mine hurt their feelings. Well, economics cares not one bit about feelings. Again, like it or not.
The problem this forced wage has created is that you can't hire people without some pretty solid justification for what they will deliver in exchange. Businesses are forced to make an ROI choice on everything, including people and their wages. This is why you are seeing things like burger flipping and fries making robots. You just can't pay people that much and stay in business.
There will be plenty of high paid jobs. Just not jobs that cannot justify an artificially forced minimum wage that is not sustainable in the context of a global economy.
I'll give you a simple and real example from a recent job we sent out to bid to nearly two dozen manufacturers in the US and China. It consists of a part made by a wire forming machine and with some manual labor. The average US-cost for that part was in the order of $6.00 per unit PLUS shipping. The average cost of the same part made in China INCLUDING shipping, was $1.00. Now, somebody tell me how we can make that part in the US when minimum wage, taxes, regulatory costs, etc. make it impossible to get anywhere even close to Chinese prices. I mean, you can't make the part in the US for even TWICE the Chinese price. And, keep in mind that shipping from China costs 10x more today that it did not too long ago.
People might not like what I have to say. That does not invalidate the truth of it, you can't invalidate reality with a down-vote. Like it or not. Most people replying to my comment have never even tried to manufacture something at a non-trivial scale in the US. In other words, they don't even know what they are talking about, yet they are quick to have an opinion because words like mine hurt their feelings. Well, economics cares not one bit about feelings. Again, like it or not.
So if your product can be made entirely in China by cheap workers and shipped here, why would I order from you? What value do you add? I can already order directly on Aliexpress and even talk to Chinese customer service agents in English - and they've been delightful to work with by the way.
You can do that with some products, not all. In some cases all we have left are things like local support and software development. This is particularly true in industrial segments --which is where we are.
In the consumer sector things are increasingly in the picture you painted. You can do this on Amazon for just about anything. Once the Chinese figured out how to sell directly through portals such as Amazon, that gig was up.
Design, domain expertise and more in-context areas is were the west still leads on many ways. It's product dependent, of course. That's why Apple designs here and manufactures in China.
In our case, it is a combination of our embedded and workstation software that creates a reasonably solid barrier to entry. This, along with some of the protection offered by patents and trademarks (which can be near zero in some cases).
To be sure, this is a very complex and difficult landscape that has evolved over about 50 years. I you go back that far, China was mostly an agrarian economy. There's a solid argument that says that this is something that has been mismanaged for five decades. You don't get where we are now overnight.
That is not to say I hate China or the Chinese. They are doing what they have to do in order to further their economy and more. We might not agree with some of their government's darker policy positions. Not much we can do about that. On the subject of being laser-focused on economic growth through rabid entrepreneurial drive, China is probably without equal. That, as an entrepreneur, I have to admire. Most people would be floored by what they would learn from just one trip to Shenzhen.
The "I can just buy it on Aliexpress" argument is fine and very real. The problem with accepting this without looking inward at the decisions and policies that do not allow us to compete is that things will get worse here and better there. It is inevitable.
I'll give you a simple example: There's a international postal treaty dating back to the 1700's (or was it 1800's, I don't remember) that gives China the ability to ship products into the US for nothing or nearly nothing. We, the US, subsidize these shipments 100%. I cannot ship from Los Angeles to New York for free. I have to pay. A Chinese competitor can offer free shipping all the way from China. I either have to charge a significant amount for shipping or take a margin hit (which means growth, job creation and the ability to survive events such as pandemics are compromises).
We are not making intelligent decisions.
In the consumer sector things are increasingly in the picture you painted. You can do this on Amazon for just about anything. Once the Chinese figured out how to sell directly through portals such as Amazon, that gig was up.
Design, domain expertise and more in-context areas is were the west still leads on many ways. It's product dependent, of course. That's why Apple designs here and manufactures in China.
In our case, it is a combination of our embedded and workstation software that creates a reasonably solid barrier to entry. This, along with some of the protection offered by patents and trademarks (which can be near zero in some cases).
To be sure, this is a very complex and difficult landscape that has evolved over about 50 years. I you go back that far, China was mostly an agrarian economy. There's a solid argument that says that this is something that has been mismanaged for five decades. You don't get where we are now overnight.
That is not to say I hate China or the Chinese. They are doing what they have to do in order to further their economy and more. We might not agree with some of their government's darker policy positions. Not much we can do about that. On the subject of being laser-focused on economic growth through rabid entrepreneurial drive, China is probably without equal. That, as an entrepreneur, I have to admire. Most people would be floored by what they would learn from just one trip to Shenzhen.
The "I can just buy it on Aliexpress" argument is fine and very real. The problem with accepting this without looking inward at the decisions and policies that do not allow us to compete is that things will get worse here and better there. It is inevitable.
I'll give you a simple example: There's a international postal treaty dating back to the 1700's (or was it 1800's, I don't remember) that gives China the ability to ship products into the US for nothing or nearly nothing. We, the US, subsidize these shipments 100%. I cannot ship from Los Angeles to New York for free. I have to pay. A Chinese competitor can offer free shipping all the way from China. I either have to charge a significant amount for shipping or take a margin hit (which means growth, job creation and the ability to survive events such as pandemics are compromises).
We are not making intelligent decisions.
> The "I can just buy it on Aliexpress" argument is fine and very real. The problem with accepting this without looking inward at the decisions and policies that do not allow us to compete is that things will get worse here and better there. It is inevitable.
Is it not the exact analog to "I can just outsource my production to China"? What differentiates a Chinese worker from a US worker? And if they are the same in your eyes, then why shouldn't things get worse here and better there until they reach some equilibrium?
Is it not the exact analog to "I can just outsource my production to China"? What differentiates a Chinese worker from a US worker? And if they are the same in your eyes, then why shouldn't things get worse here and better there until they reach some equilibrium?
> What differentiates a Chinese worker from a US worker?
That's an interesting and very important question that is both easy and hard to answer.
My experience with China is nothing but positive along just-about any angle I can imagine. Their attitude towards doing business, their entrepreneurial drive and desire to work with you is, in my opinion, unmatched.
The best example I have is from the very first time I had a large (for me at the time) order I needed to have manufactured. It was a set of custom aluminum extrusions.
I contacted about 80 companies. 75 of them in the US and 5 in China.
Every single company in China came back with a quote the very next day. The lowest quote was $8,000. The highest $10K.
Out of the 75 US companies I contacted with full, detailed bid packages, about 50 never responded to the request for quote. No emails, calls. Nothing.
Of the remaining 25, about ten of them responded somewhere between two and four weeks after receiving the RFQ to "no bid". In other words, not interested or could not do it. In most cases they offered no explanation at all.
Of the remaining 15 companies, not one of them responded faster than one week. When they did, they engaged in an interrogation phase that is very typical of US companies: How many of these are you going to make per year? How frequently are you going to order? How many years do you think you'll need to produce these parts? Do you have other parts you will need manufactured? What are they? What's the volume? Etc. You always get combinations of these questions and more.
After that, in most cases, you end-up getting bounced around additional people. In one case the email thread reached something like eight people. For a fucking quote. By this time a couple of weeks had gone by. I had already awarded the job to a Chinese company and it was something like three weeks from shipping. Yet, I humored the process because I just wanted to compare. This was my first job going out to China many years ago.
After the interrogation about ten of those companies dropped out by either no longer responding to emails or flat-out saying they were not going to bid.
Of the remaining 5 I got two bids, one for over $30K and the other was about $25K. Getting these bids took an additional week. The other three told me they had issues with the design and only wanted to make one of the two parts. One of them told me that they could extrude the aluminum but did not want to handle the finishing and anodizing.
By the time I got all responses from US companies the extrusions were in a container and on their way to me from China.
The Chinese company I ended-up working with just blew me away. I had actually contacted them just as Chinese New Year started. Still, their sales person and one of the engineers stayed behind to make sure all my questions were answered and, if I decided to work with them, the order could get started as soon as they came back.
They personally gave me a tour of the 1.5 million square foot (~150K square meters) factory campus. It was nothing less than incredible. For those who might not have a sense of scale, that's like 15 Home Depot size buildings on a single manufacturing campus.
And yet that's not what blew me away. Once I understood this company's scale I was astounded at the level of attention I received. I was nobody. An $8000 order for this company was a rounding error. They did not have to treat me like that. They did not have to stay back and take the time to show me around and make sure I was comfortable with them. They treated me like a million dollar buyer. Nothing less. They never asked me how many I was going to make per year or when they would get the next order. They just wanted my business and treated me with the kind of respect and attention anyone would recognizes in the US as reserved for million dollar clients.
That, to me, describes the cultural business and entrepreneurship difference between the US and China. They have earned every bit of success they have realized. Nobody gave them anything. They work hard and treat everyone like a million dollar customer. Here in the US you'd be lucky to get the time of day when you send out for quotes. When you do, it takes weeks to get anything done.
I don't think we are lazy. I think we are not hungry any more. And it shows. Nobody gives a shit. What's sad is that if we keep on this path people will learn the lesson in a really ugly way.
> And if they are the same in your eyes, then why shouldn't things get worse here and better there until they reach some equilibrium?
So, they are not the same. Yes, things will get worse here. I don't see enough of cultural shift or evidence of making it happen any time soon. Things have been getting better in China and will continue to do so. China will become the dominant top economy in the world and probably hold that dominance for a century or more. What happens in the US and Europe is anyone's guess. I look at the history of Latin America, where I lived for a number of years, and see echos of their failed policies and mistakes in the US. I don't know how anyone can change that other than to push very hard for a serious change in culture, which will not be popular at all.
That's an interesting and very important question that is both easy and hard to answer.
My experience with China is nothing but positive along just-about any angle I can imagine. Their attitude towards doing business, their entrepreneurial drive and desire to work with you is, in my opinion, unmatched.
The best example I have is from the very first time I had a large (for me at the time) order I needed to have manufactured. It was a set of custom aluminum extrusions.
I contacted about 80 companies. 75 of them in the US and 5 in China.
Every single company in China came back with a quote the very next day. The lowest quote was $8,000. The highest $10K.
Out of the 75 US companies I contacted with full, detailed bid packages, about 50 never responded to the request for quote. No emails, calls. Nothing.
Of the remaining 25, about ten of them responded somewhere between two and four weeks after receiving the RFQ to "no bid". In other words, not interested or could not do it. In most cases they offered no explanation at all.
Of the remaining 15 companies, not one of them responded faster than one week. When they did, they engaged in an interrogation phase that is very typical of US companies: How many of these are you going to make per year? How frequently are you going to order? How many years do you think you'll need to produce these parts? Do you have other parts you will need manufactured? What are they? What's the volume? Etc. You always get combinations of these questions and more.
After that, in most cases, you end-up getting bounced around additional people. In one case the email thread reached something like eight people. For a fucking quote. By this time a couple of weeks had gone by. I had already awarded the job to a Chinese company and it was something like three weeks from shipping. Yet, I humored the process because I just wanted to compare. This was my first job going out to China many years ago.
After the interrogation about ten of those companies dropped out by either no longer responding to emails or flat-out saying they were not going to bid.
Of the remaining 5 I got two bids, one for over $30K and the other was about $25K. Getting these bids took an additional week. The other three told me they had issues with the design and only wanted to make one of the two parts. One of them told me that they could extrude the aluminum but did not want to handle the finishing and anodizing.
By the time I got all responses from US companies the extrusions were in a container and on their way to me from China.
The Chinese company I ended-up working with just blew me away. I had actually contacted them just as Chinese New Year started. Still, their sales person and one of the engineers stayed behind to make sure all my questions were answered and, if I decided to work with them, the order could get started as soon as they came back.
They personally gave me a tour of the 1.5 million square foot (~150K square meters) factory campus. It was nothing less than incredible. For those who might not have a sense of scale, that's like 15 Home Depot size buildings on a single manufacturing campus.
And yet that's not what blew me away. Once I understood this company's scale I was astounded at the level of attention I received. I was nobody. An $8000 order for this company was a rounding error. They did not have to treat me like that. They did not have to stay back and take the time to show me around and make sure I was comfortable with them. They treated me like a million dollar buyer. Nothing less. They never asked me how many I was going to make per year or when they would get the next order. They just wanted my business and treated me with the kind of respect and attention anyone would recognizes in the US as reserved for million dollar clients.
That, to me, describes the cultural business and entrepreneurship difference between the US and China. They have earned every bit of success they have realized. Nobody gave them anything. They work hard and treat everyone like a million dollar customer. Here in the US you'd be lucky to get the time of day when you send out for quotes. When you do, it takes weeks to get anything done.
I don't think we are lazy. I think we are not hungry any more. And it shows. Nobody gives a shit. What's sad is that if we keep on this path people will learn the lesson in a really ugly way.
> And if they are the same in your eyes, then why shouldn't things get worse here and better there until they reach some equilibrium?
So, they are not the same. Yes, things will get worse here. I don't see enough of cultural shift or evidence of making it happen any time soon. Things have been getting better in China and will continue to do so. China will become the dominant top economy in the world and probably hold that dominance for a century or more. What happens in the US and Europe is anyone's guess. I look at the history of Latin America, where I lived for a number of years, and see echos of their failed policies and mistakes in the US. I don't know how anyone can change that other than to push very hard for a serious change in culture, which will not be popular at all.
So in this example, at least half the problem was definitely not high prices on the factory floor, it was bad salespeople, an obsession with extracting profit, corporate bureaucracy, inefficient work practices.
Given what you witnessed from the customer facing side, so you think there were no similar delays and inefficiencies in their manufacturing and acquisitions side, and no similar attempts at maximizing profits in their quote?
I'm not claiming they could have matched the Chinese price, but I am also not willing to blame either the full price nor the whole exchange on 15$/h factory floor staff.
Given what you witnessed from the customer facing side, so you think there were no similar delays and inefficiencies in their manufacturing and acquisitions side, and no similar attempts at maximizing profits in their quote?
I'm not claiming they could have matched the Chinese price, but I am also not willing to blame either the full price nor the whole exchange on 15$/h factory floor staff.
> bad salespeople
More like the business culture is in serious need of recalibration.
At the same time, some of it is easy to understand. Manufacturing is hard, for most, unimaginably hard. The sad reality in the US is that, because of costs and the layers of bullshit you have to deal with, the easiest way to survive is to focus on high dollar/high margin markets. That means that if you can land jobs in aerospace or government contracts you can be set. You might bring in other work on a very selective basis, yet, for the most part, your "meat and potatoes" has to be --by necessity-- the low volume/high margin stuff.
Going back to the sales folks. When your job is to bring in just a few deals per year and, more importantly, keep the customers you have, you are not going to kill yourself for every opportunity put on your desk. Sales people in the US are generally compensated in a mercenary fashion (something I have never liked). You get to make some baseline and then get paid on some percentage of what you land. This does not make for a sales person who actually cares about every single potential customer. In the long run they will, very naturally, optimize for their own ROI.
So, it can't be boiled down to "bad salespeople". There's a lot more to it than that. At this point thousands of elements working together to make it almost impossible to compete. Simple example: Stupid-as-fuck oil and policy that makes it so fuel and oil derivative products (oils, lubricants, plastics, etc.) cost more. So trucking your materials to your factory to make something cost more. Now we force a doubling of the minimum wage. Innocent enough, right? Well, the guy making $10 is now making $15. The folks making $15 now demand $20 (after all, they are not minimum wage workers). And so on up the entire wage scale. Your COGS goes up and your customers are not going to spend one additional dime for your products unless there is no other option. And this is where China comes in and is able to force such low pricing that your ONLY available option is to move all of your manufacturing to China and come in with a new price model and lower margins. In a lot of cases this will eventually lead to going out of business.
> an obsession with extracting profit
The only people who use phrases like this one are those who have never started and operated a non-trivial business. I don't know any successful business who's driving force is an obsession with "extracting profit". That term in particular, "extracting profit", is linked to Marxist indoctrination --which, in the US, is being delivered constantly by our universities by professors who have also never had to survive in the real world. In short, sorry, this is complete horseshit. Entrepreneurs and the companies they build are driven by wanting to delivery great products.
Profit is a necessity for growth and survival. I thought people were also going to learn this from the pandemic. Companies need cash to survive all kinds of issues that come up on a daily basis in the course of doing business. Once again, those who have never had to face these realities simply don't understand and refuse to listen, sometimes due to being in the grips of a truly astounding level of indoctrination.
I had an incident about 15 years ago when a multi-billion dollar company we were buying key sole-source components from discontinued these components virtually overnight and without prior notice. This cost us about a million dollars in real cash as well as about a year's worth of an engineering effort to design a product line based on these components. If we had not generated enough profit from our activities to survive such a hit everyone would have lost their jobs almost instantly. Instead, because we had the cash to weather the storm, we were able to regroup, invest and take a few months to redesign every single product around new components we could actually get.
Your views of business are as wrong as thinking that gravity pulls in the opposite direction. And yet I can't blame you for it, because it is obvious to anyone with business experience that you don't have the benefit of that experience. My suggestion would be to try to make something at a reasonable scale and learn from it. I and when you do, statements like "an obsession with extracting profit" will make your blood boil.
> inefficient work practices
Not so. In the US you have to be efficient or you won't survive. What we are competing with is obsessed with being efficient. The only companies in the US who can afford serious inefficiencies are those who do government/military work. This is where we waste more money than anyone can imagine getting work done for ten times the cost.
We have problems everywhere. This is what I am talking about when I say we need a major cultural shift. We have politicians constantly talking about raising taxes, as if we work for them. No! The conversation should be about ALWAYS lowering taxes and lowering costs. This means being more efficient at everything. Our national goal should be to half our expenditures and get more for our money. Not double our taxes and costs and support ever-growing bureaucracies. This isn't a formula for long term success. This is a formula for long term disasters.
I have sold product into various government agencies, from local transportation agencies to branches of the military. I left that world because it was simply disgusting to see just how much money we are burning for nothing at all.
I remember one case where we were bidding for a contract with a local public transportation agency for custom systems that needed to go into every passenger bus. We gave them a very reasonable bid. No special pricing, just normal "this is what it costs" pricing with normal profit margins. They ended-up giving the contract to someone who bid FIVE TIMES our bid. Why? Because the layers of people working at this agency are so ignorant that everything they do is designed to cover their collective asses. It isn't their money. They can't be fired. There are no consequences for them at all other than if something serious goes wrong. Even then, they probably won't lose their jobs. So they push the easy button (easy for them) and went with a contract that had all the "I will cover your ass 100%" elements they needed. So, we raise taxes and they spend five times more money than any reasonable buyer in the private sector would pay for exactly the same thing.
> I am also not willing to blame either the full price nor the whole exchange on 15$/h factory floor staff.
You are correct in that it isn't just one thing. At this point, it is thousands. Wages are a big deal though because they setup a chain reaction that ripples through the entire ecosystem. It isn't just a few people working for you that just cost more. As I explained above, this explodes through your entire wage scale. And, of course, it does the same for every single supplier and company you work for. The net effect is that the entire commercial/industrial ecosystem in the entire nation sees a step change in the cost of doing business. When they deal with each other, when the flour making company sells flour to the bakery, the cost will be higher and the baker, in turn, will have to charge more or make less, and so on. Making less is not sustainable. It leads to the destruction of businesses and industries.
What we have is a complex multivariate problem. At the most basic level we need a serious shift in culture and policies. We need to be more pro-business, pro-oil, pro-entrepreneurship than ever. The clean future with equality and a solid social net we all want cannot happen with oil at $100+ per barrel, an anti-business ideology and our schools teaching Marxism and Socialism rather than graduating rabid entrepreneurs full of solid skills right out of high school. None of what I am saying is ideological in nature. I want 300 million electric cars in the US. I've done the math. I've taken the time to analyze this and understand what it will take. The shit people like AOC is pushing for will not get us there. That's ideological fantasy land. In the real world, we need to do almost the opposite of what we are being fed day after day.
I challenge anyone to show me that we can actually achieve a clean energy future with oil at over $100 per barrel. No hand-wavy stuff. Math and physics. Numbers. They don't lie and they don't do ideology.
For example: What does it cost to build a solar power plant that will produce output equivalent to a 1 GW nuclear power plant? How much land will it consume? How much steel, concrete and other key materials? What will it cost to transport all of the materials and elements needed? How much fuel/oil will it require to manufacture all the pieces, transport them, and do the construction? How much will it cost to maintain and service this plant over a period of fifty years? How much waste will it generate? How will it affect the environment (for example, wildlife)? Etc. Real analysis, not "solar is pink unicorns and bubble gum". Once you look at these realities with honesty and start to pull back the layers, the inevitable conclusion is that we have allowed our politicians to destroy our nation from the inside-out. And for what purpose? All I can think of is that their optimization function is only focused on keeping their jobs and retiring with a solid pension and benefits. Their equation does not include consequences for any of their actions.
This is not a simple problem.
More like the business culture is in serious need of recalibration.
At the same time, some of it is easy to understand. Manufacturing is hard, for most, unimaginably hard. The sad reality in the US is that, because of costs and the layers of bullshit you have to deal with, the easiest way to survive is to focus on high dollar/high margin markets. That means that if you can land jobs in aerospace or government contracts you can be set. You might bring in other work on a very selective basis, yet, for the most part, your "meat and potatoes" has to be --by necessity-- the low volume/high margin stuff.
Going back to the sales folks. When your job is to bring in just a few deals per year and, more importantly, keep the customers you have, you are not going to kill yourself for every opportunity put on your desk. Sales people in the US are generally compensated in a mercenary fashion (something I have never liked). You get to make some baseline and then get paid on some percentage of what you land. This does not make for a sales person who actually cares about every single potential customer. In the long run they will, very naturally, optimize for their own ROI.
So, it can't be boiled down to "bad salespeople". There's a lot more to it than that. At this point thousands of elements working together to make it almost impossible to compete. Simple example: Stupid-as-fuck oil and policy that makes it so fuel and oil derivative products (oils, lubricants, plastics, etc.) cost more. So trucking your materials to your factory to make something cost more. Now we force a doubling of the minimum wage. Innocent enough, right? Well, the guy making $10 is now making $15. The folks making $15 now demand $20 (after all, they are not minimum wage workers). And so on up the entire wage scale. Your COGS goes up and your customers are not going to spend one additional dime for your products unless there is no other option. And this is where China comes in and is able to force such low pricing that your ONLY available option is to move all of your manufacturing to China and come in with a new price model and lower margins. In a lot of cases this will eventually lead to going out of business.
> an obsession with extracting profit
The only people who use phrases like this one are those who have never started and operated a non-trivial business. I don't know any successful business who's driving force is an obsession with "extracting profit". That term in particular, "extracting profit", is linked to Marxist indoctrination --which, in the US, is being delivered constantly by our universities by professors who have also never had to survive in the real world. In short, sorry, this is complete horseshit. Entrepreneurs and the companies they build are driven by wanting to delivery great products.
Profit is a necessity for growth and survival. I thought people were also going to learn this from the pandemic. Companies need cash to survive all kinds of issues that come up on a daily basis in the course of doing business. Once again, those who have never had to face these realities simply don't understand and refuse to listen, sometimes due to being in the grips of a truly astounding level of indoctrination.
I had an incident about 15 years ago when a multi-billion dollar company we were buying key sole-source components from discontinued these components virtually overnight and without prior notice. This cost us about a million dollars in real cash as well as about a year's worth of an engineering effort to design a product line based on these components. If we had not generated enough profit from our activities to survive such a hit everyone would have lost their jobs almost instantly. Instead, because we had the cash to weather the storm, we were able to regroup, invest and take a few months to redesign every single product around new components we could actually get.
Your views of business are as wrong as thinking that gravity pulls in the opposite direction. And yet I can't blame you for it, because it is obvious to anyone with business experience that you don't have the benefit of that experience. My suggestion would be to try to make something at a reasonable scale and learn from it. I and when you do, statements like "an obsession with extracting profit" will make your blood boil.
> inefficient work practices
Not so. In the US you have to be efficient or you won't survive. What we are competing with is obsessed with being efficient. The only companies in the US who can afford serious inefficiencies are those who do government/military work. This is where we waste more money than anyone can imagine getting work done for ten times the cost.
We have problems everywhere. This is what I am talking about when I say we need a major cultural shift. We have politicians constantly talking about raising taxes, as if we work for them. No! The conversation should be about ALWAYS lowering taxes and lowering costs. This means being more efficient at everything. Our national goal should be to half our expenditures and get more for our money. Not double our taxes and costs and support ever-growing bureaucracies. This isn't a formula for long term success. This is a formula for long term disasters.
I have sold product into various government agencies, from local transportation agencies to branches of the military. I left that world because it was simply disgusting to see just how much money we are burning for nothing at all.
I remember one case where we were bidding for a contract with a local public transportation agency for custom systems that needed to go into every passenger bus. We gave them a very reasonable bid. No special pricing, just normal "this is what it costs" pricing with normal profit margins. They ended-up giving the contract to someone who bid FIVE TIMES our bid. Why? Because the layers of people working at this agency are so ignorant that everything they do is designed to cover their collective asses. It isn't their money. They can't be fired. There are no consequences for them at all other than if something serious goes wrong. Even then, they probably won't lose their jobs. So they push the easy button (easy for them) and went with a contract that had all the "I will cover your ass 100%" elements they needed. So, we raise taxes and they spend five times more money than any reasonable buyer in the private sector would pay for exactly the same thing.
> I am also not willing to blame either the full price nor the whole exchange on 15$/h factory floor staff.
You are correct in that it isn't just one thing. At this point, it is thousands. Wages are a big deal though because they setup a chain reaction that ripples through the entire ecosystem. It isn't just a few people working for you that just cost more. As I explained above, this explodes through your entire wage scale. And, of course, it does the same for every single supplier and company you work for. The net effect is that the entire commercial/industrial ecosystem in the entire nation sees a step change in the cost of doing business. When they deal with each other, when the flour making company sells flour to the bakery, the cost will be higher and the baker, in turn, will have to charge more or make less, and so on. Making less is not sustainable. It leads to the destruction of businesses and industries.
What we have is a complex multivariate problem. At the most basic level we need a serious shift in culture and policies. We need to be more pro-business, pro-oil, pro-entrepreneurship than ever. The clean future with equality and a solid social net we all want cannot happen with oil at $100+ per barrel, an anti-business ideology and our schools teaching Marxism and Socialism rather than graduating rabid entrepreneurs full of solid skills right out of high school. None of what I am saying is ideological in nature. I want 300 million electric cars in the US. I've done the math. I've taken the time to analyze this and understand what it will take. The shit people like AOC is pushing for will not get us there. That's ideological fantasy land. In the real world, we need to do almost the opposite of what we are being fed day after day.
I challenge anyone to show me that we can actually achieve a clean energy future with oil at over $100 per barrel. No hand-wavy stuff. Math and physics. Numbers. They don't lie and they don't do ideology.
For example: What does it cost to build a solar power plant that will produce output equivalent to a 1 GW nuclear power plant? How much land will it consume? How much steel, concrete and other key materials? What will it cost to transport all of the materials and elements needed? How much fuel/oil will it require to manufacture all the pieces, transport them, and do the construction? How much will it cost to maintain and service this plant over a period of fifty years? How much waste will it generate? How will it affect the environment (for example, wildlife)? Etc. Real analysis, not "solar is pink unicorns and bubble gum". Once you look at these realities with honesty and start to pull back the layers, the inevitable conclusion is that we have allowed our politicians to destroy our nation from the inside-out. And for what purpose? All I can think of is that their optimization function is only focused on keeping their jobs and retiring with a solid pension and benefits. Their equation does not include consequences for any of their actions.
This is not a simple problem.
I would think that the higher oil goes, the more incentive there is for clean energy. Here's a guy who actually formed a company based on that premise.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...
> I would think that the higher oil goes, the more incentive there is for clean energy.
Sure? Yet that misses my point entirely.
We all want clean energy. We all want electric cars. Even those who say they don't eventually will.
How do we get there?
We need to double our power generation capacity and seriously upgrade the grid, our ability to deliver power, in order to support this desirable future.
Just for a sense of scale: That means building a full duplicate of our entire power generation and delivery system. It's like having to provide power for two nations, both the size of the US.
That means we need to go from 1200 GW to about 2400 GW.
To state the obvious: We cannot transition to electric transportation with the power we produce today. No way. It isn't enough. It's about half of what we need.
How do we make it happen?
Well, without getting into specific technologies we know one thing that cannot be disputed:
The solution will require massive construction projects across every state, city and town in this nation for probably somewhere in the range of 25 years. This is an endeavor of an almost unimaginable scale from our current context. We lack the leadership, regulatory freedom, culture and maybe even resources to do it.
The cost of construction at this scale is dominated by one variable: The cost of oil. Every piece of machinery used to grade, dig and reshape terrain runs on oil. Every truck, crane, hoist, van, pickup, big rig and car used in these projects runs on oil. The materials required are made with the use of oil and derivatives, from lubricants to fuels. Everything depends on oil. Even the very cables used to transport energy at scale depend on oil for their manufacture.
If oil is expensive, we will will never be able to afford the cost of transforming our infrastructure to fully embrace "clean" energy. In quotes because it isn't really as clean as people imagine it as being.
If you want solar power plants the size of states, you need cheap oil to build them or you are not going to get there.
That's why I say we need $20/barrel oil if we want to realize a clean energy future. The two are very much connected at the hip. In the long term, at scale, you cannot have one without another. No utility grade solar farm has been built without using a massive number of barrels of oils, from manufacturing every single component in China and elsewhere to moving all the materials by cargo ship, train, big rigs and local delivery trucks...and then all the construction equipment you need to run after you receive the materials.
So. Want a clean energy future? You need to lobby your representatives to push down the cost of oil as low as it will go. Or you will not get what you want. We don't have enough money to approach such a transition at a national scale.
China, on the other hand, does and likely will. What is bound to happen is that China will leapfrog everyone in transitioning to nuclear and solar --all paid by us-- and the US and Europe will simply not be able to afford transitioning at the same rate, if ever. The cost of oil will continue to increase. With every increase our ability to afford it will deteriorate more and more. We can't approach massive projects with gasoline at $7 per gallon. I don't even want to imagine what happens if it goes much higher.
Sure? Yet that misses my point entirely.
We all want clean energy. We all want electric cars. Even those who say they don't eventually will.
How do we get there?
We need to double our power generation capacity and seriously upgrade the grid, our ability to deliver power, in order to support this desirable future.
Just for a sense of scale: That means building a full duplicate of our entire power generation and delivery system. It's like having to provide power for two nations, both the size of the US.
That means we need to go from 1200 GW to about 2400 GW.
To state the obvious: We cannot transition to electric transportation with the power we produce today. No way. It isn't enough. It's about half of what we need.
How do we make it happen?
Well, without getting into specific technologies we know one thing that cannot be disputed:
The solution will require massive construction projects across every state, city and town in this nation for probably somewhere in the range of 25 years. This is an endeavor of an almost unimaginable scale from our current context. We lack the leadership, regulatory freedom, culture and maybe even resources to do it.
The cost of construction at this scale is dominated by one variable: The cost of oil. Every piece of machinery used to grade, dig and reshape terrain runs on oil. Every truck, crane, hoist, van, pickup, big rig and car used in these projects runs on oil. The materials required are made with the use of oil and derivatives, from lubricants to fuels. Everything depends on oil. Even the very cables used to transport energy at scale depend on oil for their manufacture.
If oil is expensive, we will will never be able to afford the cost of transforming our infrastructure to fully embrace "clean" energy. In quotes because it isn't really as clean as people imagine it as being.
If you want solar power plants the size of states, you need cheap oil to build them or you are not going to get there.
That's why I say we need $20/barrel oil if we want to realize a clean energy future. The two are very much connected at the hip. In the long term, at scale, you cannot have one without another. No utility grade solar farm has been built without using a massive number of barrels of oils, from manufacturing every single component in China and elsewhere to moving all the materials by cargo ship, train, big rigs and local delivery trucks...and then all the construction equipment you need to run after you receive the materials.
So. Want a clean energy future? You need to lobby your representatives to push down the cost of oil as low as it will go. Or you will not get what you want. We don't have enough money to approach such a transition at a national scale.
China, on the other hand, does and likely will. What is bound to happen is that China will leapfrog everyone in transitioning to nuclear and solar --all paid by us-- and the US and Europe will simply not be able to afford transitioning at the same rate, if ever. The cost of oil will continue to increase. With every increase our ability to afford it will deteriorate more and more. We can't approach massive projects with gasoline at $7 per gallon. I don't even want to imagine what happens if it goes much higher.
So you didn't take a look at the link? The scarcity of oil is built into Handmer's business model. I'm not sold on it myself, but the guy is clearly quite bright and willing to quit his job in software to try it out.
We are talking from very different perspectives - not just extremely different life experiences from every possible point of view, but also thinking of different kinds of companies.
I'm sure many of your arguments do apply to small-to-medium companies in manufacturing-like companies.
But if you're thinking a company like Facebook or Disney or Electronic Arts or Bank of America operates on a fear of going bankrupt, you really have a skewed perspective. These are all examples of massive and massively inefficient corporate behemoths that have so much cash that they could coast for months or years on 0 revenue if it ever came to it. They are also companies that won't leave one cent on the table if they can think about a way of getting that cent, regardless of what effects it might have on reputation, the wider economy etc. Banks and many other financial institutions will simply not be allowed by the government to fail, as has been seen in the 2008 crisis. Other huge companies are given massive amounts of free money by the government in the forms of subsidies but (often ignored) diplomatic and even military support for remote operations - infamously in the case of the banana wars. Companies like Walmart are given huge bonuses by the government in the form of financial support for most of their rank-and-file employees (food stamps, medicaid), who couldn't otherwise survive on the wages they earn through their hard work.
> Entrepreneurs and the companies they build are driven by wanting to delivery great products.
Maybe at the startup level. A lot of companies and executives are driven by pure profit, expressed in several ways (growth, shareholder value). Again, the creative industries have a very visible record of massive companies buying smaller operations who used to create products their artists and staff could be proud of and making them churn endless re-hashes with ever more aggressive monetization. Companies in the food business are infamous for putting out the worse quality food they are allowed to sell, and cutting as many corners as they can to make an extra buck (such as Olive Garden boiling pasta without salt so that they can buy cookware more rarely).
And all of this nickle-and-diming is a great source of inefficiency - "being penny wise and pound foolish". Companies are burning out their workers and the good will of their customers in a race to show growth today, tomorrow be damned. Disney is currently busy churning out superhero movie after superhero movie, even though the public and the creatives behind these movies are already showing signs of not caring any more - which will hurt Marvel massively after the craze is over.
Another huge source of inefficiency in American corporate culture is the self-importance and outright classist superiority of many American mid-to-high level execs. Execs who want to make a name of themselves and strong-arm the organization into making something they can call their own, regardless of how many people below them tell them it won't work, is quite endemic in American business culture - "I am a successful entrepreneur, of course I know better than these engineers/sales people, who have never had skin in the game / are not hungry for success".
I have seen this kind of attitude (and the failures it brings) very directly in my own work: the head of a former startup my company had acquired, convinced he knew best. Gathered most architects at a summit about the future of one of our products, and when he didn't like the direction, decided to design it himself entirely ignoring the summit's conclusions. 3 years of hard work by some of the most talented people in the company he could put together later, the product flopped tremendously, and all the work that went into this direction was thrown away. With him gone, we are now implementing more or less the direction presented in the summit, and not only building a successful product we can be proud of, but also putting together infrastructure that many of our other products can rely on, just as the architects saw a need for all those years ago.
Of course, another (more direct) form of inefficiency that is endemic in some American companies: huge amounts of managers. Layers and layers of management, teams with one manager for 3 people, a clear directive that managers ALWAYS be payed more than the employees they manage. Managers who often have so little to do that they start inventing problems to solve, coming up with cringey team building exercises, "motivational" posters that would make the soviet era ideological comissars in my ex-communist country proud, enforcing workplace rules that no one cares about, policing employee time with ever more expensive solutions and other things that (a) cost money and (b) demotivate people, reducing their productivity.
And again, if you think this only happens in government or government-leaching companies, you are, I am sorry, extremely naive. It's as true in Google as it is in IBM as it is in GE or wherever you look. It is simply a huge part of traditional US business culture, and few companies get away from it. And, of course, it is not unique to the USA.
I'm sure many of your arguments do apply to small-to-medium companies in manufacturing-like companies.
But if you're thinking a company like Facebook or Disney or Electronic Arts or Bank of America operates on a fear of going bankrupt, you really have a skewed perspective. These are all examples of massive and massively inefficient corporate behemoths that have so much cash that they could coast for months or years on 0 revenue if it ever came to it. They are also companies that won't leave one cent on the table if they can think about a way of getting that cent, regardless of what effects it might have on reputation, the wider economy etc. Banks and many other financial institutions will simply not be allowed by the government to fail, as has been seen in the 2008 crisis. Other huge companies are given massive amounts of free money by the government in the forms of subsidies but (often ignored) diplomatic and even military support for remote operations - infamously in the case of the banana wars. Companies like Walmart are given huge bonuses by the government in the form of financial support for most of their rank-and-file employees (food stamps, medicaid), who couldn't otherwise survive on the wages they earn through their hard work.
> Entrepreneurs and the companies they build are driven by wanting to delivery great products.
Maybe at the startup level. A lot of companies and executives are driven by pure profit, expressed in several ways (growth, shareholder value). Again, the creative industries have a very visible record of massive companies buying smaller operations who used to create products their artists and staff could be proud of and making them churn endless re-hashes with ever more aggressive monetization. Companies in the food business are infamous for putting out the worse quality food they are allowed to sell, and cutting as many corners as they can to make an extra buck (such as Olive Garden boiling pasta without salt so that they can buy cookware more rarely).
And all of this nickle-and-diming is a great source of inefficiency - "being penny wise and pound foolish". Companies are burning out their workers and the good will of their customers in a race to show growth today, tomorrow be damned. Disney is currently busy churning out superhero movie after superhero movie, even though the public and the creatives behind these movies are already showing signs of not caring any more - which will hurt Marvel massively after the craze is over.
Another huge source of inefficiency in American corporate culture is the self-importance and outright classist superiority of many American mid-to-high level execs. Execs who want to make a name of themselves and strong-arm the organization into making something they can call their own, regardless of how many people below them tell them it won't work, is quite endemic in American business culture - "I am a successful entrepreneur, of course I know better than these engineers/sales people, who have never had skin in the game / are not hungry for success".
I have seen this kind of attitude (and the failures it brings) very directly in my own work: the head of a former startup my company had acquired, convinced he knew best. Gathered most architects at a summit about the future of one of our products, and when he didn't like the direction, decided to design it himself entirely ignoring the summit's conclusions. 3 years of hard work by some of the most talented people in the company he could put together later, the product flopped tremendously, and all the work that went into this direction was thrown away. With him gone, we are now implementing more or less the direction presented in the summit, and not only building a successful product we can be proud of, but also putting together infrastructure that many of our other products can rely on, just as the architects saw a need for all those years ago.
Of course, another (more direct) form of inefficiency that is endemic in some American companies: huge amounts of managers. Layers and layers of management, teams with one manager for 3 people, a clear directive that managers ALWAYS be payed more than the employees they manage. Managers who often have so little to do that they start inventing problems to solve, coming up with cringey team building exercises, "motivational" posters that would make the soviet era ideological comissars in my ex-communist country proud, enforcing workplace rules that no one cares about, policing employee time with ever more expensive solutions and other things that (a) cost money and (b) demotivate people, reducing their productivity.
And again, if you think this only happens in government or government-leaching companies, you are, I am sorry, extremely naive. It's as true in Google as it is in IBM as it is in GE or wherever you look. It is simply a huge part of traditional US business culture, and few companies get away from it. And, of course, it is not unique to the USA.
Much, if not all, of what you say in this post is absolutely true. The difference, in my view, and what tends to make me react negatively, is making a blanket statement that all business is driven by profit. The picture you paint in this comment if far more balanced that that because you cover specific types of businesses and make distinctions. I think you understand that, just like people are different, businesses are different.
Many decades ago I bought a surface mount assembly line (equipment) from this guy who made a living selling high quality electronics manufacturing equipment. He had just downsized from an operation with 50 employees an a huge warehouse to buying a house and smaller warehouse in the mountains (Big Bear, if you happen to know SoCal) and was very happy. His goal was to sell one or two systems per quarter and that was enough. He, at some point, decided a lifestyle business was what he needed at that stage in life. He told me that at that scale the focus on making enough profit to keep the organization going was so stressful that, after a couple of decades of that he had to simplify his life. So, yes, 50 people lost their jobs because he decided he was done focusing on profit at that scale and wanted to simplify his life.
I was a young entrepreneur and he was much older, so I guess he felt compelled to give me advice. One of the things he said that stuck in my head was "A business is like a living breathing organism with a mind of its own. You think you are in control. You are not. It tells you what you are going to do each and every day when you come to work. You can point in a general direction, but it is in control."
He went on to explain that, at nearly every scale, a focus on profit is necessary in order to achieve growth, maintain it, remain competitive and, at some point, keep everyone employed. I have personally experienced this to be true in the decades that followed that conversation.
From the outside it might seem like all someone focuses on is profits. What few people do is engage in a root cause analysis process in order to understand why --objectively-- someone might have to do this.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a manufacturing company in Arizona. In this conversation he made a comment about how annoying it was that the COO was always pounding the table to save costs on all items and designs all the time. He thought the guy was somewhere between insane and just plain greedy to make his bonus on the backs of everyone else.
I said, OK, this will be fun. It's a small company (about 20 people) in a well defined market. Let's analyze it.
We got on a zoom call, I fired-up Excel and we developed a quick financial model for this company over the next 45 minutes or so. That's when he finally realized this guy wasn't being greedy at all. He saw things like, the impact of adding dollars to the cost of goods could mean not being able to support R&D, or not being able to hire people and grow, having to lay people off, etc.
We modeled real-world events to the extent possible in such a simple analysis. For example, container shipping from China in the last couple of years, went from $2000 to $20000 or more (round numbers). The cost of fuel doubled. Many product categories went up as much as 25% due to international trade tariffs. These inputs chain-reaction through the entire supply chain and affect the costs of other products. The company that makes packaging, boxes, for you is paying more for everything, so your packaging becomes more expensive. Etc. If your profit is razor thin you cannot survive such events.
In short, while from the outside focusing on profit might look like the entire purpose of the enterprise. The reality is that, if you want to deliver good products or services, remain competitive, grow, keep people employed, etc. you are forced to maximize profit to the extent possible or none of that can happen.
From the outside it looks like the motivation is inverted: Profit as the driver. From the inside it is exactly the opposite: If I want to make great products and remain viable for a long time, I have no choice but to deliver great products but also maximize profit. If I don't the business will eventually fail.
Are there people who only care about money? Of course. Then again, you could say that about every single person with a 401K and a Roth IRA. We all maximize for profit. Not because profit is our overriding objective. Profit is necessary in order to be able to realize our actual objectives.
BTW, I have about ten years of experience in the media industry. I was CTO at a startup run by a guy who had been the president of Universal Pictures for a dozen years or so. The best way I can describe it is: A combination of YouTube and Netflix. The startup was way too early. Streaming costs were simply unreasonable. The business model simply did not work. And, yes, this guy ran the thing purely on ego...right into the ground. I did meet and work with some of the most famous stars, directors and other folks in Hollywood though. It was a ride, that's for sure.
Many decades ago I bought a surface mount assembly line (equipment) from this guy who made a living selling high quality electronics manufacturing equipment. He had just downsized from an operation with 50 employees an a huge warehouse to buying a house and smaller warehouse in the mountains (Big Bear, if you happen to know SoCal) and was very happy. His goal was to sell one or two systems per quarter and that was enough. He, at some point, decided a lifestyle business was what he needed at that stage in life. He told me that at that scale the focus on making enough profit to keep the organization going was so stressful that, after a couple of decades of that he had to simplify his life. So, yes, 50 people lost their jobs because he decided he was done focusing on profit at that scale and wanted to simplify his life.
I was a young entrepreneur and he was much older, so I guess he felt compelled to give me advice. One of the things he said that stuck in my head was "A business is like a living breathing organism with a mind of its own. You think you are in control. You are not. It tells you what you are going to do each and every day when you come to work. You can point in a general direction, but it is in control."
He went on to explain that, at nearly every scale, a focus on profit is necessary in order to achieve growth, maintain it, remain competitive and, at some point, keep everyone employed. I have personally experienced this to be true in the decades that followed that conversation.
From the outside it might seem like all someone focuses on is profits. What few people do is engage in a root cause analysis process in order to understand why --objectively-- someone might have to do this.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a manufacturing company in Arizona. In this conversation he made a comment about how annoying it was that the COO was always pounding the table to save costs on all items and designs all the time. He thought the guy was somewhere between insane and just plain greedy to make his bonus on the backs of everyone else.
I said, OK, this will be fun. It's a small company (about 20 people) in a well defined market. Let's analyze it.
We got on a zoom call, I fired-up Excel and we developed a quick financial model for this company over the next 45 minutes or so. That's when he finally realized this guy wasn't being greedy at all. He saw things like, the impact of adding dollars to the cost of goods could mean not being able to support R&D, or not being able to hire people and grow, having to lay people off, etc.
We modeled real-world events to the extent possible in such a simple analysis. For example, container shipping from China in the last couple of years, went from $2000 to $20000 or more (round numbers). The cost of fuel doubled. Many product categories went up as much as 25% due to international trade tariffs. These inputs chain-reaction through the entire supply chain and affect the costs of other products. The company that makes packaging, boxes, for you is paying more for everything, so your packaging becomes more expensive. Etc. If your profit is razor thin you cannot survive such events.
In short, while from the outside focusing on profit might look like the entire purpose of the enterprise. The reality is that, if you want to deliver good products or services, remain competitive, grow, keep people employed, etc. you are forced to maximize profit to the extent possible or none of that can happen.
From the outside it looks like the motivation is inverted: Profit as the driver. From the inside it is exactly the opposite: If I want to make great products and remain viable for a long time, I have no choice but to deliver great products but also maximize profit. If I don't the business will eventually fail.
Are there people who only care about money? Of course. Then again, you could say that about every single person with a 401K and a Roth IRA. We all maximize for profit. Not because profit is our overriding objective. Profit is necessary in order to be able to realize our actual objectives.
BTW, I have about ten years of experience in the media industry. I was CTO at a startup run by a guy who had been the president of Universal Pictures for a dozen years or so. The best way I can describe it is: A combination of YouTube and Netflix. The startup was way too early. Streaming costs were simply unreasonable. The business model simply did not work. And, yes, this guy ran the thing purely on ego...right into the ground. I did meet and work with some of the most famous stars, directors and other folks in Hollywood though. It was a ride, that's for sure.
I'll add this real quick:
A decade later I found myself having to face hiring sales people for my business. I had, up to that point, done that job myself but it was seriously getting in the way of my need to focus on engineering.
There is nothing that focuses your mind on the importance of profit than the agony that it can be to find and hire competent sales people. I sought advice from other business owners at the time. Took people out to lunch/dinner to have this conversation. I cannot remember a single person rolling their eyes and then telling me horror stories when I opened with: How do you hire good sales people?
I experienced months of financial and emotional pain as I hired and paid sales people seriously good salaries and they did not even deliver enough sales to cover their own salaries, much less provide for the other employees. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars --burned, really-- on them. It was brutal.
This is why one of my favorite quotes is:
"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" -Mark Twain
This is so true. Nothing focuses the mind better than grabbing on to that tail and not letting go. Entrepreneurship, business, is brutal in this way. It can be almost impossible to understand from the outside. It can even be impossible to understand from the inside. The engineer and warehouse worker are not generally aware of what it takes to hold on to that tail and what the business has to produce in order for them to have a job.
How much profit does a company have to make in order to be able to hire someone making x? Say x = $100K.
$100K profit? No. That formula is not sustainable.
$200K? Maybe. It depends on the nature of the business.
Restaurant, maybe. Web software engineering operation? Possibly. Hardware engineering/manufacturing operation? No way.
It is hard to nail this number down because it depends on the nature of the business, industry, etc. In a manufacturing business you need a tremendous amount of cash parked in a warehouse in the form of components, inventory, equipment, etc. If we are talking about a web SaaS, the costs structure is different and varies significantly with scale. Netflix vs. a dating app, for example. In other words, this question can only be answered with the benefit of context.
It could very well be that a company has to be able to produce a million dollars in profit in order to justify hiring someone for $150K (which, after benefits and other costs, actually means about $200K. Few people understand this reality when they get a paycheck. I can see how, without this insight, it could look like the guy focusing on making that million in profits can look like a greedy bastard to the guy who costs the company $200K. I can see how it could look almost criminal to someone looking at it without any context at all from the outside.
You have to hold the cat by the tail to understand.
A decade later I found myself having to face hiring sales people for my business. I had, up to that point, done that job myself but it was seriously getting in the way of my need to focus on engineering.
There is nothing that focuses your mind on the importance of profit than the agony that it can be to find and hire competent sales people. I sought advice from other business owners at the time. Took people out to lunch/dinner to have this conversation. I cannot remember a single person rolling their eyes and then telling me horror stories when I opened with: How do you hire good sales people?
I experienced months of financial and emotional pain as I hired and paid sales people seriously good salaries and they did not even deliver enough sales to cover their own salaries, much less provide for the other employees. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars --burned, really-- on them. It was brutal.
This is why one of my favorite quotes is:
"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" -Mark Twain
This is so true. Nothing focuses the mind better than grabbing on to that tail and not letting go. Entrepreneurship, business, is brutal in this way. It can be almost impossible to understand from the outside. It can even be impossible to understand from the inside. The engineer and warehouse worker are not generally aware of what it takes to hold on to that tail and what the business has to produce in order for them to have a job.
How much profit does a company have to make in order to be able to hire someone making x? Say x = $100K.
$100K profit? No. That formula is not sustainable.
$200K? Maybe. It depends on the nature of the business.
Restaurant, maybe. Web software engineering operation? Possibly. Hardware engineering/manufacturing operation? No way.
It is hard to nail this number down because it depends on the nature of the business, industry, etc. In a manufacturing business you need a tremendous amount of cash parked in a warehouse in the form of components, inventory, equipment, etc. If we are talking about a web SaaS, the costs structure is different and varies significantly with scale. Netflix vs. a dating app, for example. In other words, this question can only be answered with the benefit of context.
It could very well be that a company has to be able to produce a million dollars in profit in order to justify hiring someone for $150K (which, after benefits and other costs, actually means about $200K. Few people understand this reality when they get a paycheck. I can see how, without this insight, it could look like the guy focusing on making that million in profits can look like a greedy bastard to the guy who costs the company $200K. I can see how it could look almost criminal to someone looking at it without any context at all from the outside.
You have to hold the cat by the tail to understand.
> When a company had hundreds of millions of dollars in dead-weight over head for years and years, sooner or later, there will be consequences. This is like fundamental laws of physics that cannot be violated.
Most large companies have massive amounts of dividends being siphoned off from the workers who created the wealth, to heirs who are stockholders. Talk about dead weight.
Most large companies have massive amounts of dividends being siphoned off from the workers who created the wealth, to heirs who are stockholders. Talk about dead weight.
Paying employees is just another cost, paying shareholders (which happens to include me) is the purpose of a corporation.
I buy food at the market price; keeping me alive doesn’t mean the supermarket deserves 100% of my pay. I sell skilled work at the market price; why would I deserve 100% of anything? I’m even leveraging the shareholders’ huge investment and earning far more than I would by myself or in a co-op.
I buy food at the market price; keeping me alive doesn’t mean the supermarket deserves 100% of my pay. I sell skilled work at the market price; why would I deserve 100% of anything? I’m even leveraging the shareholders’ huge investment and earning far more than I would by myself or in a co-op.
funny how paying for employees is an impossible burden, yet paying for stock buybacks or the excesses of the C-suite isn't
[deleted]
Is this an April fool’s joke?
The fact they spend millions to prevent workers from unionize proves that workers must unionize.
Everyone loves unions, somehow they overlook the outrageous power of police unions to keep terrible people in their ranks. Also Union actions against nonunion jobs are borderline criminal most of the time.
Public sector unions are a different beast.
The economic argument for unions is that they provide a counterweight towards corporate monopoly powers. But in a public setting, the opposition are voters and taxpayers.
We as voters can say we want schools to re-open or police to be held accountable for their actions, and they can collectively bargain against our wishes. So, by their nature public sector unions are vaguely anti-democratic.
The economic argument for unions is that they provide a counterweight towards corporate monopoly powers. But in a public setting, the opposition are voters and taxpayers.
We as voters can say we want schools to re-open or police to be held accountable for their actions, and they can collectively bargain against our wishes. So, by their nature public sector unions are vaguely anti-democratic.
> So, by their nature public sector unions are vaguely anti-democratic.
Consider that the public sector unions can donate to the political campaigns of the politicians they are at the bargaining table with and it becomes a little less vague.
Consider that the public sector unions can donate to the political campaigns of the politicians they are at the bargaining table with and it becomes a little less vague.
In my opinion, the big problem is that police unions have a clear goal: protect their members and advocate for their interests, like most unions. The people on the other side are much more ambivalent and don't really care what happens; it's the faceless appointed bureaucracy spending taxpayer money, insulated from accountability.
This causes issues in a situation like serious misconduct, where it's entirely reasonable to fire the individual. However, a union will have strong grounds to make sure those policies are enforced fairly - and they simply aren't, it'll be allowed to slide if it isn't in the headlines. The problem isn't that it happened, it's that it ended up in the news!
As for whether it's because police management is all former union, they're just collecting a paycheck, or what - I'm not sure. But where you see the power of police unions, I see the incompetence of police management. If that's intractable, I do agree that police unions are bad because there's no opposition.
In comparison, a big company typically maintains a single goal - to make money. There will be exceptions of course, but as a whole, it's a coherent goal and things will be done at all levels to support it. There are the same sorts of issues with minor misconduct, since it's irrelevant to making money, but big issues are typically bad for business and thus there is strong motivation to enforce rules like "don't choke people" or "don't steal stuff".
This causes issues in a situation like serious misconduct, where it's entirely reasonable to fire the individual. However, a union will have strong grounds to make sure those policies are enforced fairly - and they simply aren't, it'll be allowed to slide if it isn't in the headlines. The problem isn't that it happened, it's that it ended up in the news!
As for whether it's because police management is all former union, they're just collecting a paycheck, or what - I'm not sure. But where you see the power of police unions, I see the incompetence of police management. If that's intractable, I do agree that police unions are bad because there's no opposition.
In comparison, a big company typically maintains a single goal - to make money. There will be exceptions of course, but as a whole, it's a coherent goal and things will be done at all levels to support it. There are the same sorts of issues with minor misconduct, since it's irrelevant to making money, but big issues are typically bad for business and thus there is strong motivation to enforce rules like "don't choke people" or "don't steal stuff".
More generally unions can be one-sided in a sense.
They try to make up for the lack of responsibility of corporations towards their workers, which is important (keeps them in check), but then there is the issue of bureaucratic bloat and power concentration within unions (organizers, lawyers etc.) so they can become detached from the actual workers and their trade. At the same time there are highly skilled workers with high work ethic who benefit less from unions than their peers.
In my opinion a an ideal union is organized bottom up. Lawyers and organizers are there to support union workers and most importantly don't create a hierarchical structure where all negotiations happen at the top. Secondly a union should strive for the highest quality and work ethic among their workers. One should be proud to be part of one and have values and principles to strive for.
They try to make up for the lack of responsibility of corporations towards their workers, which is important (keeps them in check), but then there is the issue of bureaucratic bloat and power concentration within unions (organizers, lawyers etc.) so they can become detached from the actual workers and their trade. At the same time there are highly skilled workers with high work ethic who benefit less from unions than their peers.
In my opinion a an ideal union is organized bottom up. Lawyers and organizers are there to support union workers and most importantly don't create a hierarchical structure where all negotiations happen at the top. Secondly a union should strive for the highest quality and work ethic among their workers. One should be proud to be part of one and have values and principles to strive for.
> they overlook the outrageous power of police unions to keep terrible people in their ranks
No, this is exactly what police unions should be doing. My problem is when elected officials and judges kiss their asses and defer to them on the subjects of public safety and civil rights.
I'm stunned by how much weight public officials and journalists give to the opinions of police about the causes of crime, the motivations of the people who commit them, and the punishments that criminals deserve. Who cares what they think about the justice system? Tell me about hitting people with sticks, directing traffic, or leaving the military with no real job prospects.
But aside from that, police are often underpaid and overworked, have to deal with workplace safety and harassment, not given anonymous channels to complain, etc. just like everybody who works. They need unions to fight for those things. Police unions are awful and racist because the police are awful and racist. The union should be working for them, not for racial justice. If you want police unions to be less racist, hire fewer racist police, and don't demand that they operate in a racist manner.
When I hear people complain about public unions, I hear people that are disapproving of unions when they're the ones in the position of employer. It's basically being pro-union except for the one at the business you own, who are clearly just outside agitators with an evil agenda making trouble and trying to destroy your family.
It's common, though. Center-left media outlets hate unions in their newsrooms as much as they love unions at e.g. Amazon.
No, this is exactly what police unions should be doing. My problem is when elected officials and judges kiss their asses and defer to them on the subjects of public safety and civil rights.
I'm stunned by how much weight public officials and journalists give to the opinions of police about the causes of crime, the motivations of the people who commit them, and the punishments that criminals deserve. Who cares what they think about the justice system? Tell me about hitting people with sticks, directing traffic, or leaving the military with no real job prospects.
But aside from that, police are often underpaid and overworked, have to deal with workplace safety and harassment, not given anonymous channels to complain, etc. just like everybody who works. They need unions to fight for those things. Police unions are awful and racist because the police are awful and racist. The union should be working for them, not for racial justice. If you want police unions to be less racist, hire fewer racist police, and don't demand that they operate in a racist manner.
When I hear people complain about public unions, I hear people that are disapproving of unions when they're the ones in the position of employer. It's basically being pro-union except for the one at the business you own, who are clearly just outside agitators with an evil agenda making trouble and trying to destroy your family.
It's common, though. Center-left media outlets hate unions in their newsrooms as much as they love unions at e.g. Amazon.
>Everyone loves unions, somehow they overlook the outrageous power of police unions to keep terrible people in their ranks.
Unions represent their members' interests, that's the entire point of unions. It says more about the entire profession of policing (i.e. that there are so many terrible officers that the not-terrible ones can't do anything about them) than it does about unions, to be honest.
Unions represent their members' interests, that's the entire point of unions. It says more about the entire profession of policing (i.e. that there are so many terrible officers that the not-terrible ones can't do anything about them) than it does about unions, to be honest.
How would you purpose that the not-terrible officers do something about the terrible officers? What should the great and inspiring teachers do about the bad teachers?
The union's members could agree to set appropriate boundaries, e.g. not defending staff who break the law.
There are two unions representing metro train drivers in London, and I have little respect for RMT since they've gone on strike to defend a driver who was sacked for turning up drunk to work[1]. The other union (ASLEF) seems more reasonable.
When an issue is important to both unions (e.g. pay for nighttime services) they wield considerable power. If only RMT strike, there's significant disruption but trains still run.
[1] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/februa... / https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/london-under...
There are two unions representing metro train drivers in London, and I have little respect for RMT since they've gone on strike to defend a driver who was sacked for turning up drunk to work[1]. The other union (ASLEF) seems more reasonable.
When an issue is important to both unions (e.g. pay for nighttime services) they wield considerable power. If only RMT strike, there's significant disruption but trains still run.
[1] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/februa... / https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/london-under...
Marginalize them? Give them the unimportant tasks and classes. Put them in positions that limit harm.
Assigning tasks and classes is the job of management, not the fellow union workers. Often, management is not allowed to be in the union as that would be a conflict of interest.
I would argue private company unions are fundamentally different from public unions like police and teachers whose roles are guaranteed by law.
I am surprised you say this. Both in my social bubble and all over online forums like reddit I see attitudes like "unions are good, except for police unions which need to be destroyed".
Don't forget the pervasive corruption and theft from those union bosses too.
I didn't want to bloat it, but yes this is what comes naturally from such a powerful position and has effectively no oversight from Democratic governments
> they overlook the outrageous power of police unions
It's hard to argue they don't serve their members' interests - admittedly to the detriment of the rest of society. Given a choice, who wouldn't like a 500lb gorilla like that in their own corner?
It's hard to argue they don't serve their members' interests - admittedly to the detriment of the rest of society. Given a choice, who wouldn't like a 500lb gorilla like that in their own corner?
okay this is amazing. but wtf is this sentence?
"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
The NY Times prides itself on its 5th grade reading level.
The problem is that it’s worded in a confusing way, not that it’s “dumbed-down” for a general audience.
[deleted]
Trash talk the Times however you see fit and I'll probably back you up on it (they are laughably liberally/"progressive"ly biased, and continuing to run cover for the current administration as best they can despite it not really working as per the polls), their writing standards are, in my opinion, impeccable and a standout among news organizations, but I suppose not everyone can be perfect always.
I was joking, of course. I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with their writing standards — but its fun to poke fun! We all make mistakes!
Sentence, long
David Foster Wallace loved to repeat the object (edit: or subject, depending on usage) after "which" practically every time he employed that word, which technique is usually overkill, but in this case writing it "[...] which company many union leaders regard [...]" would have helped a lot.
is there a name for this grammatical construction? it's one of my favorites in English but I have no idea what it's called. I also wonder if younger readers nowadays would even be familiar with it unless they enjoy reading older literature, as I almost never see it in modern writing.
Lemme see if Garner's Modern English Usage names it...
Well, for one thing, the section on "which" begins: "This word, used immoderately, is possibly responsible for more bad sentences than any other in the language" :-)
Ah, it refers me to a more relevant section for this construction, "Remote Relatives". Checking that.
"Antecedent" and "relative clause" are relevant terms, meaning the word to which "which" refers, and the clause containing "which", respectively, but I can't find a name for specifying the antecedent after "which", in this text. Actually, on a skim, I didn't even see that presented as an option.
[EDIT] Incidentally, it appears the Times usage is correct, anyway, if still ill-advised—the antecedent should be the closest possible candidate before the relative clause, so "[...] Amazon, which [...]" is correct.
Well, for one thing, the section on "which" begins: "This word, used immoderately, is possibly responsible for more bad sentences than any other in the language" :-)
Ah, it refers me to a more relevant section for this construction, "Remote Relatives". Checking that.
"Antecedent" and "relative clause" are relevant terms, meaning the word to which "which" refers, and the clause containing "which", respectively, but I can't find a name for specifying the antecedent after "which", in this text. Actually, on a skim, I didn't even see that presented as an option.
[EDIT] Incidentally, it appears the Times usage is correct, anyway, if still ill-advised—the antecedent should be the closest possible candidate before the relative clause, so "[...] Amazon, which [...]" is correct.
I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be suggesting:
"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which Amazon many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
But that's absolutely terrible, so you must be suggesting something else.
"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which Amazon many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
But that's absolutely terrible, so you must be suggesting something else.
> "[...] which company many union leaders regard [...]"
Ergo:
No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which company many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them
[EDIT] I also intentionally used the construction in my original post: "[...] which technique is usually overkill [...]". The usage there, unlike in the Times sentence, was actually necessary since the antecedent was too far removed. The original Times sentence was correct, but splitting it up or specifying the antecedent would remove the possibility of a reader being confused by thinking the Times writer wasn't, correctly, using "which" to refer to the closest antecedent ("Amazon") but instead to something earlier in the first clause ("first win").
On looking closer, I think it's the construction of that first clause that makes the "which" read like it might have been employed incorrectly, when it was (technically, kind of) not. "first win in the United States at Amazon". The "at" makes "Amazon" seem heavily dependent on "first win in the United States", so it still looks like "which" might point at "first win", not "Amazon".
Ergo:
No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which company many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them
[EDIT] I also intentionally used the construction in my original post: "[...] which technique is usually overkill [...]". The usage there, unlike in the Times sentence, was actually necessary since the antecedent was too far removed. The original Times sentence was correct, but splitting it up or specifying the antecedent would remove the possibility of a reader being confused by thinking the Times writer wasn't, correctly, using "which" to refer to the closest antecedent ("Amazon") but instead to something earlier in the first clause ("first win").
On looking closer, I think it's the construction of that first clause that makes the "which" read like it might have been employed incorrectly, when it was (technically, kind of) not. "first win in the United States at Amazon". The "at" makes "Amazon" seem heavily dependent on "first win in the United States", so it still looks like "which" might point at "first win", not "Amazon".
That's obviously what you wrote, so I don't know why I replaced "company" with "Amazon" in my head. That's definitely better. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for not biting my head off where I deserved it.
Of course, minor misreading doesn't deserve a head-biting-off! Happens to everyone. And you weren't a dick about it, anyway, so it wasn't a big deal.
That's a textbook run-on sentence.
I don't think its a run-on at all, let alone a text book one.
It should be broken into two sentences
Original: "No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
Sentence 1: No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon.
Sentence 2: Many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/run...
Original: "No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
Sentence 1: No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon.
Sentence 2: Many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/run...
"Run-on" has an actual textbook definition. This sentence is very long and clunky, and should probably be broken into two sentences for readability, but it's not a run-on.
To illustrate, this would be a run-on:
No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.
To illustrate, this would be a run-on:
No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.
Pretty sure OP is confused by the concept of "first win" being the object of the first clause. It feels clunky if you don't read your English like you would read algebra.
It's definitely not. People have just gotten used to very short and simple sentences, these days. Some would call a high percentage of all sentences written before, I dunno, 1970, run-on sentences, plus a good deal of the writing in contemporary but non-general-audience publications.
It's not a run-on, which by definition has two or more independent clauses in the same sentence that are not separated by either (1) punctuation such as a semicolon, colon, or em dash, or (2) a comma plus a coordinating conjunction. The first clause is independent (i.e. it can stand alone as a complete sentence), while the second clause is relative.
Then you'd do great writing for the Times.
What seems to be the problem?
I assume it's because you could read it as: the union leaders view this big union victory as an existential threat to labor standards.
(When instead they view Amazon as the existential threat)
(When instead they view Amazon as the existential threat)
I disagree that any reasonable person could read it that way. It's totally impossible to come to that conclusion with the context of the article. Even out of context, it makes no sense that union leaders would feel a union victory is an existential threat to labor standards.
There are multiple things in the first part of the sentence that "which" could denote. "Amazon" is what's intended. You could fix this by breaking up the sentence, or by specifying what you mean after "which" ("which company").
They're trying to sneak in an opinion that they're ascribing to "many union leaders" for the sake of their narrative, but they couldn't find anyone who actually said it like that. The NYT do it so often and obviously that it must be in the style guide.
Not said by the NYT: "[Amazon is] an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
The previous was actually said by Mr. Many U. Leaders who I can't locate a phone number for.
Not said by the NYT: "[Amazon is] an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."
The previous was actually said by Mr. Many U. Leaders who I can't locate a phone number for.
They Don't Think It Be Like It Is, But It Do
That's someone who doesn't want to use short sentences, and an editor who wants to watch the world burn.
Elements of Style says to place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause.
It's a feel good sentence. Both pro-union and anti-union people can agree with it.
[deleted]
copy editor fell asleep
That sentence is fine
Unions are the most useful when you're dealing with monopolies. Where there is fierce competition in an industry, most workers probably feel that unions are not needed, as they can get a better paying job by switching companies within the same industry whenever they like.
So I wonder if the recent rise in union interest is a symptom of the fact that in the U.S. a lot of industries have been monopolized or oligopolized, and the union option is starting to look increasingly more appealing every year.
So I wonder if the recent rise in union interest is a symptom of the fact that in the U.S. a lot of industries have been monopolized or oligopolized, and the union option is starting to look increasingly more appealing every year.
> as they can get a better paying job by switching companies within the same industry whenever they like.
There's definitely a lot of truth to this, but I think it's also important to note that switching costs for jobs can be very high for employees. People can have deep social ties with coworkers, there is no guarantee that the new job is better so the risk of ending up in a worse position (with possibly burned bridges) has to be factored in. In places where the job market is limited, it can mean moving, which can be very difficult.
Even in non-monopolistic areas, employment is very far from an efficient market.
There's definitely a lot of truth to this, but I think it's also important to note that switching costs for jobs can be very high for employees. People can have deep social ties with coworkers, there is no guarantee that the new job is better so the risk of ending up in a worse position (with possibly burned bridges) has to be factored in. In places where the job market is limited, it can mean moving, which can be very difficult.
Even in non-monopolistic areas, employment is very far from an efficient market.
>as they can get a better paying job by switching companies within the same industry whenever they like.
Most workers are people without college degrees who can't even go a month without a paycheck or afford to move out of pocket.
I don't think many Americans even have any direct concept of what unionization is like, because a lot of them have barely ever been part of organized labour in their lifetime, and their only experience with it is a barrage of negative info put out by Amazon or Musk.
Most workers are people without college degrees who can't even go a month without a paycheck or afford to move out of pocket.
I don't think many Americans even have any direct concept of what unionization is like, because a lot of them have barely ever been part of organized labour in their lifetime, and their only experience with it is a barrage of negative info put out by Amazon or Musk.
Yes, but there is a second requirement for unions (in the US, anyway), which is that they have to have a tight enough labor market to have negotiating leverage. Otherwise, the company just closes the factory/store/warehouse/whatever, and moves it elsewhere. Amazon, in 2022, would appear to satisfy both requirements.
This is the fundamental flaw with unions in the United States. In other countries, if a company retaliates against their employee union then all the other unions will refuse to do business with that company. The point of unions, which no one in America gets, is that the union should be directly involved in business decisions. So as soon as there is a union, those employees have to allow that plant to close. Management just doesn't get to run around doing as they please. That's the whole fucking point.
I'm not interested in being part of a union if the only points of negotiation are pay/hours/benefits. I want a say over profitability overall. Who we do business with and how. What products we offer, and why. And how we service and treat our customers. Google employees banding together to prevent the company from entering certain lines of businesses, for instance. That is progress.
I'm not interested in being part of a union if the only points of negotiation are pay/hours/benefits. I want a say over profitability overall. Who we do business with and how. What products we offer, and why. And how we service and treat our customers. Google employees banding together to prevent the company from entering certain lines of businesses, for instance. That is progress.
> Where there is fierce competition in an industry, most workers probably feel that unions are not needed, as they can get a better paying job by switching companies within the same industry whenever they like.
Unless the biggest players in the industry are colluding against them as was the case with Google, Apple, Adobe, and Intel: https://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsu...
Unless the biggest players in the industry are colluding against them as was the case with Google, Apple, Adobe, and Intel: https://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsu...
> So I wonder if the recent rise in union interest is a symptom of the fact that in the U.S. a lot of industries have been monopolized or oligopolized, and the union option is starting to look increasingly more appealing every year.
Don't many EU countries have strong unions? Does that imply the industries in those countries are monopolized or oligoplized?
Don't many EU countries have strong unions? Does that imply the industries in those countries are monopolized or oligoplized?
When Cloudflare Workers unionize, that will be world first ;)
[on Staten Island]
We've reverted to the article title now, in keeping with the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Submitted title was "Amazon workers vote to unionize in stunning win for organized labor". NYT is known to change headlines so that may not have been the submitter's doing.
Submitted title was "Amazon workers vote to unionize in stunning win for organized labor". NYT is known to change headlines so that may not have been the submitter's doing.
It's great that people are standing up against the abusive power of big companies.
When will Apple (App Store) developers unionize?
When will Apple (App Store) developers unionize?
Why should developers unionize? I love not being in a union. If my company starts dicking me around I'll quit and find another job.
Besides, if I do something so bad my boss wants to fire me, fine then I'll go work somewhere where people want me. I don't want to have to bring in my union rep to argue about it since going somewhere else means losing my tenure and taking a 30% pay cut.
The only time unions make sense is when you're doing labor that could be done by anyone and your bus factor is basically infinite. It doesn't make sense for skilled labor
Besides, if I do something so bad my boss wants to fire me, fine then I'll go work somewhere where people want me. I don't want to have to bring in my union rep to argue about it since going somewhere else means losing my tenure and taking a 30% pay cut.
The only time unions make sense is when you're doing labor that could be done by anyone and your bus factor is basically infinite. It doesn't make sense for skilled labor
> Why should developers unionize? I love not being in a union. If my company starts dicking me around I'll quit and find another job.
Why does the former preclude the latter?
> Besides, if I do something so bad my boss wants to fire me, fine then I'll go work somewhere where people want me.
What if you didn't do _anything_ and your boss wants to fire you so badly? What if your boss fired you over Zoom randomly without any recourse?
> The only time unions make sense is when you're doing labor that could be done by anyone and your bus factor is basically infinite.
I disagree with this point. A union makes sense for anyone that is working for a wage. It makes sense to me to work together for all of our benefit rather than me to try to go up against those that pay my wage alone.
Put it another way, I do not think that I can argue well enough to get the actual value that I produce back in my pocket and would love if we all banded together and said "We deserve this much of the value we produce" instead.
Why does the former preclude the latter?
> Besides, if I do something so bad my boss wants to fire me, fine then I'll go work somewhere where people want me.
What if you didn't do _anything_ and your boss wants to fire you so badly? What if your boss fired you over Zoom randomly without any recourse?
> The only time unions make sense is when you're doing labor that could be done by anyone and your bus factor is basically infinite.
I disagree with this point. A union makes sense for anyone that is working for a wage. It makes sense to me to work together for all of our benefit rather than me to try to go up against those that pay my wage alone.
Put it another way, I do not think that I can argue well enough to get the actual value that I produce back in my pocket and would love if we all banded together and said "We deserve this much of the value we produce" instead.
I’m a SWE at a FAANG company and hell no I don’t want a union. I busted my ass to get here and I’m compensated for it. I want my destiny in my control. Not some other large entity that probably doesn’t have my best interests at heart.
> What if your boss fired you over Zoom randomly without any recourse?
They can do that even with a union. The difference with a union is that they can collectively stop working if the employer violated a clause like "union members must be fired with reasoning pre-approved by the union", and then the employer either needs to find new employees for every person that was in the union or needs to re-negotiate terms with the union, likely including reparations ie. re-hiring the coworker.
A union makes sense for anyone that is working for a wage but that doesn't mean people have to want to be in one. Adding a union adds a bunch of extra politics and brainpower to the advent of getting your job done, and that's not for everyone.
They can do that even with a union. The difference with a union is that they can collectively stop working if the employer violated a clause like "union members must be fired with reasoning pre-approved by the union", and then the employer either needs to find new employees for every person that was in the union or needs to re-negotiate terms with the union, likely including reparations ie. re-hiring the coworker.
A union makes sense for anyone that is working for a wage but that doesn't mean people have to want to be in one. Adding a union adds a bunch of extra politics and brainpower to the advent of getting your job done, and that's not for everyone.
>They can do that even with a union. The difference with a union is that they can collectively stop working if the employer violated a clause like "union members must be fired with reasoning pre-approved by the union", and then the employer either needs to find new employees for every person that was in the union or needs to re-negotiate terms with the union, likely including reparations ie. re-hiring the coworker.
But that potential response by the union should be enough of an incentive that casually firing somebody over Zoom for no reason is removed from the employer's SOP.
But that potential response by the union should be enough of an incentive that casually firing somebody over Zoom for no reason is removed from the employer's SOP.
> What if you didn't do _anything_ and your boss wants to fire you so badly? What if your boss fired you over Zoom randomly without any recourse?
The same as what GP said "If my company starts dicking me around I'll quit and find another job". If I'm no longer wanted at my job, I'll find another one.
The same as what GP said "If my company starts dicking me around I'll quit and find another job". If I'm no longer wanted at my job, I'll find another one.
That's just blatantly false, unions absolutely make sense for skilled labor. This isn't to say tech workers should unionize, but teachers, public defenders, subway engineers, high skill building trades, skilled workers in film are all unionized.
Unions provide a ton of value if you're a skilled worker who does something comparable to gig work, jumping from jobsite to jobsite where the Union helps them keep their health insurance. It also helps when your job also has other political implications.
The context tech workers should unionize would be in an instance where they job hopped even more often than is currently the case, and also potentially on teams where you become just so specialized that switching companies becomes difficult.
Unions provide a ton of value if you're a skilled worker who does something comparable to gig work, jumping from jobsite to jobsite where the Union helps them keep their health insurance. It also helps when your job also has other political implications.
The context tech workers should unionize would be in an instance where they job hopped even more often than is currently the case, and also potentially on teams where you become just so specialized that switching companies becomes difficult.
The irony is that the highest paid jobs in the US (apart from c-level management, but you could argue they are a union themselves, because they all know each other) are highly unionized, sports and acting.
[deleted]
You shouldn't be forced to join a union but joining a union should not be an issue for any company.
In practice, creating unions is heavily frowned upon and discouraged through various underhanded means.
That should tell you that companies view unions as enemies, and collective bargaining in general.
And companies for sure don't have your interests in mind. Also for sure you don't have the negotiating power they have.
In practice, creating unions is heavily frowned upon and discouraged through various underhanded means.
That should tell you that companies view unions as enemies, and collective bargaining in general.
And companies for sure don't have your interests in mind. Also for sure you don't have the negotiating power they have.
Not arguing against all unions here, but I think saying all companies don't have our interests in mind is a bit hyperbolic. Many software engineers and product managers at places like Alphabet and Meta are treated extremely well, make great salaries in the bay area, and (at least pre pandemic) were catered to with many great benefits (including catering). There are some jobs/places where this isn't the case, but many silicon valley developers have a fairly symbiotic relationship with their employers.
As incredibly inflated as developer salaries might seem - these companies make insane profits because developers create a lot more value than they cost. Companies never have your best interests in mind, small companies can act altruistically on small scales, but altruism is one of the first things that companies optimize away (beyond the level that earns them good PR). All those nice "free" benefits exist to make the employer more attractive to new employees, if you are a loyal employee no longer able to work productively due to an accident or other life changes you'll be exposed to just how much companies care about you. Silicon Valley has so much money that they can go pretty extravagant with benefits and perks, but (excepting again small/new companies that are living on VC funding) companies do care first about their bottom line.
And, to be clear, I'm not actually saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I personally believe that social services should be at the grace of the government and not your employer - but this system relies on people on both sides of the fence (employee and employer) realizing that their employment is a contract that is to the benefit of the company and if their contract ceases to be beneficial it will be terminated. Being unaware of this fact will lead you to grief - it's on you to make sure you're getting a fair share for your value (which might, just FYI, include diverting a lot of your value creation to warehouse workers and the like who you think deserve a higher standard of living)
And, to be clear, I'm not actually saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I personally believe that social services should be at the grace of the government and not your employer - but this system relies on people on both sides of the fence (employee and employer) realizing that their employment is a contract that is to the benefit of the company and if their contract ceases to be beneficial it will be terminated. Being unaware of this fact will lead you to grief - it's on you to make sure you're getting a fair share for your value (which might, just FYI, include diverting a lot of your value creation to warehouse workers and the like who you think deserve a higher standard of living)
> Alphabet
The Company Formerly Known As Google, that literally had to settle (i.e. paid money to not lose the trial) for collusion to depress employee wages?
That company? Yeah, employee interests at heart <3
> Meta
For employees I hear The Company Formerly Knows as Facebook is actually quite good. But they're not a charity.
> were catered to with many great benefits (including catering)
Those benefits are cheap when bought in bulk, like corporations do. They also encouraged employees to stay more at work. Yes, they're nice, but let's not pretend that those benefits were not chosen very strategically.
Both Google and Facebook are making a ton of money and still growing like gangbusters (Facebook somewhat less so). Once their growth plateaus, if they need to fire 10k employees each to increase profits and share values, they will do so without remorse. Probably on a Zoom call with all 10k employees at once.
The Company Formerly Known As Google, that literally had to settle (i.e. paid money to not lose the trial) for collusion to depress employee wages?
That company? Yeah, employee interests at heart <3
> Meta
For employees I hear The Company Formerly Knows as Facebook is actually quite good. But they're not a charity.
> were catered to with many great benefits (including catering)
Those benefits are cheap when bought in bulk, like corporations do. They also encouraged employees to stay more at work. Yes, they're nice, but let's not pretend that those benefits were not chosen very strategically.
Both Google and Facebook are making a ton of money and still growing like gangbusters (Facebook somewhat less so). Once their growth plateaus, if they need to fire 10k employees each to increase profits and share values, they will do so without remorse. Probably on a Zoom call with all 10k employees at once.
Isn’t getting caught and settling some evidence that the system works to some extent?
I know what the benefits are for, and while there are some good side-effects for the company, a lot of them are genuinely good for the employees as well. I had enough massage credits, Covid cue tests, and time spent in great gyms to attest to that. If they can be bought in bulk, all the more reason I appreciate it being someone’s job at the company to manage that.
I’m not saying these companies are your best pal and will look out for you against their own interests, but I personally don’t feel like I need or want a union between me and my employer. I don’t fault anyone for wanting one, but the hyperbole and passing opinions as facts on the other side, especially without considering the downsides of unions, isn’t doing anything to convince me.
I know what the benefits are for, and while there are some good side-effects for the company, a lot of them are genuinely good for the employees as well. I had enough massage credits, Covid cue tests, and time spent in great gyms to attest to that. If they can be bought in bulk, all the more reason I appreciate it being someone’s job at the company to manage that.
I’m not saying these companies are your best pal and will look out for you against their own interests, but I personally don’t feel like I need or want a union between me and my employer. I don’t fault anyone for wanting one, but the hyperbole and passing opinions as facts on the other side, especially without considering the downsides of unions, isn’t doing anything to convince me.
> Isn’t getting caught and settling some evidence that the system works to some extent?
What kind of broken logic is this?
Getting caught is precisely proof that the LEGAL system works, and that companies try to and succeed in abusing it.
Those companies agreed to those illegal practices in 2006, if not earlier, and they had to pay those settlements in 2015, 9 full years later.
They probably made out like bandits during those 9 years and saved a ton more money than they had to pay.
And regarding your negotiating skills, most of us think we're better than we actually are.
Plus, this is a social thing. Let's assume you're part of the 1%. What do we do about the 99%? Do we just piss on their heads from a great height, "f** you, got mine"-style, pardon my French?
Unions should be a valid option.
What kind of broken logic is this?
Getting caught is precisely proof that the LEGAL system works, and that companies try to and succeed in abusing it.
Those companies agreed to those illegal practices in 2006, if not earlier, and they had to pay those settlements in 2015, 9 full years later.
They probably made out like bandits during those 9 years and saved a ton more money than they had to pay.
And regarding your negotiating skills, most of us think we're better than we actually are.
Plus, this is a social thing. Let's assume you're part of the 1%. What do we do about the 99%? Do we just piss on their heads from a great height, "f** you, got mine"-style, pardon my French?
Unions should be a valid option.
As a developer myself, I'd rather be in a union before companies start collectively fucking developers over.
And I think it makes more sense to join a union preemptively, while things are in our favor, than to join a union in the future, possibly from a position of weakness.
The problem is, of course, every developer thinks they're a 10x rockstar who doesn't need a union.
And I think it makes more sense to join a union preemptively, while things are in our favor, than to join a union in the future, possibly from a position of weakness.
The problem is, of course, every developer thinks they're a 10x rockstar who doesn't need a union.
> The problem is, of course, every developer thinks they're a 10x rockstar who doesn't need a union.
Apple is a 10x rockstar company ...
Maybe 100x.
The days of the lone 10x programmer with a strategy that leads to guaranteed success are over.
Apple is a 10x rockstar company ...
Maybe 100x.
The days of the lone 10x programmer with a strategy that leads to guaranteed success are over.
Unionizing makes sense for people who…
* don’t want to have to switch jobs to address grievances
* can’t switch jobs because everywhere is shitty (eg actors guild).
* an industry has a monopoly on some local resource like forest for lumber or coal mines and so you can’t just start or join a competitor.
It’s not really about skilled labor, it’s about mobility and the market forces that prevent it.
* don’t want to have to switch jobs to address grievances
* can’t switch jobs because everywhere is shitty (eg actors guild).
* an industry has a monopoly on some local resource like forest for lumber or coal mines and so you can’t just start or join a competitor.
It’s not really about skilled labor, it’s about mobility and the market forces that prevent it.
Not only is your last paragraph incredibly elitist, but any labor is skilled labor. The difference is degree of skill.
A union does not prevent you from leaving your job for another employer. Why would you think that?
A union does not prevent you from leaving your job for another employer. Why would you think that?
> If my company starts dicking me around I'll quit and find another job.
I agree with this sentence - because of the current state of the job market, and the level of seniority I have attained. However, if you are entry or junior, or if the market changes (good times don't last forever), just working a 'skilled labor' job won't give you the job security we enjoy atm. In that case, looking for a new job would be much more daunting, and working on improving your current work conditions might be a much better option.
(edit - improve accuracy of which part of the statement I agree with)
I agree with this sentence - because of the current state of the job market, and the level of seniority I have attained. However, if you are entry or junior, or if the market changes (good times don't last forever), just working a 'skilled labor' job won't give you the job security we enjoy atm. In that case, looking for a new job would be much more daunting, and working on improving your current work conditions might be a much better option.
(edit - improve accuracy of which part of the statement I agree with)
> It doesn’t make sense for skilled labor.
I would consider professional athletes skilled and they have powerful unions.
Hollywood writers, actors, and directors are skilled an they all have unions/guilds.
I would consider professional athletes skilled and they have powerful unions.
Hollywood writers, actors, and directors are skilled an they all have unions/guilds.
That so many tech workers don't understand that is legit scary. It's illogical and counterproductive, so it strongly suggests a parasitic mind virus has taken root.
This is more akin to genius bar employees in Manhattan unionizing. Amazon developers are still not unionized.
Apple developers (assuming you mean app developers) are mostly self or small company employed. Unions exist to mediate the employee-employer interface, not the employer-third party one.
An alliance of employers against a third party is a cartel, which is substantially different legal proposition. (Said without intending the pejorative connotations of the word 'cartel')
An alliance of employers against a third party is a cartel, which is substantially different legal proposition. (Said without intending the pejorative connotations of the word 'cartel')
> When will Apple developers unionize?
Do you mean developers that Apple employs full-time, or third-party developers that publish on Apple's App Store?
Do you mean developers that Apple employs full-time, or third-party developers that publish on Apple's App Store?
Probably a good idea for both.
[deleted]
It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization.