Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-05/apple-s-anti-union-tactics-in-atlanta-were-illegal-us-officials-say
141 comments
https://archive.ph/ld0KF
> The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies.
So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.
So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.
I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies.
That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts, training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a whole.
Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)?
It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations.
Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.
Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)?
It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations.
Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.
Also, anti-poaching agreements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching :
> Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees
You mentioned "standard contracts".
I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs.
This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..."
So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective.
BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."
> Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees
You mentioned "standard contracts".
I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs.
This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..."
So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective.
BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."
Keep in mind that unions in Europe are not the same thing as US unions, despite the same name.
In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an employer. This competition keeps them working well.
In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the union is more interested in their goals, than yours.
In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an employer. This competition keeps them working well.
In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the union is more interested in their goals, than yours.
Can't confirm this for Germany - we usually have a single (dominant) union per trade or industry segment - e.g. Ver.di for the entire service sector. I think in this way, unions here are significantly more centralized than in the US.
Standard salary rates are usually negotiated by those dominant unions for the entire sector (though in the last decades, a lot of this stuff has been deregulated, so the salary rates have become less relevant today, except for state employees)
Employees are not required to join a union - however in every company above a certain size, they have the right to a work council. Unions can initiate an election for such a council even against the orders of the company's management. While the unions can enforce creation of work councils and usually offer ongoing support, the councils are generally independent and staffed by company employees.
See Ver.di vs Twitter for a current example where a work council is founded in opposition of management (text in german) : https://www.verdi.de/themen/recht-datenschutz/++co++43ec9312...
Standard salary rates are usually negotiated by those dominant unions for the entire sector (though in the last decades, a lot of this stuff has been deregulated, so the salary rates have become less relevant today, except for state employees)
Employees are not required to join a union - however in every company above a certain size, they have the right to a work council. Unions can initiate an election for such a council even against the orders of the company's management. While the unions can enforce creation of work councils and usually offer ongoing support, the councils are generally independent and staffed by company employees.
See Ver.di vs Twitter for a current example where a work council is founded in opposition of management (text in german) : https://www.verdi.de/themen/recht-datenschutz/++co++43ec9312...
That's not the case here in NL. There's sector unions which represent types of work (logistics, call centers, retail work) and each can negotiate for their members. It's not a shopping mall of orgs you cherry pick from.
Does each employer have a single union?
I noticed before you said "In the US it's a single union per employer".
In the US a company may have employees each in different unions.
Consider a Hollywood movie studio, where the writers, actors, stage workers, and truckers may all be in different unions.
The US unions are by trade, and I think that's what l3uwin also means for NL.
That said, multi-unionism is indeed more common in Europe, if my reading of Google Scholar is correct. Eg, "Multi-unionism and the Representation of Sectional Interests in British Workplaces" at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/104346311454631...
> Unlike in the United States, exclusive jurisdiction is exceptional in Europe (Visser, 1992), and unions commonly negotiate with employers simultaneously with other unions on the level of the sector as well as at the company level (Akkerman, 2008). The majority of the European Union member states have multiple labor union confederations, organizing members along political, religious, or occupational (status) lines (Eurofound, 2014). Even in the United Kingdom, Austria, Ireland, and Latvia— countries with just one union confederation—unaffiliated unions and union representation by several unions within the same confederation exist. Thus, multi-union bargaining is a common if not dominant feature of Western European industrial relations. Sometimes, these unions coordinate their bargaining activities, for instance, by setting joint wage demands and synchronizing the communication to their rank and file. Joining forces increases their bargaining power.
In the US a company may have employees each in different unions.
Consider a Hollywood movie studio, where the writers, actors, stage workers, and truckers may all be in different unions.
The US unions are by trade, and I think that's what l3uwin also means for NL.
That said, multi-unionism is indeed more common in Europe, if my reading of Google Scholar is correct. Eg, "Multi-unionism and the Representation of Sectional Interests in British Workplaces" at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/104346311454631...
> Unlike in the United States, exclusive jurisdiction is exceptional in Europe (Visser, 1992), and unions commonly negotiate with employers simultaneously with other unions on the level of the sector as well as at the company level (Akkerman, 2008). The majority of the European Union member states have multiple labor union confederations, organizing members along political, religious, or occupational (status) lines (Eurofound, 2014). Even in the United Kingdom, Austria, Ireland, and Latvia— countries with just one union confederation—unaffiliated unions and union representation by several unions within the same confederation exist. Thus, multi-union bargaining is a common if not dominant feature of Western European industrial relations. Sometimes, these unions coordinate their bargaining activities, for instance, by setting joint wage demands and synchronizing the communication to their rank and file. Joining forces increases their bargaining power.
Depends on the employer and how large/diverse the staff is.
As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.
Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union?
I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc.
The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.
I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc.
The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.
From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things:
1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high-level tech workers will never meet demand so they will simply be able to move to another company if needed without much friction.
2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company.
3) Many people also believe that both paying union dues, and a union negotiating for the "average" worker will lead to them making significantly less money. IE, say your company was split 75% junior/25% senior devs, and paid junior devs $75k and senior devs $300k. If the union put pressure on the employer to raise the minimum salary to $100k, then they believe that money will come out of the senior devs salaries (reducing it to ~$225k).
I can say in my experience, the first point is at least somewhat true right now (I had no issues moving to a more senior and better paid job after my last company sold out). I personally think the sentiment of point #2 is interesting; I generally don't view this as "protecting" those who should be fired, and more view it as a public defender ensuring everyone receives legal representation, even if they are clearly guilty.
I'd also just note that even I'm not blanket pro-union; Police unions are a prime example of what happens when unions consolidate too much power because they went decades without any pushback. I'd consider that an extreme outlier though.
1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high-level tech workers will never meet demand so they will simply be able to move to another company if needed without much friction.
2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company.
3) Many people also believe that both paying union dues, and a union negotiating for the "average" worker will lead to them making significantly less money. IE, say your company was split 75% junior/25% senior devs, and paid junior devs $75k and senior devs $300k. If the union put pressure on the employer to raise the minimum salary to $100k, then they believe that money will come out of the senior devs salaries (reducing it to ~$225k).
I can say in my experience, the first point is at least somewhat true right now (I had no issues moving to a more senior and better paid job after my last company sold out). I personally think the sentiment of point #2 is interesting; I generally don't view this as "protecting" those who should be fired, and more view it as a public defender ensuring everyone receives legal representation, even if they are clearly guilty.
I'd also just note that even I'm not blanket pro-union; Police unions are a prime example of what happens when unions consolidate too much power because they went decades without any pushback. I'd consider that an extreme outlier though.
>Police unions
Public unions seem to be a special case and, while I generally support unions, I can understand the perspective that public unions bring about specific problems.
E.g., a strong bargaining chip for a union is the right to strike. The idea that a public service can strike creates problems. As another example, I witnessed changes in competition and economics force auto unions to compromise for the business to remain solvent; in the public sphere there is not the same competitive pressure.
Public unions seem to be a special case and, while I generally support unions, I can understand the perspective that public unions bring about specific problems.
E.g., a strong bargaining chip for a union is the right to strike. The idea that a public service can strike creates problems. As another example, I witnessed changes in competition and economics force auto unions to compromise for the business to remain solvent; in the public sphere there is not the same competitive pressure.
Another reason police unions are entirely different, even from other public sector unions, is that the police are used to break strikes. They're structurally antagonistic to every other part of the labour movement.
This is right, but the national guard are often used as well. I alluded to these points in a comment below before noticing that you posted this first.
I would caveat it to say they are used to break illegal strikes, which I think is an important distinction. Their job is to uphold the law, regardless of the side that labor is aligned.
I would caveat it to say they are used to break illegal strikes, which I think is an important distinction. Their job is to uphold the law, regardless of the side that labor is aligned.
The main problem with the police union (in the US) is that they have been able to repeatedly stop officers who have done horrible things from being fired or even truly punished (paid leave is not punishment).
People often say "there should be a register of police offers nationwide that records officers who were terminated for cause, resigned in lieu of termination, etc."
And there is.
But in the very vast majority of police departments, the CBA with the police union prohibits the use of this register for hiring decisions.
And there is.
But in the very vast majority of police departments, the CBA with the police union prohibits the use of this register for hiring decisions.
>CBA with the police union prohibits the use of this register
Have they explicitly state why? It seems strange to the uninitiated that more information about the performance of the same job would be considered irrelevant.
Have they explicitly state why? It seems strange to the uninitiated that more information about the performance of the same job would be considered irrelevant.
I think the union's position is that the register doesn't "discriminate" against officers who were terminated in spite of the union's "disagreement" that it was justified, and those who the union represented but recognized that the termination was valid.
This is the same argument about unions protecting bad employees or low performers. It seems to be an underlying problem of organizational power and not a distinction between public/private unions.
The issues I was pointing out are somewhat different. For example, there are unique problems if a police force tries to strike. In the private sector, there is the opportunity for other organizations to fill that void due to competition within the market. There is no such mechanism for most public services, public unions may have disproportionate power.
The issues I was pointing out are somewhat different. For example, there are unique problems if a police force tries to strike. In the private sector, there is the opportunity for other organizations to fill that void due to competition within the market. There is no such mechanism for most public services, public unions may have disproportionate power.
Can you explain a check that prevents the same abuse from happening in other settings?
I'm always very wary of the arguments that somehow police are a special industry where unions are bad. I don't really see any logical reasoning put forth to support that. Just evidence on how things have gone. :(
I'm always very wary of the arguments that somehow police are a special industry where unions are bad. I don't really see any logical reasoning put forth to support that. Just evidence on how things have gone. :(
>are a special industry
Public services are a special industry (not unique to just police) so the dynamics of unions are different.
For one, many public services exist because they are critical to the functioning of society. You can tell this is fundamentally special case because the govt carves out special mechanisms to mitigate the risk (see the the current threat of a rail strike). Secondly, the government doesn't allow competition, so there is not the same solvency problem that a private union has to address. This second point exacerbates the first. A private police force can't just come in and out-compete the existing one to show that they can work better or more efficiently.
Public services are a special industry (not unique to just police) so the dynamics of unions are different.
For one, many public services exist because they are critical to the functioning of society. You can tell this is fundamentally special case because the govt carves out special mechanisms to mitigate the risk (see the the current threat of a rail strike). Secondly, the government doesn't allow competition, so there is not the same solvency problem that a private union has to address. This second point exacerbates the first. A private police force can't just come in and out-compete the existing one to show that they can work better or more efficiently.
This still feels like a bit of a stretch. In that I can almost certainly list reasons why a big industry in a city is critical to the functioning of said city. All the more true for all too many cities around here.
Again, the govt restricts the ability for those unions to do things like strike (existing rail union or previous air traffic controller unions as an example). The govt can also threaten nationalization which adds some leverage against either side holding the other hostage. I would argue that is harder to do when the govt is restricting itself. E.g., if the police go on strike, who is going to enforce it? Possible the national guard but that brings about a host of additional issues. Nationalization is no-factor because it's already nationalized. My main point is that these additional nuances make public unions create problems that don't have the same mitigating factors.
But a lot of those problems that you are painting for "public" unions seems to just be one of scale. If $BigCorp were to go on strike in a city, it would similarly cripple many of them.
Now, I grant that state sanctioned monopolies are special items. But the hand waving away of why "corruption" is somehow more likely to happen in unions for certain workforces, just feels off to me. So, back to my original question, why do you not think the same corruption can happen in other settings?
(Note... I hate that this can be seen as an anti-union argument. I am not really intending it as such. I do view all unions as a mini representational government with their own taxing mechanism in dues. As such, I view all unions as prone to corruption as all governments. )
Now, I grant that state sanctioned monopolies are special items. But the hand waving away of why "corruption" is somehow more likely to happen in unions for certain workforces, just feels off to me. So, back to my original question, why do you not think the same corruption can happen in other settings?
(Note... I hate that this can be seen as an anti-union argument. I am not really intending it as such. I do view all unions as a mini representational government with their own taxing mechanism in dues. As such, I view all unions as prone to corruption as all governments. )
Yes, many union problems are essentially problems of scale. However, a subset is unique to public sector unions. I feel like I addressed this distinction multiple times. Note, I'm not making a case that public unions are any more corrupt than private ones, just that they play by a different set of rules.
Consider a large corporation goes on strike, like a Boeing or Raytheon or a public utility, that is considered "essential" to public safety or national security. If the union isn't at least somewhat reasonable, it will cause the business to risk going under, or the govt to nationalize its property, or them to succumb to competition. It's a form of mutually assured destruction. This is exactly what happened to the automotive unions after the 2008 financial crises. They re-negotiated existing contracts to ensure the viability of the business. Many hourly rates were slashed to less than half of what they were just a year prior.
Contrast that to something like a police union. What is the backstop to prevent union demands from getting unreasonable? Essentially very little. We can't just stop having a police force. There's no competition to go hire the next contract with better terms. If the union knows they can't go under, their demands can get more extreme. Plus, they work with a captured market. A private business has to essentially woo customers to remain viable, public organizations have established clientele that have no other options and limited oversight compared to regulated monopolies in the private sector. It's also already been said multiple times that police are the very mechanism often used to break up strikes, so who prevents an illegal police strike? They are also well equipped so the threat of sanctioned violence by something like the national guard is not a good option. None of these issues are generalizable to private organizations of large scale. There's just less mitigation to keep public unions reasonable because public services are different in their application.
Consider a large corporation goes on strike, like a Boeing or Raytheon or a public utility, that is considered "essential" to public safety or national security. If the union isn't at least somewhat reasonable, it will cause the business to risk going under, or the govt to nationalize its property, or them to succumb to competition. It's a form of mutually assured destruction. This is exactly what happened to the automotive unions after the 2008 financial crises. They re-negotiated existing contracts to ensure the viability of the business. Many hourly rates were slashed to less than half of what they were just a year prior.
Contrast that to something like a police union. What is the backstop to prevent union demands from getting unreasonable? Essentially very little. We can't just stop having a police force. There's no competition to go hire the next contract with better terms. If the union knows they can't go under, their demands can get more extreme. Plus, they work with a captured market. A private business has to essentially woo customers to remain viable, public organizations have established clientele that have no other options and limited oversight compared to regulated monopolies in the private sector. It's also already been said multiple times that police are the very mechanism often used to break up strikes, so who prevents an illegal police strike? They are also well equipped so the threat of sanctioned violence by something like the national guard is not a good option. None of these issues are generalizable to private organizations of large scale. There's just less mitigation to keep public unions reasonable because public services are different in their application.
There are a lot of people here who see themselves as temporarily disenfranchised members of the ownership class, and so unions are a negative thing for them because some day they'll hit it big and be rewarded for their steadfast adherence to greed.
There are at least a few of us that view unions as just a smaller extra government entity, and would prefer we rather had stronger governments. To wit, I don't want folks dependent on their job. Period. And unions often do give workers better conditions, but only so long as they are workers.
That said, I typically fall on the pro-union side of most debates. Often is a better alternative than where we are.
That said, I typically fall on the pro-union side of most debates. Often is a better alternative than where we are.
It would be great if benefits unions are known for fighting for like health care was guaranteed by the government, but there's some things that a union closer to the workers, which is focused on one thing, can better fight for than the government, like standards for safety beyond OSHA, standards for scheduling, training, discipline, etc. If I understand what you're saying right.
If you think unions are a smaller extra government entity, how do you view Apple in that same lens? Likely, the unions have the least power in this triangle (besides individual employees not covered by a union), and Apple has more power than the government in some, but not all, respects.
If you think unions are a smaller extra government entity, how do you view Apple in that same lens? Likely, the unions have the least power in this triangle (besides individual employees not covered by a union), and Apple has more power than the government in some, but not all, respects.
I'm not clear what you mean "safety beyond OSHA." Training and such can feel better tailored to the company, I suppose?
I'm not sure what your point is on companies regarding smaller extra governments. I do think corporate power needs checks. My view is that that is best done by governments. I'm also game for training and other benefits, but I don't like them being tied to employment. Especially not a particular employment. Health care is a good example of how that goes wrong.
Unions are odd because they are setup as representative governments. Complete with elections and essentially taxation of the represented individuals in the form of dues. Note that I am explicitly not arguing against the dues, necessarily. I would instead argue that those should go to make the entire community stronger in the form of general taxes.
And again, with the current setup, I would likely fall fully on the "pro-union" side for most debates.
I'm not sure what your point is on companies regarding smaller extra governments. I do think corporate power needs checks. My view is that that is best done by governments. I'm also game for training and other benefits, but I don't like them being tied to employment. Especially not a particular employment. Health care is a good example of how that goes wrong.
Unions are odd because they are setup as representative governments. Complete with elections and essentially taxation of the represented individuals in the form of dues. Note that I am explicitly not arguing against the dues, necessarily. I would instead argue that those should go to make the entire community stronger in the form of general taxes.
And again, with the current setup, I would likely fall fully on the "pro-union" side for most debates.
>2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company.
This is not a "some people think" issue. This is a reality of running an organization like a union.
Literally every low barrier to entry organization from unions to political parties to organized religion to organized crime has to invest a significant amount of resources in giving a good chunk of its "dolts" a better deal than they could get anywhere else (even sometimes going to an extent that is not sustainable in order to advertise to other members how far the organization can/will go for you) because that ensures that those people will 100% go to bat for the organization. It is a necessary part of operations at scale.
This is not a "some people think" issue. This is a reality of running an organization like a union.
Literally every low barrier to entry organization from unions to political parties to organized religion to organized crime has to invest a significant amount of resources in giving a good chunk of its "dolts" a better deal than they could get anywhere else (even sometimes going to an extent that is not sustainable in order to advertise to other members how far the organization can/will go for you) because that ensures that those people will 100% go to bat for the organization. It is a necessary part of operations at scale.
This is especially true of teacher's unions, who have been openly hostile towards any meaningful way of measuring teacher performance, and have made it astronomically expensive to fire any teacher no matter how bad or incompetent. The world would be a much better place if teacher's unions didn't exist.
How do you measure teacher performance? Have you looked at the actual proposals? They're atrocious, as if education needed to be any more of a rat race of chasing idiotic """performance""" metrics.
If you read this book, there's a whole chapter dedicated to someone successfully coming up with a metric and validated it: https://www.amazon.com/Race-Bottom-Uncovering-Destroying-Edu...
The short answer is you measure student progress over time via standardized testing. Someone was able to obtain anonymized per-teacher data via FOIA request and verify that some teachers perform consistently and significantly better than others in terms of helping their students progress, and that this performance was stable across time and even when teachers moved to different schools. At one point, schools were required to provide this data until the law was successfully repealed at the behest of teacher's unions.
Teacher's unions pay mainly based on seniority, but this same data showed that, after about 5 years, teacher performance didn't really improve much. The unions also pay more for higher degrees, but there was no association found between higher degrees and teacher performance.
The book also discusses how different types of testing have been shown to be strong predictors of both future academic and professional success. You should not be so dismissive of objective numeric testing, whose results can be tracked and compared over time. No metric is perfect, but just about any metric beats that of the unions, who, in one area, had 99.8% of their teachers rated as "proficient". The union's metric is useless, and that is a feature for them, not a bug.
The short answer is you measure student progress over time via standardized testing. Someone was able to obtain anonymized per-teacher data via FOIA request and verify that some teachers perform consistently and significantly better than others in terms of helping their students progress, and that this performance was stable across time and even when teachers moved to different schools. At one point, schools were required to provide this data until the law was successfully repealed at the behest of teacher's unions.
Teacher's unions pay mainly based on seniority, but this same data showed that, after about 5 years, teacher performance didn't really improve much. The unions also pay more for higher degrees, but there was no association found between higher degrees and teacher performance.
The book also discusses how different types of testing have been shown to be strong predictors of both future academic and professional success. You should not be so dismissive of objective numeric testing, whose results can be tracked and compared over time. No metric is perfect, but just about any metric beats that of the unions, who, in one area, had 99.8% of their teachers rated as "proficient". The union's metric is useless, and that is a feature for them, not a bug.
If the grades given by unionized teachers is a better prediction of future academic and professional success than standardized tests, would you switch your support to unionized teachers over testing?
See, the thing is, high school GPA is a better predictor for academic success than standardized testing. Here are four quotes from the many relevant papers found through Google Scholar:
1) "Decomposing GPA: Why Is High School GPA the Best Single Predictor of First- Year GPA?" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey-Steedle/publica... :
> Research has consistently shown that high school grade-point average (HSGPA) is the best single predictor of academic outcomes in the first year of postsecondary education (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009). Given that HSGPA is not a standardized measure of academic achievement—and is not therefore perfectly comparable across students or high schools—it likely incorporates information about college readiness beyond academic knowledge and skills.
2) "Does the ACT Composite Score or High School Grade Point Average Provide a Better Prediction of Bachelor Degree Attainment?" https://scholarworks.harding.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
> Results indicated high school GPA to be a significant predictor of persistence to degree attainment while the ACT Composite score was not a significant predictor. Implications from this study suggest that admissions officers may want to emphasize a student's high school GPA in determining if the student will complete a bachelor's degree program.
3) "High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2090211...
> High school GPAs (HSGPAs) are often perceived to represent inconsistent levels of readiness for college across high schools, whereas test scores (e.g., ACT scores) are seen as comparable. This study tests those assumptions, examining variation across high schools of both HSGPAs and ACT scores as measures of academic readiness for college. We found students with the same HSGPA or the same ACT score graduate at very different rates based on which high school they attended. Yet, the relationship of HSGPAs with college graduation is strong and consistent and larger than school effects. In contrast, the relationship of ACT scores with college graduation is weak and smaller than high school effects, and the slope of the relationship varies by high schoolYou write "objective numeric testing", but tell me, what is the objective reason those tests tend to focus on math and short-form English comprehension? Why do they omit art appreciation, musical skills, physical education, essay writing, and other topics that students learn at school?
4) "What Matters Most for College Completion?" https://www.calstate.edu/apply/Documents/elevating-college-c...
> Both SAT or ACT scores and high school GPA are associated with the likelihood that students at four-year colleges earn a bachelor’s degree. But when considered together, the predictive power of high school GPA is much stronger. Figure 2 shows that, among students with similar SAT or ACT scores, those with higher high school GPAs are much more likely to graduate. But among students with similar high school GPAs, no strong relationship exists between SAT or ACT scores and graduation rates (except that those who score below 800 are noticeably less likely to complete college).
> This makes sense given that earning good grades requires consistent behaviors over time—showing up to class and participating, turning in assignments, taking quizzes, etc.—whereas students could in theory do well on a test even if they do not have the motivation and perseverance needed to achieve good grades. It seems likely that the kinds of habits high school grades capture are more relevant for success in college than a score from a single test.
> ... And the relatively weak predictive power of SAT or ACT scores vanishes entirely once the student’s high school is taken into account, suggesting that the test scores serve partly as a proxy for high school quality.
Sure, you can claim I'm cherry-picking. But the same holds for the book you pointed to. And given just how many papers there are which argue that GPA is more predictive than standardized scores, it's certainly nowhere near as clear-cut as you appear to believe.
Does this start to make you reconsider your opposition to unionized teachers now? If not, why not?
See, the thing is, high school GPA is a better predictor for academic success than standardized testing. Here are four quotes from the many relevant papers found through Google Scholar:
1) "Decomposing GPA: Why Is High School GPA the Best Single Predictor of First- Year GPA?" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey-Steedle/publica... :
> Research has consistently shown that high school grade-point average (HSGPA) is the best single predictor of academic outcomes in the first year of postsecondary education (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009). Given that HSGPA is not a standardized measure of academic achievement—and is not therefore perfectly comparable across students or high schools—it likely incorporates information about college readiness beyond academic knowledge and skills.
2) "Does the ACT Composite Score or High School Grade Point Average Provide a Better Prediction of Bachelor Degree Attainment?" https://scholarworks.harding.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
> Results indicated high school GPA to be a significant predictor of persistence to degree attainment while the ACT Composite score was not a significant predictor. Implications from this study suggest that admissions officers may want to emphasize a student's high school GPA in determining if the student will complete a bachelor's degree program.
3) "High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2090211...
> High school GPAs (HSGPAs) are often perceived to represent inconsistent levels of readiness for college across high schools, whereas test scores (e.g., ACT scores) are seen as comparable. This study tests those assumptions, examining variation across high schools of both HSGPAs and ACT scores as measures of academic readiness for college. We found students with the same HSGPA or the same ACT score graduate at very different rates based on which high school they attended. Yet, the relationship of HSGPAs with college graduation is strong and consistent and larger than school effects. In contrast, the relationship of ACT scores with college graduation is weak and smaller than high school effects, and the slope of the relationship varies by high schoolYou write "objective numeric testing", but tell me, what is the objective reason those tests tend to focus on math and short-form English comprehension? Why do they omit art appreciation, musical skills, physical education, essay writing, and other topics that students learn at school?
4) "What Matters Most for College Completion?" https://www.calstate.edu/apply/Documents/elevating-college-c...
> Both SAT or ACT scores and high school GPA are associated with the likelihood that students at four-year colleges earn a bachelor’s degree. But when considered together, the predictive power of high school GPA is much stronger. Figure 2 shows that, among students with similar SAT or ACT scores, those with higher high school GPAs are much more likely to graduate. But among students with similar high school GPAs, no strong relationship exists between SAT or ACT scores and graduation rates (except that those who score below 800 are noticeably less likely to complete college).
> This makes sense given that earning good grades requires consistent behaviors over time—showing up to class and participating, turning in assignments, taking quizzes, etc.—whereas students could in theory do well on a test even if they do not have the motivation and perseverance needed to achieve good grades. It seems likely that the kinds of habits high school grades capture are more relevant for success in college than a score from a single test.
> ... And the relatively weak predictive power of SAT or ACT scores vanishes entirely once the student’s high school is taken into account, suggesting that the test scores serve partly as a proxy for high school quality.
Sure, you can claim I'm cherry-picking. But the same holds for the book you pointed to. And given just how many papers there are which argue that GPA is more predictive than standardized scores, it's certainly nowhere near as clear-cut as you appear to believe.
Does this start to make you reconsider your opposition to unionized teachers now? If not, why not?
You're conflating things together and missing the plot. I was comparing the teacher evaluations given by teacher unions to the evaluations of teachers based on student improvement over time on standardized tests. You, on the other hand, changed the subject slightly, which is fine, but then you use the phrase "grades given by unionized teachers", which makes no sense. All the studies you cited talk GPAs in general. Whether the teachers doing the grading are unionized or not is not mentioned or relevant. If you're going to have a discussion, you should take care to use more careful language. It looks like you're trying to be deceiving in order to prop up teacher's unions.
I clicked on your first study and it doesn't even do any analysis on GPA as a predictor of future success relative to other standardized tests. In fact, it assumes this as true and then tries to explain why. It also looks like a low-quality paper published at conference without peer review.
I clicked on your second link. It's not peer reviewed. It only examines data from one university. It has a very small sample size. It has zero citations. It reaches conclusions that are contrary to existing literature. It does not look like it should be taken seriously.
I decided at this point to stop wasting my time. If your first two citations are so weak, I don't have much confidence in the others.
I clicked on your first study and it doesn't even do any analysis on GPA as a predictor of future success relative to other standardized tests. In fact, it assumes this as true and then tries to explain why. It also looks like a low-quality paper published at conference without peer review.
I clicked on your second link. It's not peer reviewed. It only examines data from one university. It has a very small sample size. It has zero citations. It reaches conclusions that are contrary to existing literature. It does not look like it should be taken seriously.
I decided at this point to stop wasting my time. If your first two citations are so weak, I don't have much confidence in the others.
> I was comparing the teacher evaluations given by teacher unions to the evaluations of teachers based on student improvement over time on standardized tests.
Wait. You were comparing the evaluations of teachers based on how teacher unions ranked them, compared to the evaluation of teachers based on the standardized test scores for their students?
How is that at all useful?
Why are teacher unions ranking teachers? How does that affect anything? How are standardized tests - which aren't designed as a measure of teacher effectiveness - at all relevant, and not full of noise?
We know methods like VAM (Value-Added Models) are extremely easy to misuse - so easy the American Statistical Association points how how it's difficult to apply them to ranking teacher effectiveness (see https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-ASAVAM-Statement.p... ). Why should I believe this book you cite - which seems to be written by a journalist and not a statistician - does a good job of it?
> then you use the phrase "grades given by unionized teachers", which makes no sense.
That's because I didn't understand what your argument was. The usual argument is "teachers unions mean teachers are bad at their jobs so we can't trust their judgement and GPA. Instead, we need to look to standardized tests." That's the argument I thought you were making.
> it doesn't even do any analysis on GPA as a predictor of future success relative to other standardized tests
No, it doesn't. It does give the citation: Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009 . But https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400831463... is behind a paywall.
If you want to argue that the summary of the citation I gave is a poor interpretation of the research, then go ahead. But then I can say that your summary of the book you read is also wrong.
A book which I also cannot read.
And which does not appear to be peer reviewed.
> It's not peer reviewed. It only examines data from one university.
Thing is, the second link also gives citations to other research.
] If standardized testing is not as reliable a measure of student success, as proposed by the researchers previously cited ... Hodara and Lewis (2017) concluded that HSGPA was a better predictor of college performance than standardized exam scores, especially for students who enter college within a year of completing high school.
These are not meant to be read in a vacuum, but as an indication that the certainty you state is far from established.
Wait. You were comparing the evaluations of teachers based on how teacher unions ranked them, compared to the evaluation of teachers based on the standardized test scores for their students?
How is that at all useful?
Why are teacher unions ranking teachers? How does that affect anything? How are standardized tests - which aren't designed as a measure of teacher effectiveness - at all relevant, and not full of noise?
We know methods like VAM (Value-Added Models) are extremely easy to misuse - so easy the American Statistical Association points how how it's difficult to apply them to ranking teacher effectiveness (see https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-ASAVAM-Statement.p... ). Why should I believe this book you cite - which seems to be written by a journalist and not a statistician - does a good job of it?
> then you use the phrase "grades given by unionized teachers", which makes no sense.
That's because I didn't understand what your argument was. The usual argument is "teachers unions mean teachers are bad at their jobs so we can't trust their judgement and GPA. Instead, we need to look to standardized tests." That's the argument I thought you were making.
> it doesn't even do any analysis on GPA as a predictor of future success relative to other standardized tests
No, it doesn't. It does give the citation: Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009 . But https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400831463... is behind a paywall.
If you want to argue that the summary of the citation I gave is a poor interpretation of the research, then go ahead. But then I can say that your summary of the book you read is also wrong.
A book which I also cannot read.
And which does not appear to be peer reviewed.
> It's not peer reviewed. It only examines data from one university.
Thing is, the second link also gives citations to other research.
] If standardized testing is not as reliable a measure of student success, as proposed by the researchers previously cited ... Hodara and Lewis (2017) concluded that HSGPA was a better predictor of college performance than standardized exam scores, especially for students who enter college within a year of completing high school.
These are not meant to be read in a vacuum, but as an indication that the certainty you state is far from established.
It seems like you're not at all understanding what I've been saying. The measure of teacher performance was based on student improvement over time on standardized tests. It is incredibly valuable to measure a teacher's capability in actually helping students learn and improve. After all, isn't that the sole purpose of teaching?
> That's because I didn't understand what your argument was. The usual argument is "teachers unions mean teachers are bad at their jobs so we can't trust their judgement and GPA. Instead, we need to look to standardized tests." That's the argument I thought you were making.
Yes, and we've also gone pretty far off-topic from what I was originally talking about at this point.
> No, it doesn't. It does give the citation:
Then why not lead with that citation and not the very weak conference paper that you chose to lead with?
Anyways, you may be right about GPA currently being a better predictor of academic success than the ACT. But, as this article explains: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/02/gpa-or-sat-two-measu...
"In an extended version of their essay, Kuncel and Sackett acknowledge that GPA is the best predictor of student success, but they add: “Even better prediction is obtained by the combination of test scores and high school grade point average.” “Human behavior is notoriously difficult to forecast,” they write, “it would be strange for a single predictor to be the only one that matters. So it is also valuable to consider, whenever possible, how predictors combine in foretelling student success.”
If I were to further research this subject, I'd probably start with this book: https://www.amazon.com/Measuring-Success-Testing-College-Adm...
"Although the test-optional movement has received ample attention, its claims have rarely been subjected to empirical scrutiny. This volume provides a much-needed evaluation of the use and value of standardized admissions tests in an era of widespread grade inflation. It will be of great value to those seeking to strike the proper balance between uniformity and fairness in higher education."
Edit: also found this article interesting: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-22/grades-v...
One person is quoted as pointing out that an advantage using the SAT is that it can help combat grade inflation because it looks bad to have a really high GPA but really low SAT score. It's also been shown over time that the average GPA keeps going up while SAT scores are flat or declining. Grade inflation is a major problem, and the use of standardized test does help with it.
> That's because I didn't understand what your argument was. The usual argument is "teachers unions mean teachers are bad at their jobs so we can't trust their judgement and GPA. Instead, we need to look to standardized tests." That's the argument I thought you were making.
Yes, and we've also gone pretty far off-topic from what I was originally talking about at this point.
> No, it doesn't. It does give the citation:
Then why not lead with that citation and not the very weak conference paper that you chose to lead with?
Anyways, you may be right about GPA currently being a better predictor of academic success than the ACT. But, as this article explains: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/02/gpa-or-sat-two-measu...
"In an extended version of their essay, Kuncel and Sackett acknowledge that GPA is the best predictor of student success, but they add: “Even better prediction is obtained by the combination of test scores and high school grade point average.” “Human behavior is notoriously difficult to forecast,” they write, “it would be strange for a single predictor to be the only one that matters. So it is also valuable to consider, whenever possible, how predictors combine in foretelling student success.”
If I were to further research this subject, I'd probably start with this book: https://www.amazon.com/Measuring-Success-Testing-College-Adm...
"Although the test-optional movement has received ample attention, its claims have rarely been subjected to empirical scrutiny. This volume provides a much-needed evaluation of the use and value of standardized admissions tests in an era of widespread grade inflation. It will be of great value to those seeking to strike the proper balance between uniformity and fairness in higher education."
Edit: also found this article interesting: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-22/grades-v...
One person is quoted as pointing out that an advantage using the SAT is that it can help combat grade inflation because it looks bad to have a really high GPA but really low SAT score. It's also been shown over time that the average GPA keeps going up while SAT scores are flat or declining. Grade inflation is a major problem, and the use of standardized test does help with it.
[deleted]
What might make for sensible, objective teacher metrics?
I can be kind of mixed from a union standpoint. It really just depends on the goals and outcomes of a particular union. Airline unions tend to be particularly bad when it comes to controlling internal dissent against the union, and regulating peoples pay and flying hours (especially around furloughs). Things may have changed since I heard this criticism, but I'd hate to have this happen in software.
That said, we could use standardization in pay, better and more standardized promotions, and someone to tear down the existing LeetCode interview process. I have not seen any software unions that aim to do this though.
That said, we could use standardization in pay, better and more standardized promotions, and someone to tear down the existing LeetCode interview process. I have not seen any software unions that aim to do this though.
Why would I want standardization in pay? I would make less money.
Why would I want standardized promotions? I don't want to be lead by people just because they have been around longer than me.
Why would I want to tear down the leetcode interview process? It's much easier.than having to do demo projects.
Why would I want standardized promotions? I don't want to be lead by people just because they have been around longer than me.
Why would I want to tear down the leetcode interview process? It's much easier.than having to do demo projects.
[deleted]
I see unions as mostly other entrenched institutions that add their own layers of bureaucracy and politics. They aren't any better or worse than corporations and governments, but simply by having a place at the table, things move slower and with less efficiency than they could. Of course, if the alternative is abuse of power by corporations and/or governments, they are a necessary evil.
I'm very much anti-unionization, but don't really fall into any of those buckets. To be fair, I didn't take it to be an exhaustive list.
Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the US because of the government being involved and "artificially" granting them power.
Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the US because of the government being involved and "artificially" granting them power.
The government artificially grants corporations power by virtue of creating the concept of a corporation and limited liability, so to me it seems only fair for them to grant a collective of workers power as well.
> Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the US because of the government being involved and "artificially" granting them power.
Artificial is an unfair characterization of history. The President didn't just descend from on high and grant unions powers out of magnanimity. At one point the unions were extremely powerful to the point that they were able to codify in law the rights they had attained.
Artificial is an unfair characterization of history. The President didn't just descend from on high and grant unions powers out of magnanimity. At one point the unions were extremely powerful to the point that they were able to codify in law the rights they had attained.
> the rights they had attained
Rights they had to fight for, in many cases _die_ for. Corporations and the government were not above using police, private firms to do violence, even fatal violence, to employees who were not willing to bend over backwards (unsafe, unhealthy, inhumane working conditions) for their employer.
Rights they had to fight for, in many cases _die_ for. Corporations and the government were not above using police, private firms to do violence, even fatal violence, to employees who were not willing to bend over backwards (unsafe, unhealthy, inhumane working conditions) for their employer.
To add to the other good comments, unions existed and were effective before there were any laws specifically enabling or regulating them.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt . There was no law which "artificially" granted the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society power. The "five or six good workmen" who would have walked out should Horne continue to be employed, were exercising their right of free association.
And, fundamentally, that's where union power comes from - the right to collectively decide to quit.
Union laws give unions specific powers, it's true. But they also restrict union power. If you oppose the artificial granting of power, then you should also oppose the artificial restriction of power, and allow "jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns" [1] -- once-legal practices banned by Taft-Hartley and all fundamentally based in the power to collectively decide to stop working.
[1] Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt . There was no law which "artificially" granted the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society power. The "five or six good workmen" who would have walked out should Horne continue to be employed, were exercising their right of free association.
And, fundamentally, that's where union power comes from - the right to collectively decide to quit.
Union laws give unions specific powers, it's true. But they also restrict union power. If you oppose the artificial granting of power, then you should also oppose the artificial restriction of power, and allow "jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns" [1] -- once-legal practices banned by Taft-Hartley and all fundamentally based in the power to collectively decide to stop working.
[1] Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
As opposed to enforcing "artificial" property rights. That's government interference that you can tolerate :)
most american laws around unions are actually prohibitory and limiting. if legal recognition and regulation for organized labor were eliminated, i don't think it would result in less power wielded by unions.
> Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union?
There’s no upside for me, and severe downsides.
My reasoning, in particular:
1) My skills are unique and in high demand. I can best maximize my own compensation through direct negotiation.
2) Compensation is effectively zero-sum, and I don’t want to subsidize low performers.
3) I don’t want to subsidize a parallel, mostly useless (and probably entirely useless) shadow management hierarchy in the form of union officials.
There’s no upside for me, and severe downsides.
My reasoning, in particular:
1) My skills are unique and in high demand. I can best maximize my own compensation through direct negotiation.
2) Compensation is effectively zero-sum, and I don’t want to subsidize low performers.
3) I don’t want to subsidize a parallel, mostly useless (and probably entirely useless) shadow management hierarchy in the form of union officials.
I think you made my point for me, at least partially.
The real teeth in a union is the ability to strike. In joining a union, you signify that you're willing to strike if enough other people aren't getting what they want.
I'm happy with what I have. My team seems pretty happy, too.
If things were bad, I'd consider joining a union. But until they are bad, union dues are just wasted money, and the obligation to strike if enough others want to.
The real teeth in a union is the ability to strike. In joining a union, you signify that you're willing to strike if enough other people aren't getting what they want.
I'm happy with what I have. My team seems pretty happy, too.
If things were bad, I'd consider joining a union. But until they are bad, union dues are just wasted money, and the obligation to strike if enough others want to.
I think you've also pointed out the need for unions, though. Lots of employees literally can't afford to strike because it means they don't get paid, even if it's temporarily. That means that your assertion that "if enough others want to" is kinda meaningless.
I have no desire to be part of a union because of my one-person removed (friends) experience with union violence.
1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to cross the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike). My friend (female) was punched in the face by a union member.
2) Another friend working on the factory floor, doubled then tripled their work quota. They were pulled aside and told it was amazing how much damage can happen to a vehicle in the parking lot when it's snowy.
Yeah, I have no interest in helping or encouraging that.
However, I do support people's ability to organize and strike. I disagree with a union deciding that they won't cross picket lines. That's cartel-like behavior, like price fixing between shipping companies, or OPEC.
1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to cross the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike). My friend (female) was punched in the face by a union member.
2) Another friend working on the factory floor, doubled then tripled their work quota. They were pulled aside and told it was amazing how much damage can happen to a vehicle in the parking lot when it's snowy.
Yeah, I have no interest in helping or encouraging that.
However, I do support people's ability to organize and strike. I disagree with a union deciding that they won't cross picket lines. That's cartel-like behavior, like price fixing between shipping companies, or OPEC.
It seems you are anti-union because of bad experiences two friends had. Do you have any friends who have bad experiences with corporations? Do you hold corporations to a lower standard than unions?
I can confirm that I have never had a friend beaten by someone operating in their official capacity as an employee of a corporation.
Nor have I ever had a friend threatened with violence by someone acting in their official capacity as an employee of a corporation.
I don't think I'm holding corporations to different standards.
Nor have I ever had a friend threatened with violence by someone acting in their official capacity as an employee of a corporation.
I don't think I'm holding corporations to different standards.
> 1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to cross the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike). My friend (female) was punched in the face by a union member.
This would have made news and I cannot find it.
This would have made news and I cannot find it.
It was in the early 90s. Why would you expect it to make the news?
Because the media is extremely pro-corporate/government and largely anti-trade union? America and Canadian media especially so.
You joined a union where more than a dozen of the leaders were recently convicted of embezzlement. The UAW is in a bit of a pickle for awhile.
Many of us on HackerNews work for businesses like Amazon, or Tesla, or Apple, or Microsoft, which have also been found to have broken the law. Anywhere there is power there is corruption. It seems to me that joining a union where some of leadership have been convicted of crimes should be no different than working for a corporation where some of the leadership has been convicted of crimes -- you make your own decision on a case by case basis.
If none of us ever associated with anyone who's broken the law, I don't know how many folks here would ever work for a company bigger than 100 people.
If none of us ever associated with anyone who's broken the law, I don't know how many folks here would ever work for a company bigger than 100 people.
Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal.
Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters.
So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters.
So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.
Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?
What is keeping Unions in check then?
Poor media coverage: https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues
Conservative judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME
Right to work laws
Corporations, like Apple, Amazon, etc.
Even "The Most Pro-Union President You’ve Ever Seen" couldn't bring himself to side with the rail union. The sad part is despite this, even though he isn't the most pro union president, he might be up there. That is to say, our federal government in general is very pro corporate.
Poor media coverage: https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues
Conservative judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME
Right to work laws
Corporations, like Apple, Amazon, etc.
Even "The Most Pro-Union President You’ve Ever Seen" couldn't bring himself to side with the rail union. The sad part is despite this, even though he isn't the most pro union president, he might be up there. That is to say, our federal government in general is very pro corporate.
I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid of getting the union angry, as this is not the case something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot, at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose.
That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.
That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.
And unions are exactly that powerful. A strike can easily shut down a company, a town or a country. I do not see a similar power on the corporation's side. Firing everybody would just kill the corporation as well.
The data here seems to indicate otherwise https://www.epi.org/publication/latest-data-release-on-union...
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-y...
Now it's true I have not lived all over the world, but I have lived in numerous places in the U.S, in Denmark, and spend some time in Italy every now and then. I also lived in Germany as a kid, but I've never really seen these fearsome unions you are familiar with, and did I say again I am in Denmark? Even here it isn't like such a powerful organization.
Certainly one can find historical instances of powerful unions, but they do not seem to exist now, and thus your analysis must be faulty somehow. If unions are naturally more powerful than the other forces of society their power should always increase and not decrease, but as the data linked above shows the opposite is the case.
If you want people to accept your logic you will probably need to back it up with data, arguing about real world things like unions tend to bring forth such requirements.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-y...
Now it's true I have not lived all over the world, but I have lived in numerous places in the U.S, in Denmark, and spend some time in Italy every now and then. I also lived in Germany as a kid, but I've never really seen these fearsome unions you are familiar with, and did I say again I am in Denmark? Even here it isn't like such a powerful organization.
Certainly one can find historical instances of powerful unions, but they do not seem to exist now, and thus your analysis must be faulty somehow. If unions are naturally more powerful than the other forces of society their power should always increase and not decrease, but as the data linked above shows the opposite is the case.
If you want people to accept your logic you will probably need to back it up with data, arguing about real world things like unions tend to bring forth such requirements.
In Europe I've seen airports and cities and even countries dead for weeks due to strikes. In my country I've seen union leaders become politicians and then in jail for corruption. In US I've seen evil laws (AB5) imposed on people by politicians (Lorena Gonzalez) owned by unions (Teamsters).
But I am open to the possibility of mistakes in my logic and dfxm12 post above had some good points.
But I am open to the possibility of mistakes in my logic and dfxm12 post above had some good points.
The legislative and executive branches of the US government blocking the majority of rail workers from going ahead with a rail strike: https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-congress... .
Unions are kept in check by attrition of the companies they are associated with.
Your premises are unsound.
Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it).
Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.
We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.
We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
Many companies also do things that are a lot worse, like taking massive profits and then laying off the people that gave up time with their families and other opportunities to create those profits. I heard they also do things like give executives that don't do a great job millions while stiffing the individual contributors. Unions can help companies run better by forcing them to take a "longer than 2 year" view on decisions.
Unions can also (and quite often do) capture as much value as they can, while producing none.
> while producing none
increasing wages, workplace safety, and benefits for workers is something productive.
increasing wages, workplace safety, and benefits for workers is something productive.
IF they do that.
Lower tax on paychecks would increase wages, but our union was against that. What kind of a union does that?
Lower tax on paychecks would increase wages, but our union was against that. What kind of a union does that?
Unions that are run like a business eventually become a business. Unions need to be democratically-controlled, where regular workers can propose new contract terms and vote on them, as well as voting to call a strike.
Right. It’s completely unsurprising that to see corruption in groups that were forced to elect leadership that holds views contrary to the foundations of unionization (i.e. they were all but required to elect capitalists because of the communist control act and the internal security act).
This is not a law of nature, many unions just do their job. Many companies also treat their workers unfairly, so there's that. Workers need a way to organise.
What's worse, a company churning through employee after employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.
What's worse, a company churning through employee after employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.
I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).
Well, yes, but if there's a one-to-one correspondence between good unions and bad unions,that pretty much implies that the expected value of a union vote is zero. It's just the same as not unionizing.
In my personal anecdotal experience, the unions at the places I've worked have been mired in factions. They supported some workers but not others because they picked sides. They weren't just neutral, they undermined some workers to benefit others. It really soured me on them.
In my personal anecdotal experience, the unions at the places I've worked have been mired in factions. They supported some workers but not others because they picked sides. They weren't just neutral, they undermined some workers to benefit others. It really soured me on them.
Weren't the Teamsters also super corrupt?
(My only knowledge comes from watching The Irishman)
(My only knowledge comes from watching The Irishman)
There was corruption at the height of organized crime. The average Teamster is doing a lot better than than average non-unionized trucker
Philly roofers union firebombed my grandfathers truck beacuse he was non-union.
Oh yeah big time. The entire east coast got it's strings pulled by the unions.
>Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.
You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation.
>We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
Corruption is going to exist without strict governance regardless of unions. I'm a unionized worker in the USA and no one needs to bribe their way into a job here. We have robust oversight and documentation of the hiring process.
You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation.
>We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
Corruption is going to exist without strict governance regardless of unions. I'm a unionized worker in the USA and no one needs to bribe their way into a job here. We have robust oversight and documentation of the hiring process.
They certainly can raise taxes without improving services, so why not the opposite?
Yep, we still have a """temporary""" increase of VAT in action (19->22%) from the 2008 financial crisis... and we got nothing new (neither new or better services) from this.
> You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation.
You cannot increase wages without loss of profits or increase in prices.
The union should fight for the wages, the profits and prices are someone elses problem (owners, customers).
You cannot increase wages without loss of profits or increase in prices.
The union should fight for the wages, the profits and prices are someone elses problem (owners, customers).
> any worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay),
Seems to be quite a lot of context missing. I think nearly everyone agrees they want to pay less taxes and take home more money. Now if lowering taxes does not result in more money then you don't need politicians and unions to make that case.
I'm guessing lowering taxes would result in more expensive, privatized services and voters figured that wouldn't work.
Seems to be quite a lot of context missing. I think nearly everyone agrees they want to pay less taxes and take home more money. Now if lowering taxes does not result in more money then you don't need politicians and unions to make that case.
I'm guessing lowering taxes would result in more expensive, privatized services and voters figured that wouldn't work.
Voting against a tax decrease could still be in the workers’ best interest, no? I think some context is needed
Unions or union managers are sometimes paid by the company to provide a business-friendly outcome.
Problematically, it was made exceptionally difficult—-potentially illegal, depending on the circumstances—-to hold a representative position in a union, and also hold the sociopolitical ideologies that led to the creation of unions in the first place: i.e. communism/socialism/Marxism (Communist Control Act of 1954, and the Internal Control Act of 1950).
That isn’t to say it’s impossible for an ideologue to corrupt and seek out power for themselves (it happens often enough). It’s just to say that a capitalist is not driven to act by a deeply seeded belief. They’re only interested in winning the competition. You’re all but inviting corruption.
That isn’t to say it’s impossible for an ideologue to corrupt and seek out power for themselves (it happens often enough). It’s just to say that a capitalist is not driven to act by a deeply seeded belief. They’re only interested in winning the competition. You’re all but inviting corruption.
So just like lobbying, just from the other side?
Exactly, and companies can stand to starve folks out. Strikes aren't as big a deal as they used to be even.
I think the challenge is the way unions are set up in the US. It's very different than Europe. I recall some HNer mentioning in the UK (I think) your work place can have multiple unions, you can join whichever one you want.
Yeah, the whole concept of employers recognizing a union or employees being required to join a union which is raised in US union discussions are kind of weird.
Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join.
Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you employment terms different to what the union employees get because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.
Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join.
Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you employment terms different to what the union employees get because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.
Minority unions undermine the collective bargaining that underpins the very concept of a union. They make no sense to me, at all. The whole point of a union is having a large enough block of workers committed to act together that the company is forced to either negotiate or perish. This obviously works when you have all the workers unionized, as a company without employees can achieve nothing at all. As the union gets a smaller and smaller fraction of the workforce, however, their bargaining power diminishes dramatically.
That sounds like a really good argument for a union providing sufficiently valuable services to their members that they want to be a member. If a union isn't serving its members those members should be able to seek better options.
If unions worked like this in the US, it seems like many more people would be in favor of them.
If unions worked like this in the US, it seems like many more people would be in favor of them.
Unions by and large do work like this in the US. There's fewer unions, but the unions that do exist tend to do a very good job of representing their members. The main force acting against unionization efforts here isn't that the unions are ineffective, it's that they're so effective that companies fight tooth and nail to suppress them, including spreading a lot of propaganda.
And the problem with open shops and opt-in unions is that scabs can be found who think in terms of the short term. A company, in contrast, has the luxury of playing the long game. So, faced with union demands, a company can hire a bunch of scabs offering benefits and pay equivalent or better than the union is currently fighting for, then when the union is crushed gradually fire the scabs and replace them with new workers who are back to the square 1 the union was fighting from. And because unionizing takes effort and conviction, the new lot might not unionize. The company wins.
And the problem with open shops and opt-in unions is that scabs can be found who think in terms of the short term. A company, in contrast, has the luxury of playing the long game. So, faced with union demands, a company can hire a bunch of scabs offering benefits and pay equivalent or better than the union is currently fighting for, then when the union is crushed gradually fire the scabs and replace them with new workers who are back to the square 1 the union was fighting from. And because unionizing takes effort and conviction, the new lot might not unionize. The company wins.
Because unions often support policies that significant portions of the workforce do not like. If you're a teacher in America chances are your union dues are being used to oppose merit-based pay increases and retain seniority based pay. If you're a teacher who wants merit-based pay increases then you're being forced by the government to fund a group that is actively working against your own interests.
Multiple unions would let workers join the union alined with their interest.
Multiple unions would let workers join the union alined with their interest.
The practice is called a "closed shop", and it was ended in the UK by Thatcher and Labour gave up on trying to reinstate it because it was unpopular. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/18/labour-aban...
I feel like this is such an obvious fact that I don't know how people say "contract of free association" with a straight face when it comes to the employment market.
Why not with SMB? Often employees at these have an even harder time calling attention to abuse or exploitation.
In a small business, maybe you're the only person doing <critical task X>. This is a more level playing field, but maybe a union is still useful here also.
In a small company, a real conversation is possible. In a large one the CEO is 100% doublespeak and the HR departments are cold
>In a small company, a real conversation is possible.
Why do you think employees have enough leverage across most SMBs to the extent that workers shouldn't organize?
Even SMB owners and managers organize adversarially against their workers (eg by setting compensation and benefits per VC or consultant provided guidance on labor market, by hiring HR specialists to coordinate with managers on keeping wages as low as the market will bear). Why should workers not in turn organize in those cases?
Why do you think employees have enough leverage across most SMBs to the extent that workers shouldn't organize?
Even SMB owners and managers organize adversarially against their workers (eg by setting compensation and benefits per VC or consultant provided guidance on labor market, by hiring HR specialists to coordinate with managers on keeping wages as low as the market will bear). Why should workers not in turn organize in those cases?
A real conversation is generally not possible anywhere. Your boss has enormous power over you and the reality is that even if you are somehow special, they won't see you that way. It sounds hopeless, but if you approach your boss in this manner (he couldn't care less whether or not you do actually get hit by a bus) the negotiation is easier to do.
In my experience, I have seen more power imbalance at small/medium sized businesses. Whereas larger companies you tend to get lost in the bureaucracy and have the ability to switch teams/orgs and get out of bad situations. HR is usually more helpful with this too.
That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them, is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.
There is no authority to enforce these laws so it doesn't take much will to break them.
Anti-union tactics aren't illegal so long as the company that employs them isn't completely ruined as a result of the punishment they get.
While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency’s current general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such “captive audience” gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied wrongdoing.
So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books but you can't keep the people down!
You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.
You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.
Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy entirely and push some ursurper on a throne.
After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway.
What has democracy ever done for us?
After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway.
What has democracy ever done for us?
> What has democracy ever done for us?
The labor movement gave us the 40 hour workweek, weekends off and the minimum wage. They're the reason you have time to opine online right now instead of working.
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workw... https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/labor/living-wage
The labor movement gave us the 40 hour workweek, weekends off and the minimum wage. They're the reason you have time to opine online right now instead of working.
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workw... https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/labor/living-wage
>> What has democracy ever done for us?
Labor unions, for one thing.
Labor unions, for one thing.
What has democracy done for whomst?
That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)
Is it really?
There is nothing wrong with fighting for workers rights while automation is not here yet.
The problem is that automation has to be taxed accordingly to allow us to live with dignity when there is no job to occupy (i.e UBI), and guess who's against taxation? "The left" would be the wrong answer.
I don't see any paradox. 1.Tax the rich now. 2. Improve worker rights which will push us faster towards automation. 3. Prepare legislation to tax automation and implement UBI.
What happens if we don't do that?
1. The rich will continue to take advantage of people's labor while paying them peanuts. 2. The middle class disappears, we end up with a system of two classes, the slaves and the lords. 3. Automation will come regardless and we won't be ready for it regulation wise, and people will die from hunger.
Pick
There is nothing wrong with fighting for workers rights while automation is not here yet.
The problem is that automation has to be taxed accordingly to allow us to live with dignity when there is no job to occupy (i.e UBI), and guess who's against taxation? "The left" would be the wrong answer.
I don't see any paradox. 1.Tax the rich now. 2. Improve worker rights which will push us faster towards automation. 3. Prepare legislation to tax automation and implement UBI.
What happens if we don't do that?
1. The rich will continue to take advantage of people's labor while paying them peanuts. 2. The middle class disappears, we end up with a system of two classes, the slaves and the lords. 3. Automation will come regardless and we won't be ready for it regulation wise, and people will die from hunger.
Pick
Yeah, label anyone you agree with as a communist. That's nothing more than a scare tactic.
Is there anything specific you want me to get from this article?
It's a hilarious argument that people advocating for workers rights and want wages to go UP are communists that want the wages to go DOWN...
Is there anything specific you want me to get from this article?
It's a hilarious argument that people advocating for workers rights and want wages to go UP are communists that want the wages to go DOWN...
well, I think we'll exit this conversation - too many different reference points to explain. goodbye
I've never heard of this before. Are there other political paradoxes you're aware of, say for example, a paradox of the right?
Is the answer to this supposed to be obvious enough to not actually require a response? Whether or not that is the case, it seems useful to lay out an example.
A paradox of the Right is that they say that they fight for peoples' freedoms, yet they continue to fight to restrict freedoms. See any of the Right's stances regarding the freedoms of LGBT people for a salient and current example.
You could say "the Right is against rights", if you want to be cute about it.
A paradox of the Right is that they say that they fight for peoples' freedoms, yet they continue to fight to restrict freedoms. See any of the Right's stances regarding the freedoms of LGBT people for a salient and current example.
You could say "the Right is against rights", if you want to be cute about it.
The promise of automation has always been that you'll get a better job with less menial labour if your job is automated. But I don't believe that's been the case, overall. It seems to me that automation causes people to be displaced from jobs where their skills are valued, to jobs where their skills are seen as replaceable. In a capitalist system, without something like UBI, that's a huge problem because once you're at the bottom it's easy to fall out of the system entirely. So, you frame it as a choice between hard work and easy work - but I think ultimately it's closer to a choice between hard work and poverty or death.
There is no mechanism in our capitalist system for allowing people to be automated out of a job while still living a good life.
There is no mechanism in our capitalist system for allowing people to be automated out of a job while still living a good life.
Yes, workers don’t benefit from automation under capitalism. Productivity increases far outpace wages earned which have even moved in opposite directions
> You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.
I find it funny, that here (my country, slovenia), we have right(ish) parties against immigration but more liberal workforce rules, and on the other side, we have both leftish and pure "communist" parties (even with a red star in the logo), supposedly "fighting for the workers" and at the same time supporting more immigration.
I find it funny, that here (my country, slovenia), we have right(ish) parties against immigration but more liberal workforce rules, and on the other side, we have both leftish and pure "communist" parties (even with a red star in the logo), supposedly "fighting for the workers" and at the same time supporting more immigration.
You fight for more votes. Get more workers to fight for and more ppl vote for you. ;)