Unions work(werd.io)
werd.io
Unions work
https://werd.io/2023/unions-work
236 comments
They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.
WGA is a guild, technically, not a union — because most writers are 1099d by studios, not actually full-time employees. Hence the need for collective protections, as contractors in the US have much less guarantees than W2 employees, and thus a co-op structure is almost infeasible any way you look at it.
WGA as a co-op obviously wouldn't make sense. The studio itself is what should ideally be a co-op.
Or the WGA should start creating their own movies, of course.
As someone close to the industry, this was an interesting thing to think about -- but without some other, huge structural changes to the industry, it won't really happen.
1) Distribution is where studios' value-add really comes through: they're the ones who have contracts with the big theater chains (or, in the case of tv, often own the networks+streaming services) and are in control of the dates/weekends/IMAX exclusivities/etc.
2) Financing - Movies and TV are _expensive_. It's not just the high-profile actors or marketing budgets – indeed, many high-profile actors will take huge pay-cuts to work on passion projects – but, if you were to take away those costs, and for sake of argument let's say that everyone acting/shooting/editing the movie is working for free, there's still huge capital expenses to be outlaid: location fees, permit fees, cameras (even a single indie-film camera can be upwards of $50k), sets + construction, props, editing+vfx software, food, transport, clothing, makeup, logistics and infrastructure including things as fundamental as electricity and plumbing if you're filming anywhere that's not a backlot... It takes a huge capital upfront outlay to make a movie or tv show that looks anything like what we're used to seeing on tv and movie screens. Studios can (a) provide the upfront cash and deal structure such that financing the productions is feasible in the first place (b) re-use and cost-optimize everything from sets/space/cameras/software/support-staff across productions where it makes sense, so a show or movie isn't having to re-invent everything from the ground up each time.
The closest right now the WGA or SAG can possibly be to "creating their own movies" is working with an indie studio, like A24 or NEON, who are still very much studios, but often with a more "can-do" and "per-production" approach. These studios also settled with WGA and SAG very soon after the strikes began, and were granted strike waivers so they could continue production, while the Disneys and Netflixes were picketed.
In short, unlike software engineers where a single dedicated engineer can pretty much create an app or business mvp in a weekend, writers and actors deal with the constraints of the real-world.
1) Distribution is where studios' value-add really comes through: they're the ones who have contracts with the big theater chains (or, in the case of tv, often own the networks+streaming services) and are in control of the dates/weekends/IMAX exclusivities/etc.
2) Financing - Movies and TV are _expensive_. It's not just the high-profile actors or marketing budgets – indeed, many high-profile actors will take huge pay-cuts to work on passion projects – but, if you were to take away those costs, and for sake of argument let's say that everyone acting/shooting/editing the movie is working for free, there's still huge capital expenses to be outlaid: location fees, permit fees, cameras (even a single indie-film camera can be upwards of $50k), sets + construction, props, editing+vfx software, food, transport, clothing, makeup, logistics and infrastructure including things as fundamental as electricity and plumbing if you're filming anywhere that's not a backlot... It takes a huge capital upfront outlay to make a movie or tv show that looks anything like what we're used to seeing on tv and movie screens. Studios can (a) provide the upfront cash and deal structure such that financing the productions is feasible in the first place (b) re-use and cost-optimize everything from sets/space/cameras/software/support-staff across productions where it makes sense, so a show or movie isn't having to re-invent everything from the ground up each time.
The closest right now the WGA or SAG can possibly be to "creating their own movies" is working with an indie studio, like A24 or NEON, who are still very much studios, but often with a more "can-do" and "per-production" approach. These studios also settled with WGA and SAG very soon after the strikes began, and were granted strike waivers so they could continue production, while the Disneys and Netflixes were picketed.
In short, unlike software engineers where a single dedicated engineer can pretty much create an app or business mvp in a weekend, writers and actors deal with the constraints of the real-world.
I agree. I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops. They have lots of money to do it, it's pro-worker, and it enables them to own the means of production.
Unions ironically act very conservative these days. They could take some bold steps to potentially create very worker-friendly, worker-owned shops, which would create a voluntary, non-coercive path towards the "market socialist" structure many people advocate.
Even in large industries like automobiles where this is hard, they could probably start doing something like smaller-scale parts production and sell those.
Unions ironically act very conservative these days. They could take some bold steps to potentially create very worker-friendly, worker-owned shops, which would create a voluntary, non-coercive path towards the "market socialist" structure many people advocate.
Even in large industries like automobiles where this is hard, they could probably start doing something like smaller-scale parts production and sell those.
> I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops
Because that requires skillsets they don't have. People with the skills to start, manage and run companies usually aren't workers so not a part of the union, and I doubt the union members would be happy if the union spent lots of money to hire managers to bet on a startup.
Because that requires skillsets they don't have. People with the skills to start, manage and run companies usually aren't workers so not a part of the union, and I doubt the union members would be happy if the union spent lots of money to hire managers to bet on a startup.
> Because that requires skillsets they don't have.
This is reductive, union organizers have management skills that would transfer over if needed. The reason co-ops are not more common is moreso because there aren't the same kinds of institutions that support their growth like there are for traditional companies.
This is reductive, union organizers have management skills that would transfer over if needed. The reason co-ops are not more common is moreso because there aren't the same kinds of institutions that support their growth like there are for traditional companies.
There are film studios that are run as cooperatives. They tend to not have a lot of access to capital markets and don't make the kind of bland, inoffensive to Chinese censors nostalgia puffs that bring in a billion dollars globally and fund the Disneys of the world, so the Disneys of the world are still going to employ more writers.
Because the real title should be Unions Work For Union Members. Unions became unpopular for a reason. Some were (and I assume still are) outright criminal organizations. The better ones were happy to sell out future workers with two tiered pay structures and by rotting out the companies they worked for.
In practice they have just been another layer of economically unproductive people siphoning off value.
In practice they have just been another layer of economically unproductive people siphoning off value.
Unions are working to fight the two tier wage structure you speak of; are you aware? UPS/Teamsters is one such example.
Because after 15 years the balance of power has tipped from those who sold out to those that were sold.
Ok, so can you explain how that shift in the balance of power does NOT invalidate your parent point?
Because it's still the union doing what's best for union members. The only thing that's changed is what's best for the union members.
unions should work for their members. If a union isn't working for the interests of the members, that union's leadership needs to be replaced. Corporations are only concerned with increasing profit. They aren't interested in protecting workers from being exploited. Some corporations were (and I assume still are) outright criminal organizations. Let corporations worry about protecting their bottom line, and let unions worry about protecting their members.
> ...opening up co-ops.
Word.
IIRC: SEIU, or equally large org, has been funding employee co-ops.
Also IIRC: Richard Wolfe coined worker directed social enterprises (WDSE) to encompass all the democracy and co-op notions.
Having done some (very modest) workplace democracy, and seen the results, I'm very bullish. I read Wolfe's book Democracy at Work when it came out. It was a (very modest) good start. But needed a lot more work developing the ideas. Especially wrt governance and operations.
Enough time has passed, I should circle back and see how things have progressed.
> Unions ironically act very conservative these days.
In multiple ways.
In the US, the transition from representing predominately white middle class blue collar workers to representing all workers has been very bumpy.
Labor in the US would be so much further along today if unions had also abandoned their commitment to the Cold War Consensus when Capital did. Anti labor measures like NAFTA should have been wake up calls.
Word.
IIRC: SEIU, or equally large org, has been funding employee co-ops.
Also IIRC: Richard Wolfe coined worker directed social enterprises (WDSE) to encompass all the democracy and co-op notions.
Having done some (very modest) workplace democracy, and seen the results, I'm very bullish. I read Wolfe's book Democracy at Work when it came out. It was a (very modest) good start. But needed a lot more work developing the ideas. Especially wrt governance and operations.
Enough time has passed, I should circle back and see how things have progressed.
> Unions ironically act very conservative these days.
In multiple ways.
In the US, the transition from representing predominately white middle class blue collar workers to representing all workers has been very bumpy.
Labor in the US would be so much further along today if unions had also abandoned their commitment to the Cold War Consensus when Capital did. Anti labor measures like NAFTA should have been wake up calls.
Any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?
Historically, co-ops arise from the ashes of a dead or dying company where the workers know the process inside and out.
Edit: the other instances (much fewer) are when the company founders either start with a co-op in mind or want to transition their company to one as part of their legacy
Edit: the other instances (much fewer) are when the company founders either start with a co-op in mind or want to transition their company to one as part of their legacy
Get together with other employees and buy it from the owners.
No point in giving cash to exploitative bosses who are burning you out. Just take yourselves next door and hang a new shingle.
How do you define "fair profit sharing" and what are the owners' "fair share" in your definition?
To start, every worker is an owner in a worker cooperative. Mondragon requires a financial investment in the cooperative upon hiring. A fair share would be based on the size of each worker's investment in the company. How it is regulated is set by each cooperative so there is no real answer to your question.
Kudos for the WGA for the achievement.
I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce.
In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace.
Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements for the workers (especially during the industrialisation phase of several countries).
However, when this dynamic is broken what happen is that the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly.
One clear example is the automotive industry that invested in high amount or automation, offshoring, and in a streamlined supply chain to reduce that exposure. I do not have any number but I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM.
For IT I think several companies, specially in this down market, are starting to do the same thing doing offshoring or nearshoring of SWE, hiring folks abroad to avoid the risk of unionization due to the fact there’s no monopoly of SWE as a workforce.
I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce.
In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace.
Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements for the workers (especially during the industrialisation phase of several countries).
However, when this dynamic is broken what happen is that the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly.
One clear example is the automotive industry that invested in high amount or automation, offshoring, and in a streamlined supply chain to reduce that exposure. I do not have any number but I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM.
For IT I think several companies, specially in this down market, are starting to do the same thing doing offshoring or nearshoring of SWE, hiring folks abroad to avoid the risk of unionization due to the fact there’s no monopoly of SWE as a workforce.
>I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM.
Of course they can, and we know where that margin comes from:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-wor...
Of course they can, and we know where that margin comes from:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-wor...
Ambulances have been called more than 100 times since 2014 for workers experiencing fainting spells, dizziness, seizures, abnormal breathing and chest pains, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian. Hundreds more were called for injuries and other medical issues. “I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open,” said Jonathan Galescu, a production technician at Tesla. “They just send us to work around him while he’s still lying on the floor.”sershe(4)
Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.?
From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.
From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.
Inasmuch as unions increase the cost of labor, employers will have a stronger incentive to replace it with capital.
It’s one reason we haven’t seen much advancement (until recently!) in automated food preparation (vis-a-vis industrial factories)—the labor has been very cheap.
It’s one reason we haven’t seen much advancement (until recently!) in automated food preparation (vis-a-vis industrial factories)—the labor has been very cheap.
Any human worker will increase the cost of labor compared to automation. Even at slave wages, automation wins every single time. Employers are, and long have been, 100% incentivized to automate the instant it becomes technologically feasible.
Research and advancement in automated food preparation has never stopped. They were working on the problem in the 1970s with automatic vending machines, Fast food in particular has been salivating at thought of throwing out human workers for ages. (see for example: https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-... and https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testi... and https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-scre...)
The very second that the tech is ready and reliable enough, it's a done deal. No worker will ever be as cheap as a robot slave.
Research and advancement in automated food preparation has never stopped. They were working on the problem in the 1970s with automatic vending machines, Fast food in particular has been salivating at thought of throwing out human workers for ages. (see for example: https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-... and https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testi... and https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-scre...)
The very second that the tech is ready and reliable enough, it's a done deal. No worker will ever be as cheap as a robot slave.
Yup. Capital pushes to commodify skills and labor.
We as "knowledge workers" know this in our bones.
Now that we've digitized and automated blue collar work, we're tackling white collar work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
We as "knowledge workers" know this in our bones.
Now that we've digitized and automated blue collar work, we're tackling white collar work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
Tell that to all the factory workers still moving parts around plants in small towns all across the US. Tell that to the healthcare workers at hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical practices. May even tell that to construction workers, machinists, carpenters, HVAC guys, building controls, and even network engineers. You live in a fantasy world.
But we haven't "digitized and automated blue collar work." Not by the a long shot. We've still got vast billions toiling in our service.
What's the skill level required for those billions of jobs?
Skill level? It's the same opportunity cost as any career.
> Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.?
Not for this _single_ reason. The decision for offshoring/nearshoring is a multifaceted one.
Companies that have the risk to be locked in a workforce monopoly and does not have the capability to offshore/nearshore work positions, will fight with nail and tooth attempts for uniontization
Not for this _single_ reason. The decision for offshoring/nearshoring is a multifaceted one.
Companies that have the risk to be locked in a workforce monopoly and does not have the capability to offshore/nearshore work positions, will fight with nail and tooth attempts for uniontization
> Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.?
Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.
Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.
That isn't the point. When the union is involved, they keep demanding hire wages and benefits and it gets to the point where companies are better-off offshoring.
Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry.
I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).
Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry.
I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).
That makes no since because foreign companies are onshoring manufacturing. There's a good chance your foreign car was made here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honda_Motor_Company
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America
The fact that The Ford Dodge GM Chrysler Jeep Dr Pepper Snapple Group can't make a quality car is on them. In real dollars American workers have never cost less.
Those fat-cat union workers making… $45k/yr. Don't they understand how their greed affects our profits?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Honda_Motor_Company
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_of_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America
The fact that The Ford Dodge GM Chrysler Jeep Dr Pepper Snapple Group can't make a quality car is on them. In real dollars American workers have never cost less.
Those fat-cat union workers making… $45k/yr. Don't they understand how their greed affects our profits?
None of those companies auto workers are unionized in the US.
But they're still in the US and paying near identical wages to UAW plants so it's not unions "ever demanding higher wages" that makes the difference.
But maybe not forever since the UAW strike those unionized workers might gasp make the same amount they did pre-inflation in real dollars. The greedy bastards not taking a pay cut while the cost of the cars go up and those companies make record profits. Won't you think of the poor owners who are demanding higher returns, I think we can all sacrifice for them.
But maybe not forever since the UAW strike those unionized workers might gasp make the same amount they did pre-inflation in real dollars. The greedy bastards not taking a pay cut while the cost of the cars go up and those companies make record profits. Won't you think of the poor owners who are demanding higher returns, I think we can all sacrifice for them.
OK
Accelerating inequity and record corporate profits are just a coincidence?
I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions based on an observable set of factors like how long someone has been there and what education and training they have. But anyone that's worked in the workforce knows this is very limited. People aren't the same. Sometimes someone has been in an org forever but is utterly incompetent. Or someone may have all the certifications in the world but be completely useless. So its a dehumanizing sausage factory. Everyone knows two people may have the same title but one is much more productive at their job.
The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. Person A can unplug the monitor but person B has to move it, etc. Or they may have to mandate things like "moving is dangerous so you need a supervisor watching as the person move the monitor.
Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family.
A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get (i.e. showing educational videos during class time). This wouldn't fly in a normal work environment, but due to the over-formalization of hiring, you can't just let someone go for being incompetent or just not very good at their job. You have to jump through hoops
The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. Person A can unplug the monitor but person B has to move it, etc. Or they may have to mandate things like "moving is dangerous so you need a supervisor watching as the person move the monitor.
Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family.
A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get (i.e. showing educational videos during class time). This wouldn't fly in a normal work environment, but due to the over-formalization of hiring, you can't just let someone go for being incompetent or just not very good at their job. You have to jump through hoops
Unions are meant to be effective in situations where the balance of power between capital and labor is heavily tilted towards the former.
In a situation where there is an actual competitive market and people can leverage their skills and experience towards better salaries on their own, the effectiveness of a union is much lower, though there is still industry wide benefits such as normalization of health insurance standards, anti-cartel advocacy, general working condition standards, etc.
I think the police union example is a bit of a bad faith example - there is more to that one than just "union bad, mmmmkay" - it's institutionalized power and would NEVER be a market driven situation.
Teachers, generally speaking, work in a single employer market, meaning the power dynamic is again tilted towards the employer. Without a union, teachers would likely have even worse conditions than they currently "enjoy" in the USA (and frankly Canada). Hell even now they basically work overtime for free due to expected "extra curricular" workloads outside of school hours and in many cases have to supply their own materials just to be able to do their own job.
Yes, there are disadvantages (as there is in all things). But these do not mean that unions are fundamentally broken.
In a situation where there is an actual competitive market and people can leverage their skills and experience towards better salaries on their own, the effectiveness of a union is much lower, though there is still industry wide benefits such as normalization of health insurance standards, anti-cartel advocacy, general working condition standards, etc.
I think the police union example is a bit of a bad faith example - there is more to that one than just "union bad, mmmmkay" - it's institutionalized power and would NEVER be a market driven situation.
Teachers, generally speaking, work in a single employer market, meaning the power dynamic is again tilted towards the employer. Without a union, teachers would likely have even worse conditions than they currently "enjoy" in the USA (and frankly Canada). Hell even now they basically work overtime for free due to expected "extra curricular" workloads outside of school hours and in many cases have to supply their own materials just to be able to do their own job.
Yes, there are disadvantages (as there is in all things). But these do not mean that unions are fundamentally broken.
> A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get
But I think the counter argument here would be that for every bad cop/teacher that get away with something due to some shenanigans of a Union, there’s cases also that the same Union provides a platform for someone innocent to not get fired.
Let me place another perspective regarding why some unions are necessary that is for airline pilots.
This is a classic case where you have a monopoly of workforce (qualified pilots with specific knowledge with low job transitivity) and workplace (exists in some specific location just a few airlines).
In a hypothetical situation where the airlines start to enforce increase in working hours, reducing rest, and place strain on the workforce; the Unions has the organisation and power to balance that relationship and in some of the cases to help to shape the minimum regulation for the work conditions.
In those situations with dual-monopoly and low job transitivity of the workforce I think make sense to have Unions.
But I think the counter argument here would be that for every bad cop/teacher that get away with something due to some shenanigans of a Union, there’s cases also that the same Union provides a platform for someone innocent to not get fired.
Let me place another perspective regarding why some unions are necessary that is for airline pilots.
This is a classic case where you have a monopoly of workforce (qualified pilots with specific knowledge with low job transitivity) and workplace (exists in some specific location just a few airlines).
In a hypothetical situation where the airlines start to enforce increase in working hours, reducing rest, and place strain on the workforce; the Unions has the organisation and power to balance that relationship and in some of the cases to help to shape the minimum regulation for the work conditions.
In those situations with dual-monopoly and low job transitivity of the workforce I think make sense to have Unions.
The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars.
this is a very US specific problem. i don't believe any other country in the world allows unions to get away with such nonsense.
this is a very US specific problem. i don't believe any other country in the world allows unions to get away with such nonsense.
> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula.
The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace.
> Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family.
This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping.
> A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police.
Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.
The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace.
> Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family.
This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping.
> A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police.
Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.
> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace.
this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.
this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.
> as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success
Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits.
> enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking
Yes, workers talking to each other about forming a union is a right they have by virtue of being a human being. Why does nobody flip this around and ask _what is the business owner doing wrong that their employees feel they need the protection of a union_?
> somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible
For some workers it actually is. The primary thing that distinguishes the owners of the business and the workers of the business is access to capital. It is asinine to assume that someone who has worked all of their life necessarily has access to the capital to start a business. There is a power imbalance here, and you have not addressed it here.
> connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history
This is what a push to unionize _is_. The owners have the ability to respond to this - it's a growing industry of anti-union consultants and had made a few companies obscenely wealthy providing those services.
> somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will
See my point above about this being a strawman. Nobody is saying that the person that starts the company has ZERO value. Far from it. All they are asking is fair compensation for their work that has enriched the owner, which they are not getting. Employee productivity has almost doubled but their wages have been stagnant. Far from workers acting like owners have no value, it's the owners that are treating the workers as not having value.
Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits.
> enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking
Yes, workers talking to each other about forming a union is a right they have by virtue of being a human being. Why does nobody flip this around and ask _what is the business owner doing wrong that their employees feel they need the protection of a union_?
> somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible
For some workers it actually is. The primary thing that distinguishes the owners of the business and the workers of the business is access to capital. It is asinine to assume that someone who has worked all of their life necessarily has access to the capital to start a business. There is a power imbalance here, and you have not addressed it here.
> connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history
This is what a push to unionize _is_. The owners have the ability to respond to this - it's a growing industry of anti-union consultants and had made a few companies obscenely wealthy providing those services.
> somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will
See my point above about this being a strawman. Nobody is saying that the person that starts the company has ZERO value. Far from it. All they are asking is fair compensation for their work that has enriched the owner, which they are not getting. Employee productivity has almost doubled but their wages have been stagnant. Far from workers acting like owners have no value, it's the owners that are treating the workers as not having value.
> What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits.
So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the blame of that failure and need to pay at least some of the losses?
Workers prefer fixed salaries instead of revenue share to avoid risk. This is a normal way to do things, workers don't want to share profits and losses, they want a fixed salary. Moving to a profit share model would not make workers happy at all.
So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the blame of that failure and need to pay at least some of the losses?
Workers prefer fixed salaries instead of revenue share to avoid risk. This is a normal way to do things, workers don't want to share profits and losses, they want a fixed salary. Moving to a profit share model would not make workers happy at all.
It's not either or. You can be paid for labor, get equity and profit sharing at the same time.
what possible incentive would the owner of a company have to give workers equity/profit sharing while keeping all of the risk for himself?
[deleted]
The owner isn't keeping ALL the risk - the employees risk the company going out of business under them if the owner fails even if they have no direct control over how the business is run.
If we're going to acknowledge risk (and we should), then we need to acknowledge that risk as well.
If we're going to acknowledge risk (and we should), then we need to acknowledge that risk as well.
nonsense. when you accept a job at a company, the only "risk" you're taking is that said company will go under at some point in the indeterminate future, for reasons outside your control. if that happens, you file for unemployment benefits if need be, and find a new job—you're not putting any work into the company that's not directly reimbursed by your paycheck and benefits. this is completely and fundamentally unlike risking your own capital to start a new business. the two aren't even remotely comparable. if you think they are, then, once again: why are there so few co-ops, and even fewer started from unions? it's almost as though astoundingly few people want to take actual risks, as opposed to working a job for a paycheck and benefits.
why did you disingenuously disconnect the two parts of my sentence (regarding "starting a business on one's own being perceived as being Literally Impossible" and "ubiquitous instantaneous communication has made collaboration in shared purpose easier than any prior point in human history", and then respond to them separately, as if they were two separate thoughts? they were two parts of the same thought, hence them sharing the same sentence.
anytime enthusiastically pro-union people want to try to start a business on their own, together, by pooling their resources to collectively take on risk—if for no reason but to prove that unions don't exist more or less solely to tear down existing things that weren't built by the union themselves—they're more than welcome to give it a shot. but, since this doesn't really seem to happen, it's really easy to continue to perceive enthusiastically pro-union people as outwardly appearing entitled to rewards for risks and resources that were not theirs.
anyone can destroy—it takes considerably more effort to create.
anytime enthusiastically pro-union people want to try to start a business on their own, together, by pooling their resources to collectively take on risk—if for no reason but to prove that unions don't exist more or less solely to tear down existing things that weren't built by the union themselves—they're more than welcome to give it a shot. but, since this doesn't really seem to happen, it's really easy to continue to perceive enthusiastically pro-union people as outwardly appearing entitled to rewards for risks and resources that were not theirs.
anyone can destroy—it takes considerably more effort to create.
> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them.
This explains the decline of unions in general. Its also tough when the president of the US is on the picket line and your industry depends on a federal bailout every decade or so. But that's a while different story...
> Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping.
Other places are not immune and if someone wants to hire their family member at an above market rate, he is free to do so. But it may raise a few eyebrows from greedy business owners. But paying above market rates is not by design. I would still like to know what to do if you have 100 equally qualified people trying to get the same over paid position. How do you decide?
> Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union?
Absolutely. You don't see non unionized industries protecting workers to an extreme degree. Why would they? The whole premise behind unions is that management is not always aligned with workers interests. But now you're telling me managers would protect literal murderers just because? It's not consistent
This explains the decline of unions in general. Its also tough when the president of the US is on the picket line and your industry depends on a federal bailout every decade or so. But that's a while different story...
> Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping.
Other places are not immune and if someone wants to hire their family member at an above market rate, he is free to do so. But it may raise a few eyebrows from greedy business owners. But paying above market rates is not by design. I would still like to know what to do if you have 100 equally qualified people trying to get the same over paid position. How do you decide?
> Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union?
Absolutely. You don't see non unionized industries protecting workers to an extreme degree. Why would they? The whole premise behind unions is that management is not always aligned with workers interests. But now you're telling me managers would protect literal murderers just because? It's not consistent
For one thing, berserk cops could actually be fired if it weren't for their union.
It is not the union that is keeping those cops employed - they're taken off the street, typically without pay - while their case is being adjudicated. What is keeping them employed is the doctrine of qualified immunity where they are rarely, if ever, held to account, criminally, for their behavior.
Look at how the justice system, regulators and legislators treat cops who abuse their power.
The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.
The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.
Unions are democracies. If they are rigid, that's because that's what the majority wants. If they are flexible, likewise.
Police unions are basically the worst example of a union. Cops are not "workers". They are on the side of capital, policing its boundaries (literally) that's why they are so rotten!
Police unions are basically the worst example of a union. Cops are not "workers". They are on the side of capital, policing its boundaries (literally) that's why they are so rotten!
[deleted]
> the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly
Really, it's that you can't hold back the invisible hand forever. If the deal was actually too good for workers, it leaves room for a foreign competitor to move in.
It's fine that the use of AI will be limited in TV and movies, but once it's good enough to actually write shows, a new AI-driven studio will do that, and Hollywood doesn't control distribution well enough to stop them.
Really, it's that you can't hold back the invisible hand forever. If the deal was actually too good for workers, it leaves room for a foreign competitor to move in.
It's fine that the use of AI will be limited in TV and movies, but once it's good enough to actually write shows, a new AI-driven studio will do that, and Hollywood doesn't control distribution well enough to stop them.
The impact of unionization on the customers/consumers should be considered, too.
My experiences dealing with unionized workforces in Canada as a customer/consumer have generally not been good at all.
Such workers often exhibit tremendous inefficiency, a lack of care, and disinterest. This results in low-quality service/work, and a bad experience for the customers/consumers involved.
This is particularly noticeable when dealing with government employees who are unionized, such as public school teachers, some public hospital staff, the police, public transit system staff, and bureaucrats.
Unionization in such cases creates an environment where there's no incentive to perform well, as there's pretty much no downside to the unionized worker for providing terrible service.
While private sector unionization can result in a similarly-bad customer/consumer experience, at least there's often some degree of competition involved, which can give customers/consumers an alternative when service is remarkably awful. The bad service isn't as unavoidable as it is in the case of the public sector.
The content out of Hollywood matches this pattern, too. I've found it to be among the least-entertaining, least-interesting, and lowest-quality content around. I've had much better results with content from small, non-unionized, independent creators.
My experiences dealing with unionized workforces in Canada as a customer/consumer have generally not been good at all.
Such workers often exhibit tremendous inefficiency, a lack of care, and disinterest. This results in low-quality service/work, and a bad experience for the customers/consumers involved.
This is particularly noticeable when dealing with government employees who are unionized, such as public school teachers, some public hospital staff, the police, public transit system staff, and bureaucrats.
Unionization in such cases creates an environment where there's no incentive to perform well, as there's pretty much no downside to the unionized worker for providing terrible service.
While private sector unionization can result in a similarly-bad customer/consumer experience, at least there's often some degree of competition involved, which can give customers/consumers an alternative when service is remarkably awful. The bad service isn't as unavoidable as it is in the case of the public sector.
The content out of Hollywood matches this pattern, too. I've found it to be among the least-entertaining, least-interesting, and lowest-quality content around. I've had much better results with content from small, non-unionized, independent creators.
I mean, Hollywood unions have been a thing since the 1930’s, pretty much since the inception of the “Talkies.” So any loss in quality that you claim will have not been due to the unions.
In fact, the most likely culprit of any loss in quality is likely do to the studios and producers who have cut down on budgets, prep time, filming time frames and staffing which makes the existing workers have to constantly scramble to make a good product. And because of the staffing shortages, workers don’t have the same opportunities to learn the ropes from more experienced workers, so the ladder has effectively been broken. The unions are actively fighting the studios on these points because they care about the future of the industry. Without the union backing up these workers, the loss in quality would have likely been even worse than it is now.
Not every union is the same. Hollywood union members are incredibly hardworking, regularly working 60-90 hours a week in very physical and stressful jobs. Many of these workers are highly skilled and take their job very seriously. And they would be much worse off without the union advocating for them.
Bad customer experiences happen in all type of businesses regardless of union status. That shouldn’t distract us from the fact that many people that would otherwise be exploited would be far worse off if they didn’t have a union to represent them.
In fact, the most likely culprit of any loss in quality is likely do to the studios and producers who have cut down on budgets, prep time, filming time frames and staffing which makes the existing workers have to constantly scramble to make a good product. And because of the staffing shortages, workers don’t have the same opportunities to learn the ropes from more experienced workers, so the ladder has effectively been broken. The unions are actively fighting the studios on these points because they care about the future of the industry. Without the union backing up these workers, the loss in quality would have likely been even worse than it is now.
Not every union is the same. Hollywood union members are incredibly hardworking, regularly working 60-90 hours a week in very physical and stressful jobs. Many of these workers are highly skilled and take their job very seriously. And they would be much worse off without the union advocating for them.
Bad customer experiences happen in all type of businesses regardless of union status. That shouldn’t distract us from the fact that many people that would otherwise be exploited would be far worse off if they didn’t have a union to represent them.
The things you attribute to unionization are, I think, a bit of a stretch. Hollywood especially. Actors and writers have been organized for a long time. Smaller studios like A24 with a reputation for making good movies when larger studios milk existing franchises still use organized labor.
In what ways would non-union government employees be better?
Im not OP but when I think of bad government employees, I think of this jerk at my local post office that has been there for at least 10+ years(I am in the US). Always unhelpful, always making a simple task of sending a package as hard as possible by yelling, complaining about alignment of address labels, providing improper advice on the best way to ship different items causing me to spend a lot more money than I needed to or preventing me from using certain services to ship specific packages that others workers would allow because of his misunderstanding of my package description.
My only recourse to alert anybody of this issue is to fill out a survey. I've been filling out that survey for years. There is no feedback loop to enact change. There is no other "manager" there. How would I even find a manager?
I could go to a competitor but that would not affect them and there are some services that other competitors are not allowed to perform (USPS is the only one that can perform letter mail service by law and others will just take your letter and put it in a larger parcel).
This situation sucks so much that I am reduced to trying to visit the post office at hours that I think he is not there or take a long trip to another town's post office.
My only recourse to alert anybody of this issue is to fill out a survey. I've been filling out that survey for years. There is no feedback loop to enact change. There is no other "manager" there. How would I even find a manager?
I could go to a competitor but that would not affect them and there are some services that other competitors are not allowed to perform (USPS is the only one that can perform letter mail service by law and others will just take your letter and put it in a larger parcel).
This situation sucks so much that I am reduced to trying to visit the post office at hours that I think he is not there or take a long trip to another town's post office.
Agreed, we need flexibility to fire people. And, honestly, I've never been real clear why civil servants, eg admin and staff, are unionized.
Unions are not uniquely impotent wrt their "bad apples". Every organization is afflicted.
This phenomenon seems to be holding all of society back.
Ideas?
(FWIW, my main motivation for being pro-union & pro-labor is profit sharing. Corporate welfare and record high profits while most people struggle really pisses me off.)
Unions are not uniquely impotent wrt their "bad apples". Every organization is afflicted.
This phenomenon seems to be holding all of society back.
Ideas?
(FWIW, my main motivation for being pro-union & pro-labor is profit sharing. Corporate welfare and record high profits while most people struggle really pisses me off.)
Presumably the idea is they would be motivated to do a good job or else be fired. Whereas now they are immune from firing unless doing something egregious.
I don’t really agree with that though as the real reason is the government has no competition. If McDonalds does a bad job at service you will go to Burger King. But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?
I don’t really agree with that though as the real reason is the government has no competition. If McDonalds does a bad job at service you will go to Burger King. But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?
Even with unions King County already does 3 year "temporary" contract positions for all new hires in some departments, and the City of Seattle is driving a hard line of only a 2% COLA increase in contract negotiations.
Outside of the SPD Guild, unions don't have much leverage to retain underperforming employees. Document the failure to perform a handful of times and that employee will be gone, with at most a grievance filed where you get to reiterate how they repeatedly failed to deliver at work.
Outside of the SPD Guild, unions don't have much leverage to retain underperforming employees. Document the failure to perform a handful of times and that employee will be gone, with at most a grievance filed where you get to reiterate how they repeatedly failed to deliver at work.
> But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?
You engage in the democratic processes to effect change, versus the "choice" between what other non-democratic entities are willing to give you.
You engage in the democratic processes to effect change, versus the "choice" between what other non-democratic entities are willing to give you.
By AI guardrails they mean: AI cannot be used to write or rewrite scripts, and cannot be source material; but writers are free to use it if they wish.
Reminds me of how elevators originally had operators, until everyone realized how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons. As AI improves, we will come to feel the same about writers.
Reminds me of how elevators originally had operators, until everyone realized how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons. As AI improves, we will come to feel the same about writers.
Elevator operators were not replaced by buttons.
Elevator operators were replaced by very complex computers with many redundant censors.
You had elevator operators for safety not convenience...
Similarly you seem to have the common misconception that the purpose of a writer is to churn out random text which can be replaced with LLM vs building a coherent story and guiding it through the creative process in support of the other people involved.
The writers strike was primarily about streaming having terrible residuals and while they were striking they took back the inputs into AI from studios which makes sense given writing has always been for a particular project.
Elevator operators were replaced by very complex computers with many redundant censors.
You had elevator operators for safety not convenience...
Similarly you seem to have the common misconception that the purpose of a writer is to churn out random text which can be replaced with LLM vs building a coherent story and guiding it through the creative process in support of the other people involved.
The writers strike was primarily about streaming having terrible residuals and while they were striking they took back the inputs into AI from studios which makes sense given writing has always been for a particular project.
That's the metaphor to a T: at one time it was necessary to have an operator, until technology reached a point where buttons would suffice.
In the future, script production and revision will still occur via committee, but the actual writing will not be done by humans.
In the future, script production and revision will still occur via committee, but the actual writing will not be done by humans.
I think keeping the committee was partially to avoid accidentally cutting off the stream of new writers.
If you can't get started doing grunt work writing you have to get started somewhere.
If you can't get started doing grunt work writing you have to get started somewhere.
If that comes to fruition they'll just have one writer who is responsible for putting their name on a ton of AI-generated scripts.
But at this very moment, AI generating anything suitable for something other than SEO blogspam isn't possible anyway. It might be right around the corner, or it might be "right around the corner" like self-driving cars were in 2015.
But at this very moment, AI generating anything suitable for something other than SEO blogspam isn't possible anyway. It might be right around the corner, or it might be "right around the corner" like self-driving cars were in 2015.
I'm not convinced LLM's are capable of any truly original thought, which is necessary for good compelling writing.
LLM's spit out derivative nonsense. Highly convincing nonsense, but derivative nonetheless. Any true originality in the output still comes from the human engineering the prompt.
Basically, LLM's know how to follow the rules, color within the lines. A real artist understands those rules well enough to break them and create something novel.
LLM's spit out derivative nonsense. Highly convincing nonsense, but derivative nonetheless. Any true originality in the output still comes from the human engineering the prompt.
Basically, LLM's know how to follow the rules, color within the lines. A real artist understands those rules well enough to break them and create something novel.
The latest models generate original combinations that can surprise the prompter with their inventiveness, so your confident assertions about what LLMs can't do seems calibrated to the models of a year or more ago – and not at all an enduring human advantage that one could bank a career (or society) on.
Attempts to rigorously study the relative creativity of LLMs have already found them more creative than average humans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40858-3
They're only getting better, fast.
If you're not convinced, what GPT4-level (text or multimodal) or Midjourney-level (imagery) models have you tried, and how much?
Attempts to rigorously study the relative creativity of LLMs have already found them more creative than average humans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40858-3
They're only getting better, fast.
If you're not convinced, what GPT4-level (text or multimodal) or Midjourney-level (imagery) models have you tried, and how much?
This hasn’t been my experience at all. It’s just as original as humans, especially at the “derivative” style of most popular media. It’s probably true that humans are still better at extremely creative thought but that’s not what most commercial writing is.
> especially at the “derivative” style of most popular media
This is what I see as the problem. Hollywood needs to stop relying so heavily on derivative goop and give actual creatives more leeway in creating something original.
You can only ride old IPs for so long before people lose interest and stop buying tickets, as Hollywood has been learning recently. You need people coming up with fresh novel ideas if you ever want to come up with the next big thing.
Some executive asking Chat-GPT to spit out a new Marvel movie script isn't going to do that.
This is what I see as the problem. Hollywood needs to stop relying so heavily on derivative goop and give actual creatives more leeway in creating something original.
You can only ride old IPs for so long before people lose interest and stop buying tickets, as Hollywood has been learning recently. You need people coming up with fresh novel ideas if you ever want to come up with the next big thing.
Some executive asking Chat-GPT to spit out a new Marvel movie script isn't going to do that.
I'm not convinced that most, or any, humans are ever engaging in truly original thought.
This idea that AI cannot be creative but humans can is something that begs for a test; and that test needs to be applied against humans, as well. If AI can pass it at least as often as humans can, then AI is at least as creative as humans; within the bounds of that test.
As it happens, an AI has recently passed such a test[0].
0: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/14/1079465/ai-just-...
This idea that AI cannot be creative but humans can is something that begs for a test; and that test needs to be applied against humans, as well. If AI can pass it at least as often as humans can, then AI is at least as creative as humans; within the bounds of that test.
As it happens, an AI has recently passed such a test[0].
0: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/14/1079465/ai-just-...
one possible test would be if a model trained solely on naturalist and earlier paintings could eventually start producing expressionist and abstract works, without carefully engineered prompts.
Even for humans there was a transition period, and not a sudden explosion of new expression. Naturalist gave way to impressionism, which gave rise to expressionism, and eventually then came abstract works. There's a clear, gradual change in style between them all.
I don't see why you couldn't have an AI do the same, by training it towards a particular aberration in output until that became something it understood well.
I don't see why you couldn't have an AI do the same, by training it towards a particular aberration in output until that became something it understood well.
So what you're really saying is there are no true artists left in Hollywood.
Oh they exist, they just have a much harder time finding work, and when they do get to make something it rarely gets the same marketing push as comic book shared universe project #87. Some great movies still come out, but you probably never hear about them if you aren't actively plugged in to the scene.
I think filmmakers like Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (Swiss Army Man, Everything Everywhere All at Once) are where Hollywood should be focusing their attention, and their sweep at the Oscars this year has me cautiously hopeful that at least a few people in power are paying attention.
I think filmmakers like Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (Swiss Army Man, Everything Everywhere All at Once) are where Hollywood should be focusing their attention, and their sweep at the Oscars this year has me cautiously hopeful that at least a few people in power are paying attention.
The source material ban seems like it is just closing a loophole. I have a vague idea about a time-traveling cowboy and robot, tell ChatGPT to write a script, script is terrible, so tell a writer to fix it up. Now that writer has different rights than if it were an original script, even though it is basically an original script.
I seriously don't get this argument, which I see far too often. Meaning, writing being simply a means to an "end" of a product. I like a good piece of fiction especially because it was written by a human being. It is that human's way of communicating something to me / the audience. Do people out there really want to read something written by a machine? Of course, if you have some bottom of the barrel corporate-approved fiction, it may as well be written by AI. But that isn't what I seek to consume and I would wager there are many others who feel the same way. What is the appeal of AI-generated fiction?
In theory can't they basically have a single writer use an AI to write every script for every movie and TV show? At least with elevators they needed a person in each elevator.
> how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons.
That doesn't seem like the right cause, since it's the people who seem most concerned with seriousness and economic efficiency who still have elevator operators today.
That doesn't seem like the right cause, since it's the people who seem most concerned with seriousness and economic efficiency who still have elevator operators today.
Who still has elevator operators today?
Wealthy people and stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person.
For wealthy people, that would be an example of extreme luxury, or in other words spending vast amounts of money for marginal improvements in quality of life. Doing so is perfectly rational for them (what else are they going to do with their money?), but hardly an example of economic efficiency.
“Stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person” are a special case. It might be economically efficient (i.e. profitable) for them to spend money on things associated with extravagance and wealth, in order to more effectively create an image in their customers’ minds and thus attract more customers. But those circumstances don’t apply to the vast majority of elevator owners.
So what exactly is your point?
“Stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person” are a special case. It might be economically efficient (i.e. profitable) for them to spend money on things associated with extravagance and wealth, in order to more effectively create an image in their customers’ minds and thus attract more customers. But those circumstances don’t apply to the vast majority of elevator owners.
So what exactly is your point?
This means the capitalist class is funding stores with large enough margins to hire elevator operators, clearly inefficient allocation of capital. They can afford to do that by squeezing dime and nickel from the workers, extracting the most "efficiency" from them. That's the point.
> As AI improves, we will come to feel the same about writers.
There's no purpose to many forms of media if it doesn't have a human author (besides making money, of course). You're describing content "grey goo" here. I'm not sure why anyone should feel positively about such a development.
There's no purpose to many forms of media if it doesn't have a human author (besides making money, of course). You're describing content "grey goo" here. I'm not sure why anyone should feel positively about such a development.
When I was learning to walk, my dad was installing conveyors for an automotive factory - he was vp of engineering (later robotics) for a large engineering firm that Siemens ultimately bought.
He was trying to get the job finished and get home to his family, so he was working late one night double checking the fit on all the nuts, bolts, anything he could check to ensure the job was successful. He did this all the time, I learned how to successfully deliver product from seeing him do it.
A gang of union guys came up to him and threatened to beat him if he continued to work because he was taking a union job away from "the pipe guy", call him Frank.
My dad says "that's fine, can frank come help?"
"Frank's out sick"
And that was that. He either stopped getting the job done or they would visit violence upon him.
I'll never side with people that think this is acceptable behaviour.
He was trying to get the job finished and get home to his family, so he was working late one night double checking the fit on all the nuts, bolts, anything he could check to ensure the job was successful. He did this all the time, I learned how to successfully deliver product from seeing him do it.
A gang of union guys came up to him and threatened to beat him if he continued to work because he was taking a union job away from "the pipe guy", call him Frank.
My dad says "that's fine, can frank come help?"
"Frank's out sick"
And that was that. He either stopped getting the job done or they would visit violence upon him.
I'll never side with people that think this is acceptable behaviour.
With that criteria, you have ruled out siding with any form of organization that humans have ever created.
Businesses, governments, churches, sports teams and probably even Girl Scout troops all have a history of committing violence when it serves their aims.
Businesses, governments, churches, sports teams and probably even Girl Scout troops all have a history of committing violence when it serves their aims.
For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation. Throughout their history, unions would always be maximally exclusionary to the degree it wouldn't backfire in terms of PR (and sometimes beyond that, e.g. Cesar Chavez conducting anti-immigrant border raids), because that is their whole point.
> For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation.
I don't see much of a distinction. I suspect a significant portion of workplace or work-related crime involves the criminal being motivated by work-related incentives.
I don't see much of a distinction. I suspect a significant portion of workplace or work-related crime involves the criminal being motivated by work-related incentives.
> For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation.
For unions, it has only ever been a means to an end (with that end being things like having days off, and safe working conditions) Corporations on the other hand throw human lives away because it makes them money, and making money is all they care about. That's why the bodies of children were being mangled in the machinery of the industrial revolution and it's why children are still dying in garment factory disasters today.
For unions, it has only ever been a means to an end (with that end being things like having days off, and safe working conditions) Corporations on the other hand throw human lives away because it makes them money, and making money is all they care about. That's why the bodies of children were being mangled in the machinery of the industrial revolution and it's why children are still dying in garment factory disasters today.
For corporations, even their bad behavior is incidental to their goals. Corporation in a vacuum is a form of capital organization, typically used to provide some service for profit. Sure, if a corporation can e.g. buy a government (like United Fruit did), it will totally do that. However, it's incidental - if it couldn't it would do something else, so by setting up decent rules it is easy to make corporations do far more good than harm.
For unions in the vacuum though... if we assume no other workers exist and no innovation is possible, unions (at least, US-style unions) would have no reason to exist - company cannot replace workers, or between multiple companies it can only replace workers in a game of musical chairs, so all the workers individually would have great bargaining power.
An approximation: tech 5 years ago, maybe even now, I haven't interviewed recently.
So, the only/main reason unions need to exist is to protect the jobs of their members against (1) other workers, including immigrants (2) being obsoleted by innovation. That is not incidental to their goals, that is their whole goal. I find both of these incentives to be inherently evil (I am also self aware enough to know that while e.g. banning AI coding innovations, any further immigration of developers and outsourcing to boot would be amazing for my compensation, it's still evil)
For unions in the vacuum though... if we assume no other workers exist and no innovation is possible, unions (at least, US-style unions) would have no reason to exist - company cannot replace workers, or between multiple companies it can only replace workers in a game of musical chairs, so all the workers individually would have great bargaining power.
An approximation: tech 5 years ago, maybe even now, I haven't interviewed recently.
So, the only/main reason unions need to exist is to protect the jobs of their members against (1) other workers, including immigrants (2) being obsoleted by innovation. That is not incidental to their goals, that is their whole goal. I find both of these incentives to be inherently evil (I am also self aware enough to know that while e.g. banning AI coding innovations, any further immigration of developers and outsourcing to boot would be amazing for my compensation, it's still evil)
> unions (at least, US-style unions) would have no reason to exist
Of course they would, because corporations exploit workers all the time. If workers aren't being paid the backpay they're owed, the union will handle that. If workers want to be able to take the time to walk to a bathroom instead of having to wear diapers or piss in plastic bottles while working, the union will handle that. Same with being forced to work excessive hours, having unpaid overtime, being locked in overnight, being forced to continue working under hazardous conditions, being forced to submit to strip searches by management, etc.
These are the types of abuses that happen in the US, and even if every employee were part of a union, companies would continue to do those types of things for as long as they could get away with it. The difference is that workers with unions can pressure the company to stop abusing workers for example, like when employees are being forced to share underwear with their co-workers (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jun-08-fi-7876-...)
unions protect workers against a hell of a lot more than just being replaced by slave labor, or robot slave labor.
Of course they would, because corporations exploit workers all the time. If workers aren't being paid the backpay they're owed, the union will handle that. If workers want to be able to take the time to walk to a bathroom instead of having to wear diapers or piss in plastic bottles while working, the union will handle that. Same with being forced to work excessive hours, having unpaid overtime, being locked in overnight, being forced to continue working under hazardous conditions, being forced to submit to strip searches by management, etc.
These are the types of abuses that happen in the US, and even if every employee were part of a union, companies would continue to do those types of things for as long as they could get away with it. The difference is that workers with unions can pressure the company to stop abusing workers for example, like when employees are being forced to share underwear with their co-workers (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jun-08-fi-7876-...)
unions protect workers against a hell of a lot more than just being replaced by slave labor, or robot slave labor.
You are missing my point, or rather confirming it. Multiple times actually.
1) The reason corporations can do these things is because there's competition for jobs. If there wasn't, they wouldn't be able to get away with it - see tech industry pay and perks, and the fact that people just leave and find another job for a reason as normal as having to work at an office. If there's competition for labor, unions have value - by excluding other labor. That is their only goal.
2) What's wrong with "robot slave labor"? My point exactly, again. Unions protect a subset of workers from innovation. Good for a few newly-useless workers, terrible for society.
1) The reason corporations can do these things is because there's competition for jobs. If there wasn't, they wouldn't be able to get away with it - see tech industry pay and perks, and the fact that people just leave and find another job for a reason as normal as having to work at an office. If there's competition for labor, unions have value - by excluding other labor. That is their only goal.
2) What's wrong with "robot slave labor"? My point exactly, again. Unions protect a subset of workers from innovation. Good for a few newly-useless workers, terrible for society.
That just sounds like humans committing assault. Really awful, but to me it doesn't indicate much about the concept of unions. I bet there was a firefighter once who murdered someone, but likewise that doesn't indicate much about the concept of firefighting.
> I bet there was a firefighter once who murdered someone, but likewise that doesn't indicate much about the concept of firefighting.
exceedingly terrible analogy, because the hypothetical firefighter hypothetically committing a hypothetical murder, wholly unrelated to firefighting, is a completely different situation than union guys threatening violence on a worker for union-related reasons, in the pursuit of union-related ideals.
exceedingly terrible analogy, because the hypothetical firefighter hypothetically committing a hypothetical murder, wholly unrelated to firefighting, is a completely different situation than union guys threatening violence on a worker for union-related reasons, in the pursuit of union-related ideals.
The point, of course, is that it wouldn't matter whether the firefighter's murder was in pursuit of firefighting-related goals. If the firefighter murdered a coworker who was competing for a promotion, that still tells you very little about the concept firefighting.
It's not some huge gotcha that the union workers who committed assault did it in pursuit of their own goals. Most people do most things in pursuit of their own goals.
It's not some huge gotcha that the union workers who committed assault did it in pursuit of their own goals. Most people do most things in pursuit of their own goals.
[deleted]
So the union and company came to a legal agreement about work and your father chose to do work breaking that agreement.
What would happen if I began installing or moving pipes at my company that management and ownership told me not to? A "gang" of security guards or policemen would visit violence on me to stop.
You are aghast at the people actually doing the work and creating the wealth enforcing their rights, but make no mention of the heirs who own Siemens and their "gangs" working to expropriate surplus labor time and profit.
What would happen if I began installing or moving pipes at my company that management and ownership told me not to? A "gang" of security guards or policemen would visit violence on me to stop.
You are aghast at the people actually doing the work and creating the wealth enforcing their rights, but make no mention of the heirs who own Siemens and their "gangs" working to expropriate surplus labor time and profit.
> So the union and company came to a legal agreement about work and your father chose to do work breaking that agreement.
Adding value deserves to be met with threats. This is a stunning argument against unions you're making.
Adding value deserves to be met with threats. This is a stunning argument against unions you're making.
If I add value which management does not approve, then I am met by threats on their end. That is a stunning argument against management.
The workers create all the wealth and do all the work. The heirs who own the controlling stake in a big company like Siemens do not work, but expropriate surplus labor time doing work.
You have the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth on one end, and the heirs who parasitically expropriate the worker's surplus time on the other. It's obvious to those of us who work who the "argument" is against.
The workers create all the wealth and do all the work. The heirs who own the controlling stake in a big company like Siemens do not work, but expropriate surplus labor time doing work.
You have the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth on one end, and the heirs who parasitically expropriate the worker's surplus time on the other. It's obvious to those of us who work who the "argument" is against.
If you add value and management threatens you it's both wrong and a mistake on their part - in that it goes against managements interest.
If the Union does the same thing it's wrong - because threatening people is wrong - but not actually against their interests because as you say a Union isn't interested in the company doing well. All the company does is exploit them and the customers. The Union just wants to make sure they get a pound of flesh out of the company (and presumably the customers too).
If the Union does the same thing it's wrong - because threatening people is wrong - but not actually against their interests because as you say a Union isn't interested in the company doing well. All the company does is exploit them and the customers. The Union just wants to make sure they get a pound of flesh out of the company (and presumably the customers too).
There's a long and storied history of anti union violence that is far, far worse than what your dad suffered:
For instance, when a company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
>By August 29 the battle was fully underway. Chafin's men, though outnumbered, had the advantage of higher positions and better weaponry. Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of poison gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect as evidence for the defense during treason and murder trials.
Or the anti union assassinations in Columbia:
https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/
>After the leader of their union was shot down at their plant gate in late 1996, Edgar Paéz and his co-workers at the Coca-Cola bottling factory in Carepa, Colombia, tried for more than four years to get their government to take action against the responsible parties. Instead, some of the workers themselves wound up behind bars, while the murderers went free.
>I'll never side with people that think this is acceptable behaviour.
It sounds like you are implying that you would never side with any union ever. Not even these.
Is that accurate?
For instance, when a company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
>By August 29 the battle was fully underway. Chafin's men, though outnumbered, had the advantage of higher positions and better weaponry. Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of poison gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect as evidence for the defense during treason and murder trials.
Or the anti union assassinations in Columbia:
https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/
>After the leader of their union was shot down at their plant gate in late 1996, Edgar Paéz and his co-workers at the Coca-Cola bottling factory in Carepa, Colombia, tried for more than four years to get their government to take action against the responsible parties. Instead, some of the workers themselves wound up behind bars, while the murderers went free.
>I'll never side with people that think this is acceptable behaviour.
It sounds like you are implying that you would never side with any union ever. Not even these.
Is that accurate?
Yeah I meant I wouldn't side with anyone that thinks it's acceptable to do what they did to my dad. I still mean that. Showing me some other examples does nothing, and modern unions largely think more of what happened to my dad should happen.
Where does that amazing 59% come from? Oh yes: a survey the AFL-CIO conducted, with no details provided:
" In the early 2000s the AFL-CIO Department for Professional Employees started conducting survey of tech workers across the country found. In 2004, the survey showed that just 33% supported unionizing their workplace. By 2016, that had grown to 59%."
The only "survey" that counts is the actual election for union recognition.
" In the early 2000s the AFL-CIO Department for Professional Employees started conducting survey of tech workers across the country found. In 2004, the survey showed that just 33% supported unionizing their workplace. By 2016, that had grown to 59%."
The only "survey" that counts is the actual election for union recognition.
You would think so, but there tends to be pretty significant bias in union card campaigns and authorization votes. Strike authorizations tend to be even higher.
People who don't support the campaigns tend to just not vote, but there's also a significant number of people who just don't find out.
A better "survey" would be the number who actually sign union cards in workplaces with mandatory union orientations (meaning every employee is necessarily "surveyed"). This also means agreeing to pay dues so there's a "money where your mouth is" component.
(Source: I've helped with running a few.)
People who don't support the campaigns tend to just not vote, but there's also a significant number of people who just don't find out.
A better "survey" would be the number who actually sign union cards in workplaces with mandatory union orientations (meaning every employee is necessarily "surveyed"). This also means agreeing to pay dues so there's a "money where your mouth is" component.
(Source: I've helped with running a few.)
You want to abolish the secret ballot election. Not a good look for you.
I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
Ah yes, the economy. The thing we all need to endlessly sacrifice our lives for out of fear something terrible will happen otherwise. A fear that those in power yield continually like a stick that is very rarely backed up by facts and sensible ideas. The same economy that is leading to massive wealth inequality regardless of how much people work to stop being beaten by the stick.
It’s not crazy to suggest you need to balance labor demands with the demands of efficiently running a business.
Agreed. It’s too bad company leaders want nothing of the sort unless it’s a boulder on one side vs a pebble on the other side of the scale.
Studies have shown time and time again that a 4 day work week results in higher productivity and happier employees. Happy employees also do better work.
No they have not. Studies by motivated parties show in some cases there are diminishing returns.
It's a non-sensical argument. If a 4 day work week is more productive than a 5 day work week it means the 5th days is producing negative work. You could literally do nothing every Friday and you would not be less productive than a 4 day work week.
It's a non-sensical argument. If a 4 day work week is more productive than a 5 day work week it means the 5th days is producing negative work. You could literally do nothing every Friday and you would not be less productive than a 4 day work week.
That's not non-sensical at all. It's completely plausible. In any task, fatigue results in diminishing marginal productivity, to the point where taking time to rest and recover will sometimes boost total productivity more than spending that time working. Evidence, not blanket dismissal, is required to determine if that's true for Fridays.
What's nonsensical is your bad take. First and foremost, if workers say they're happier, you have no method of disputing that and every study that captures the employees perspective is literally saying the exact same thing. Find me some data that says humans want to work longer hours, we will all wait...
It also sounds like you're not familiar with simple ideas like Parkinson’s Law. Listen to yourself, you don't think people are fucking off at work? It's business hours and you're on hacker news not doing work, case and point.
It also sounds like you're not familiar with simple ideas like Parkinson’s Law. Listen to yourself, you don't think people are fucking off at work? It's business hours and you're on hacker news not doing work, case and point.
> It's a non-sensical argument.
Your take is equally non-sensical. There is no magical constant unit of time that represents maximum productivity. It’s all relative and fluid. It’s based on many many variables. And even if such a time existed for one person in one company for one week, it wouldn’t be neatly packaged like “40 hours”. It would likely seem random like 34 hours 20 minutes and 25 seconds.
Arguing over such a universal time is as much a waste a time as arguing over the perfect diet. It’s relative.
Your take is equally non-sensical. There is no magical constant unit of time that represents maximum productivity. It’s all relative and fluid. It’s based on many many variables. And even if such a time existed for one person in one company for one week, it wouldn’t be neatly packaged like “40 hours”. It would likely seem random like 34 hours 20 minutes and 25 seconds.
Arguing over such a universal time is as much a waste a time as arguing over the perfect diet. It’s relative.
It’s very easy to produce negative work as a programmer so this isn’t as silly as you assume. How often have I spent hours debugging some code only to realize I did something stupid after staying up late the previous night.
> You could literally do nothing every Friday and you would not be less productive than a 4 day work week.
This would be an accurate statement for most work places. People are often creating negative value in the modern workplace in the form on tech debt, new bugs, unwanted features, meetings that drain the rest of the staff...
5 days isn't productive for knowledge and creative work, it leaves people in a state of perpetual burn out and greatly lowers the quality of output.
This would be an accurate statement for most work places. People are often creating negative value in the modern workplace in the form on tech debt, new bugs, unwanted features, meetings that drain the rest of the staff...
5 days isn't productive for knowledge and creative work, it leaves people in a state of perpetual burn out and greatly lowers the quality of output.
There's reason for skepticism, but negative work doesn't seem impossible to me. If you've got a 2 hour status meeting that zaps your motivation, reducing productivity by 50% for the remaining 6 hours of the day, that meeting produced -1 hours of work. (And if you postulate that 32 hours is the limit of productivity for the average employee, those kind of soul-sucking meetings are exactly what you'd expect to be scheduled to fill out the remaining 8.)
> If a 4 day work week is more productive than a 5 day work week it means the 5th days is producing negative work
Or it could mean that increasing weekly time off by 50% improves people's happiness and productivity, or that a 5 day work week results in days of work that are less productive than in a 4 day work week.
Or it could mean that increasing weekly time off by 50% improves people's happiness and productivity, or that a 5 day work week results in days of work that are less productive than in a 4 day work week.
[deleted]
If that were true, why isn't every company adopting 4 day work weeks?
How many have even tried it? Companies are profit-seeking but that doesn't mean they will automatically make correct profitable decisions at every juncture. They're led by humans who generally make small conservative changes based on intuition. We see companies languish, stagnate, and miss critical strategic opportunities all the time.
Poor management is endemic. Managers are for the most part trying to maximize their ego/status. This means having their "underlings" grinding away (preferably in view) for as many hours as possible. That this situation is bad for the company doesn't matter since management is the one executing the poor decisions.
Power, greed? Why do CEO's make 100x their employees? Some things just don't make sense.
I think there is a change of attitude with a shorter work week. If I am working 9-5 at the same place everyday, I basically live there. It is easier to decide to take more breaks because there is no Friday to relax or get chores done or go to appointments. I take every other Friday off and it helps me focus more at work. I schedule all my weekday appointments for Friday (as much as I can). Monday thru Thursday I can push a little harder and be a little more focused because I know I have Friday (or a week from Friday) to take my dog to the vet, me to the doctor, or whatever else I need to do. I would love a real 4 day work week.
> working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
Absolute statements like this on this topic are invalid. It’s relative and fluid and not something you can prove scientifically and definitively.
Absolute statements like this on this topic are invalid. It’s relative and fluid and not something you can prove scientifically and definitively.
It's safe to say 32 hours of work does not produce more than 40 hours.
The gray area is the point at which there are diminishing returns. Is that between 32 and 40 hours, or more? And how much do they diminish?
The gray area is the point at which there are diminishing returns. Is that between 32 and 40 hours, or more? And how much do they diminish?
> It's safe to say 32 hours of work does not produce more than 40 hours.
This is too simple. 32 hours of huge output may produce more than 40 hours of light output. If the machine/human output is a constant, then sure you’re correct. But that’s not true. And that’s my point. It’s relative and fluid. It’s relative to the work, the individual, the health of the individual, the weather that day, and on and on.
This is too simple. 32 hours of huge output may produce more than 40 hours of light output. If the machine/human output is a constant, then sure you’re correct. But that’s not true. And that’s my point. It’s relative and fluid. It’s relative to the work, the individual, the health of the individual, the weather that day, and on and on.
But 40 hours includes 32 hours. If you can produce a huge output in 32 hours then you can produce a huge output + 8 hours worth of work in 40 hours.
there would be less time available for rest compared to a 32-hour week, which could potentially lead to reduced productivity
No, that's not safe at all. On the context of the article, I would expect writers total production to increase steadily with decreasing hours on that interval.
By that logic why wouldn’t the maximum be at 168 hours?
Clearly there is some cost to more hours that causes the maximum to be at strictly less than the maximum. Given that we have no reason to assume 40 hours is better than 32 hours.
Clearly there is some cost to more hours that causes the maximum to be at strictly less than the maximum. Given that we have no reason to assume 40 hours is better than 32 hours.
If I was incentivized to care about business productivity (almost no IC is) why should I care if I’m more or less productive? My quality of life only goes up the fewer hours I work so unless there’s some incentive pushing the other way. It’s fine that business and workers have different incentive directions. We’ve been making workers more and more productive with computers and automation. Why shouldn’t I work a little less?
> And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
By this logic, working 48 hours is more productive, working 54 hours even more productive, 62 hours even more productive. It can be cranked up even more - the English did and took meticulous records on it.
Dialecticaly it created a strong Labour party which took power in 1945 and nationalized coal, the bank of England, hospitals, telecommunications, national rail, iron and steel - the commanding heights of the economy.
By this logic, working 48 hours is more productive, working 54 hours even more productive, 62 hours even more productive. It can be cranked up even more - the English did and took meticulous records on it.
Dialecticaly it created a strong Labour party which took power in 1945 and nationalized coal, the bank of England, hospitals, telecommunications, national rail, iron and steel - the commanding heights of the economy.
Remember, when someone says "X works", what they mean is "X is effective at accomplishing what I want to accomplish, and I don't give a shit what you want to accomplish".
In this meaning, when the headline says "unions work", it is being 100% honest.
In this meaning, when the headline says "unions work", it is being 100% honest.
Second sentence of the article: "This is a great example of how unions can really work for their members."
That's why these are two forces: the interests of the business, and the interests of the workers. The idea is that they negotiate and compromise, and a good balance is found.
I agree with the additional clarification that the interest of the business is somewhat the interest of the workers (and vice-versa).
My point is there exist many things that workers might want for their immediate benefit but shouldn't want because ultimately it will be bad for them via an unhealthy business and/or economy.
My point is there exist many things that workers might want for their immediate benefit but shouldn't want because ultimately it will be bad for them via an unhealthy business and/or economy.
[deleted]
I have my doubts about unions in our particular industry sector, but out in the real world there are many, many jobs that you would have to be insane to take up without a union at your back.
Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Not having them is a huge problem. In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind, wonder why in America that doesnt happen
As a result of this, there’s a less dynamic job market and lower wages. Companies essentially take on additional risks when hiring there where if it the hire is bad, as they’re unable to or it’s very costly to terminate the employee. This results in a risk premium that is offset via lower wages.
I’ll take the U.S. tech sector without unions anyday.
> Unions are fundamental in every line of work.
Fundamental in what sense? In most of the world, most of the industries are not unionized. And where there are unions, they came after the line of work started. Which makes unions seem not fundamental at all.
> In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind
Not true at all. Most professional service oriented jobs are not unionized. Even in places like Germany where unions are relatively common.
Fundamental in what sense? In most of the world, most of the industries are not unionized. And where there are unions, they came after the line of work started. Which makes unions seem not fundamental at all.
> In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind
Not true at all. Most professional service oriented jobs are not unionized. Even in places like Germany where unions are relatively common.
the easiest difference to notice is that in the US creating a union inside a company needs to be voted on, whereas eg in germany a council elected by employees is mandated for any company with more than 50 employees. unions are not created in the company but exist outside and any employee is free to join them at any time. if a company has enough union members they can take action there.
which means growth of unions is just a matter of individual choice of each employee. and there is nothing the company can to to stop it.
which means growth of unions is just a matter of individual choice of each employee. and there is nothing the company can to to stop it.
Same in Italy. It baffles me that in the great democracy (/s) people can't come together to get fair treatment from employers. sad.
> In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind
Not correct for the whole Europe.
In some places in Central Europe you do not have a Union but instead Work Council that intermediates and oversees the management and acts in the interest of employees.
Personally I like the idea, but at least in some counties it became an instrument of job protection for old employees that sometimes has a different agenda than other employees.
Not correct for the whole Europe.
In some places in Central Europe you do not have a Union but instead Work Council that intermediates and oversees the management and acts in the interest of employees.
Personally I like the idea, but at least in some counties it became an instrument of job protection for old employees that sometimes has a different agenda than other employees.
> Unions are fundamental in every line of work
They are fundamental in that they blunt the threat I face if I fell out of my present line of work and had to take something that would rough up my baby soft laptop jockey hands. If they have a better bargaining position, I have a better bargaining position because it's less of a loss if I have to join their ranks.
They are fundamental in that they blunt the threat I face if I fell out of my present line of work and had to take something that would rough up my baby soft laptop jockey hands. If they have a better bargaining position, I have a better bargaining position because it's less of a loss if I have to join their ranks.
Americans are smart enough and strong enough to not have to hide behind a 'powerful union'. Unions are nothing more than legalized mob. The are worthless for productivity and a disaster for those who are eager to work.
What does this even mean? Smart and strong enough to get abused by the Company? lmao. Talk about being fucked so much you start to like it
that's because unlike in europe unions in the US did not manage to get the same level of worker protection changed into law. US unions need to act like a mob because corporations are to powerful. compare that to eg. germany where there are more laws to protect employees so that pretty much the only job unions have left to do is to negotiate salaries and benefits.
The United States has a rich history of effective organized labor. Not sure what you are getting at here.
In two words, Taft–Hartley.
The only correct statement in this article is that there needs to be a counterbalance to corporate power and even that is only correct if I give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean market power and not a corporation's right to run itself as shareholders see fit (and fail into bankruptcy if that way is a bad idea).
A correct heading for this article would be "Unions also abuse market power for the benefit of their members at the cost of dead weight loss to society"
The correct counter balance to corporate power is strong antitrust law that is enforced (similar but not quite to the extreme of how it was pre Rehnquist supreme court).
A correct heading for this article would be "Unions also abuse market power for the benefit of their members at the cost of dead weight loss to society"
The correct counter balance to corporate power is strong antitrust law that is enforced (similar but not quite to the extreme of how it was pre Rehnquist supreme court).
Unions can work but can have downsides as well. I mean take Detroit which used to be a booming place and the world center of the motor industry. In the good times when they were making a lot of money the unions negotiated high wages, conditions etc. Then when things turned down a bit, instead of being able to cut that companies just moved elsewhere and it's been downhill ever since.
I'm conflicted about unions, but it would be truly amazing if they brought us the 4-day work-week the way they got the 8-hour workday and weekends.
I built my house using union labor. Having seen the quality of welds from some non-union welders it was a no brainer. Overall quality of the rest of the work (carpentry, plastering everything) was worth it.
Is there something that such unions in your area do to ensure that a worker's skill and ability matter far more than, say, who their relatives happen to be?
I don't know what it's like in Vancouver, but I have lived in Massachusetts and there it's not really a union issue: the corruption is equally present in, say, government (e.g. until recently there was a whole county all of whose land had been taken away but that remained solely so jobs like sheriff, bailiff etc could be handed out to relatives in cronies. Anything with a large flow of money (e.g. the Big Dig) gets openly looted. I've been told the same is true in Chicago, but I don't know directly. As far as the unions go, indeed, the lack of seriousness about the work is how, for example, the Ted Williams tunnel killed people, with no repercussions.
OTOH what passes for corruption in California, where I live now, would make an east coast politician laugh. Certainly in the trades (welding in particular, but all sorts of construction I needed) the quality of work was top notch. And why not? In construction, at least, there is no reason to use union if you don't want to and most don't, which leads to the the shitty quality of residential construction (there should be more of it but that's another issue).
Perhaps one thing is regulation. We once bought a pressure vessel that arrived with a small ding (if bad, it's an opportunity for an explosion). We called the pressure vessel unit in Oakland and someone arrived in 45 minutes which means he'd dropped anything else and and hopped into his car as soon as we hung up the phone. Even before he arrived we got an annoyed call from the mfr (as it turned out all was well...but the pressure vessel unit wanted to see for themselves). While he was there we showed him a piece done by a former contractor who had not been able to produce the union tickets. We had fired them because the work was safety critical (high pressure steam is no joke) and the contractor was suing us. One look at the piece and he yanked out his phone. Let's just say later that day the contractor's lawyer couriered over a document cancelling the lawsuit, a cashier's check for money already paid, and a request that we not countersue. Those guys are not fucking around.
OTOH what passes for corruption in California, where I live now, would make an east coast politician laugh. Certainly in the trades (welding in particular, but all sorts of construction I needed) the quality of work was top notch. And why not? In construction, at least, there is no reason to use union if you don't want to and most don't, which leads to the the shitty quality of residential construction (there should be more of it but that's another issue).
Perhaps one thing is regulation. We once bought a pressure vessel that arrived with a small ding (if bad, it's an opportunity for an explosion). We called the pressure vessel unit in Oakland and someone arrived in 45 minutes which means he'd dropped anything else and and hopped into his car as soon as we hung up the phone. Even before he arrived we got an annoyed call from the mfr (as it turned out all was well...but the pressure vessel unit wanted to see for themselves). While he was there we showed him a piece done by a former contractor who had not been able to produce the union tickets. We had fired them because the work was safety critical (high pressure steam is no joke) and the contractor was suing us. One look at the piece and he yanked out his phone. Let's just say later that day the contractor's lawyer couriered over a document cancelling the lawsuit, a cashier's check for money already paid, and a request that we not countersue. Those guys are not fucking around.
Have you looked into worker cooperatives? Ocean Spray is an example in the US. Mondragon is an example of one in Spain that has tens of thousands of workers and has existed for many decades.
I wouldn't characterize any agricultural co-op like Ocean Spray as the same category as a worker co-op like Mondragon. There is a very distinct line between a farmer, who's an owner, and a farm worker, who handles most of the day-to-day operations.
Yes, I know a company in my country where the store owners are in a cooperative but the employees are not.
I suspect you are not familiar with farmer cooperatives. They are not employee cooperatives. They are corporatives of private farmers.
I wasn't talking about farmer cooperatives. Worker cooperatives are owned and run by the workers, thus the name. Certainly some cooperatives are not worker cooperatives.
This is not correct. Ocean Spray is not a cooperative of workers. It's a cooperative of private farmers.
[deleted]
A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut.
For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay cut - you'd just have to have the kids share a bedroom rather than having one each and a guest room.
Downside: Those on a 4 day workweek really struggle to get promoted to senior positions.
For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay cut - you'd just have to have the kids share a bedroom rather than having one each and a guest room.
Downside: Those on a 4 day workweek really struggle to get promoted to senior positions.
The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almost half a century [3]).
If a 4 day week is codified into labor law and regulation, there is no game theory consideration vs some orgs with 4 day weeks competing with those with 5. Would you work 6 days a week today (for example)? Probably not, unless you're an outlier of some sort, and you don't see many orgs with a mandatory 6 day work week (because they wouldn't be able to retain talent). This is about pulling a policy ratchet to reduce the work week at scale for everyone, because the productivity already exists (it's just been funneled to the top wealthiest population, traditionally).
"It always seems impossible until it's done."
[1] https://www.4dayweek.com/ | https://www.4dayweek.com/research
[2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
If a 4 day week is codified into labor law and regulation, there is no game theory consideration vs some orgs with 4 day weeks competing with those with 5. Would you work 6 days a week today (for example)? Probably not, unless you're an outlier of some sort, and you don't see many orgs with a mandatory 6 day work week (because they wouldn't be able to retain talent). This is about pulling a policy ratchet to reduce the work week at scale for everyone, because the productivity already exists (it's just been funneled to the top wealthiest population, traditionally).
"It always seems impossible until it's done."
[1] https://www.4dayweek.com/ | https://www.4dayweek.com/research
[2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week?
Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40?
It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth.
There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs.
It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant).
If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40?
It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth.
There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs.
It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant).
If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
A nurse is a pretty bad example to use for this. Nurses often already only work 3-4 days a week (doing 10 to 12 hour shifts). They’re already on a 4 day week (or 3 day).
For sure, we're going to have differing opinions based on life experiences, data consumption, and the resulting mental models. Outcomes are going to be driven by voting (politically) and unions. With union support being at the highest in history in the US, along with rapid electorate turnover (4M 18 year olds aging into voting each year, ~2M 55+ annual age out rate of voters), I'm hopeful workers will be able to secure a greater piece of the value they generate (through a combination of wages continuing to be pushed up and a shorter work week) at the cost of those currently holding substantial assets and wealth. There will be some inflation, that is inevitable due to the US freeloading on substantially underpaid labor for so long it has become accustomed to it (the federal minimum wage is laughably at $7.25/hr for example [1]) as well as structural demographic compression of the working age cohort. Lots of macro unwinding that is going to be painful due to the poor economic choices made over the last half century. Importantly, most people under 30 didn't have a hand in shaping these poor choices.
> If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
Very broadly speaking, the very wealthy have enough [2], and can make due with less. Tax them more if necessary [3]. Those hurting the worst are hurting because of greed and selfishness of a minority, not workers who have been taking it on the chin for decades. But, most unfortunately, the mental model that gets you wealthy heavily discounts luck and overemphasizes individual exceptionalism [4] [5], so these folks aren't self aware enough to come to the conclusion on their own, leaving collective action and the legal/political system as the most likely path to success.
Again, the productivity already exists. Where do you think all of this accumulated wealth is coming from?
[1] https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ ("The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, many states and localities have raised their own minimum wages. Explore the map to see how these rapidly changing laws differ across the country. Values as of July 1, 2023")
[2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... ("2023: Richest 1% bag nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years")
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 ("Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: 'This is not rocket science'")
[4] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol... ("The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized")
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334
> If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
Very broadly speaking, the very wealthy have enough [2], and can make due with less. Tax them more if necessary [3]. Those hurting the worst are hurting because of greed and selfishness of a minority, not workers who have been taking it on the chin for decades. But, most unfortunately, the mental model that gets you wealthy heavily discounts luck and overemphasizes individual exceptionalism [4] [5], so these folks aren't self aware enough to come to the conclusion on their own, leaving collective action and the legal/political system as the most likely path to success.
Again, the productivity already exists. Where do you think all of this accumulated wealth is coming from?
[1] https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ ("The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, many states and localities have raised their own minimum wages. Explore the map to see how these rapidly changing laws differ across the country. Values as of July 1, 2023")
[2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... ("2023: Richest 1% bag nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years")
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 ("Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: 'This is not rocket science'")
[4] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol... ("The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized")
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334
> A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut.
Where?? This has not been my experience, especially in tech. I've seen that work for "shift work" type jobs, even highly paid ones like doctors, but for "product work" type jobs like most tech, where there is essentially an infinite amount of possibile future work to do, companies are, generally, much less amenable to having people less than full time.
Where?? This has not been my experience, especially in tech. I've seen that work for "shift work" type jobs, even highly paid ones like doctors, but for "product work" type jobs like most tech, where there is essentially an infinite amount of possibile future work to do, companies are, generally, much less amenable to having people less than full time.
Maybe some unions will let the shareholders get a 20% profit-cut[1] and the workers a four-day workweek in return for not starting a strike.
[1] In reality less than that; see the autoworker strike in the US where they are demanding (among other things) a 40% pay increase, meanwhile those companies could really afford to pay the union members 100% more.
[1] In reality less than that; see the autoworker strike in the US where they are demanding (among other things) a 40% pay increase, meanwhile those companies could really afford to pay the union members 100% more.
For a sense of scale, the difference in pay for the same hours and same role (and same individual), just for moving 200 km between Seattle and Vancouver, is something like a 40-60% cut in total comp before tax. 20% is small potatoes.
It's "they" because it's people in the past. If you want unions to win new rights today, you'd better start using "we".
Although unions fought for a long time for 8 hour work days it seems the biggest push came after Ford switched to 8 hour days (and doubled pay) and saw productivity and profits rise. It’s hard to give all the credit to any one group.
Regulation on work hours, holidays and the like is better handled by government legislation on the whole. I mean it works ok in France for example.
Weekends and 8 hour work week is not necessarily a good thing. There could be benefits to switching to 996 work week to compete better with China.
Competing with China is easy when their working population is compressing and getting old rapidly due to structural demographics [1]. The competition is between the extremely wealthy and the people who perform the actual labor that generates the value being vacuumed up by the former. I am no fan of the CCP, but at least they gave Jack Ma (a big supporter of 996 [2]) the boot [3] and overall, are a lot more adversarial with their wealthy system participants.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-shrinking-populati...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/business/jack-ma-996-china/in...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#Disappearance_from_the...
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-shrinking-populati...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/business/jack-ma-996-china/in...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#Disappearance_from_the...
First, there are obviously diminishing and eventually negative returns to increasing work hours past a certain point. At the extreme end, 168h/week is clearly less productive than 40h/week despite being more than four times longer. At some point an additional hour provides zero marginal benefit, and past that point an additional hour lowers a worker's weekly productivity. That point may be 72h/week as "996" Chinese companies suggest, 40h/week as Henry Ford suggested, 32h/week as some 4-day workweek experiments suggest, or something else.
Second, even policies that provide some benefit to companies may backfire for society if they increase mental health problems, lower social cohesion, prevent family formation, and/or cause their best-and-brightest to leave. At some level the best way to "compete better with China" may be to focus on maintaining sensible policies focused on maximizing an individual's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" alongside overall national productivity and let short-sighted competitors burn themselves out. (Similar to the strategy adopted during the Cold War.)
Second, even policies that provide some benefit to companies may backfire for society if they increase mental health problems, lower social cohesion, prevent family formation, and/or cause their best-and-brightest to leave. At some level the best way to "compete better with China" may be to focus on maintaining sensible policies focused on maximizing an individual's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" alongside overall national productivity and let short-sighted competitors burn themselves out. (Similar to the strategy adopted during the Cold War.)
[deleted]
Benefits to whom?
Benefits to the country tend to also be benefits to the people of the country - or perhaps their children.
What do you mean by "to the country". Faster economic growth?
Faster economic growth tends to lead to happier citizens.
In fact, there is a philosophical school of thought that shows that happiness isn't related to the environment one lives in, but the improvement that one sees through one's lifetime. Economic growth can deliver that.
In fact, there is a philosophical school of thought that shows that happiness isn't related to the environment one lives in, but the improvement that one sees through one's lifetime. Economic growth can deliver that.
Look at this graph and rethink your post: https://www.epi.org/files/2013/ib388-figurea.jpg
Productivity has gone up over 200% but wages have stayed flat. Where is that economic growth for the worker?
Productivity has gone up over 200% but wages have stayed flat. Where is that economic growth for the worker?
Unfortunately all of that improvement is concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy.
> Faster economic growth tends to lead to happier citizens.
What's the evidence for this?
What's the evidence for this?
Those vaguely phallic shaped rockets flying billionaires to space won't pay for themselves, you know!
But if you roll over and let them own 0your entire life, I guess you can have a pizza party from time to time.
But if you roll over and let them own 0your entire life, I guess you can have a pizza party from time to time.
Not for the workers, no.
I mean, I don't think it will happen but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where an imploded society losing to China will be even worse for the workers.
I'm not a business owner or a CEO, and I can say wholeheartedly that I do not believe unions are good for anybody. It's just like rent control that gives renters lower prices but it destroys the supply eventually. Unions that get wage hikes by stomping their feet and yelling in public are not making the economy better. The detriment is that over time, it makes it harder to hire new workers because the union will get all up in your business if you try to fire someone for non performance. Union shops also make it harder for individual workers who stand out to negotiate higher salaries for themselves. On balance I think unions are a big bad.
> if you try to fire someone
Sounds like a manager lol
Sounds like a manager lol
Did the WGA really “win”? Studios can train models on writers work, which means they will eventually replace them. This might be seen as a pyrrhic victory 20 years from now.
Yeah UAW just locked in the inflation we have experienced. I do not agree that they are being paid what they are actually worth. Unions are ruining this country.
Unions also kill companies when executives refuse their demands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_McCardell
Hmmm… that’s a very interesting take an article that suggests the hubris of the CEO ended up destroying the company he was hired to lead.
That particular example seems to be entirely the fault of a CEO who was terrible at his job.
So a guy is walking down the street and he sees a worker along the road; the worker digs a hole in the ground, then waits a little bit and fills it back in. After that, he walks 10 feet and repeats the process. The guy asks the worker what he's doing. "Planting trees." "Why don't you put the trees in though?" "Oh, I am from the diggers union; the guy from the planters union is out sick today."
People are really not liking this joke. I think it's because it strikes (see what I did here?) too close to home.
Or is it because it's not realistic? Ok, actually there are two digger guys, one to dig the hole and one to fill it in, pursuant to union agreement of 1953 when they were using shovels; now they have an excavator, but... jobs! So they take turns, or maybe they have two excavators pursuant to union agreement of 1979 so that they could each have their own workplace after that one guy wanted AC on and the other wanted AC off and the AC on guy had a heat stroke. Also the planter guy is not out sick, he was suspended from the job because he was putting trees in the holes upside down; he's now sitting in the "rubber room" with full pay pending 11 months of union arbitration. Also when the passer-by offers to help them put the trees in, the diggers beat him up.
Or is it because it's not realistic? Ok, actually there are two digger guys, one to dig the hole and one to fill it in, pursuant to union agreement of 1953 when they were using shovels; now they have an excavator, but... jobs! So they take turns, or maybe they have two excavators pursuant to union agreement of 1979 so that they could each have their own workplace after that one guy wanted AC on and the other wanted AC off and the AC on guy had a heat stroke. Also the planter guy is not out sick, he was suspended from the job because he was putting trees in the holes upside down; he's now sitting in the "rubber room" with full pay pending 11 months of union arbitration. Also when the passer-by offers to help them put the trees in, the diggers beat him up.