6 ms·

> Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic. I think that you ov

> Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic. I think that you overestimate the ability of workers to exert an influence by switching jobs, but also, and perhaps more seriously, assume that the only strategies for workers getting fucked over are individual strategies. Collective struggles are what can change things on a more fundamental level, and great gains have been won through the organised withdrawal of labour.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I would not bet too much on the ability of collective struggles to solve individual problems. I still think that this is at the heart of Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago". both the movie and the book. And it has taken on the patina of timelessness and universality in my experience
- CaptainSwing 10y ago
  A wage relationship, or a pensions deal, is not an individual problem, it is a collective problem of the whole workforce. Sorry, I don't know this movie/book, but I will check it out.
ryao 10y ago
Organized labor creates an opportunity for collusion between management and the union leadership. My grandfather was a union worker who his colleagues selected to represent them. Management offered him the opportunity to make several times what he makes as part of a deal that would give the others negligible increases. He declined, but I have met union workers who complain that the union leadership and management collude. Knowing what happened to my grandfather, I do not doubt it. If you have an employer that intentionally undervalues you, they are going to aim to use the union to ensure that they continue to do that. If collectively people overvalue themselves, they tend to get their positions terminated by outsourcing. If people think they are underpaid, they should each ask management to correct it. If management does not value all or some of them enough to do that, those that are undervalued are better off leaving for greener pastures. That being said, after a certain amount of income, more income does not equal happiness. Rather than be a slave to trying to get more, I am inclined to ask myself if what I am doing is worthwhile, if what I make is over the minimum required for happiness and if what I make is fair under the Nash Equilibrium. If all are yes, I am fine with it. Others might be happier if they do that too. If they are working in an industry that pays below what is necessary for happiness (and this probably increases with dependents), they should find another career.
- Frondo 10y ago
  "I have met union workers who complain that the union leadership and management collude." I won't quibble with this and don't doubt it exists (though I don't know how widespread it is, and would suspect it is not widespread) .. but there is a simple solution: Vote out the corrupt management and vote in better ones! Unions operate democratically. If people are unhappy, show a little engagement with the process and do something about it.
  - ryao 10y ago
    If the problem is that people put in charge cannot be trusted, how do you avoid voting in the next corrupt union leaders? Also, if they collude and you decide to be a rabble rouser, they could likely just have you fired to maintain the status quo. If I were a Verizon employee and thought what I earned was unfairly low, I would opt to find another employer or if that is not possible, consider a change of career. Propping up a lousy company by letting them have access to my abilities is not worth it. If everyone left for greener pastures under such circumstances, they would correct things or go out of business.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      Well, frankly speaking, that's a silly remark. If you vote in people you know and trust, it doesn't seem likely that your mates you've gotten to know, placed your confidence in will be corrupted only just as soon as you've voted them in. And if they are, vote them out! As for the latter remark, the world you're describing, frictionless job movement as a means of changing business practices and business-worker relations, obviously has very little relationship to the world we actually live in, or we'd never have these discussions at all.
- CaptainSwing 10y ago
  This is a bit like saying "the government is corrupt so lets we'd be better off without it". Better with union representation than without, though better with unions who actually represent their members than corrupt unions. The union exists at the point of confrontation (or negotiation) between employer and employees, and there is every reason for the employer (who doesn't want to negotiate) to undermine the unions. This can lead to both actual corrupting influences, and constantly spreading the idea that the union is corrupt, is a 'drag' or a 'burden', in order to undermine its strength. The last thing I'm saying is that current union structures are ideal and devoid of corruption (and what little I know about US unions, the case is worse over there), but that organised, collective struggle is what wins gains for workers and that unions are often the best vehicles for to push those struggles forward.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

I would not bet too much on the ability of collective struggles to solve individual problems. I still think that this is at the heart of Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago". both the movie and the book. And it has taken on the patina of timelessness and universality in my experience

CaptainSwing 10y ago
A wage relationship, or a pensions deal, is not an individual problem, it is a collective problem of the whole workforce. Sorry, I don't know this movie/book, but I will check it out.

ryao 10y ago

Organized labor creates an opportunity for collusion between management and the union leadership. My grandfather was a union worker who his colleagues selected to represent them. Management offered him the opportunity to make several times what he makes as part of a deal that would give the others negligible increases. He declined, but I have met union workers who complain that the union leadership and management collude. Knowing what happened to my grandfather, I do not doubt it. If you have an employer that intentionally undervalues you, they are going to aim to use the union to ensure that they continue to do that. If collectively people overvalue themselves, they tend to get their positions terminated by outsourcing. If people think they are underpaid, they should each ask management to correct it. If management does not value all or some of them enough to do that, those that are undervalued are better off leaving for greener pastures. That being said, after a certain amount of income, more income does not equal happiness. Rather than be a slave to trying to get more, I am inclined to ask myself if what I am doing is worthwhile, if what I make is over the minimum required for happiness and if what I make is fair under the Nash Equilibrium. If all are yes, I am fine with it. Others might be happier if they do that too. If they are working in an industry that pays below what is necessary for happiness (and this probably increases with dependents), they should find another career.

Frondo 10y ago
"I have met union workers who complain that the union leadership and management collude." I won't quibble with this and don't doubt it exists (though I don't know how widespread it is, and would suspect it is not widespread) .. but there is a simple solution: Vote out the corrupt management and vote in better ones! Unions operate democratically. If people are unhappy, show a little engagement with the process and do something about it.
- ryao 10y ago
  If the problem is that people put in charge cannot be trusted, how do you avoid voting in the next corrupt union leaders? Also, if they collude and you decide to be a rabble rouser, they could likely just have you fired to maintain the status quo. If I were a Verizon employee and thought what I earned was unfairly low, I would opt to find another employer or if that is not possible, consider a change of career. Propping up a lousy company by letting them have access to my abilities is not worth it. If everyone left for greener pastures under such circumstances, they would correct things or go out of business.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Well, frankly speaking, that's a silly remark. If you vote in people you know and trust, it doesn't seem likely that your mates you've gotten to know, placed your confidence in will be corrupted only just as soon as you've voted them in. And if they are, vote them out! As for the latter remark, the world you're describing, frictionless job movement as a means of changing business practices and business-worker relations, obviously has very little relationship to the world we actually live in, or we'd never have these discussions at all.
CaptainSwing 10y ago
This is a bit like saying "the government is corrupt so lets we'd be better off without it". Better with union representation than without, though better with unions who actually represent their members than corrupt unions. The union exists at the point of confrontation (or negotiation) between employer and employees, and there is every reason for the employer (who doesn't want to negotiate) to undermine the unions. This can lead to both actual corrupting influences, and constantly spreading the idea that the union is corrupt, is a 'drag' or a 'burden', in order to undermine its strength. The last thing I'm saying is that current union structures are ideal and devoid of corruption (and what little I know about US unions, the case is worse over there), but that organised, collective struggle is what wins gains for workers and that unions are often the best vehicles for to push those struggles forward.