9 ms·

Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent

Along with the unionization at Google, I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies. As it says in the article: "Unions are a prominent presence at Amazon in Europe, but the company for years successfully fought off labor organizing efforts in the U.S." It's sad that Amazon, along with FB and Google, etc. have managed to squash unions so completely here in the US. There's a lot of propaganda around unions that helps prevent them from every gaining much power. Obviously Amazon warehouse employees desperately need unionization much more than software devs, but I think both are needed.

j_walter 6y ago
Unions in the US and unions is Europe are completely different. In one they cooperate to see that the company succeeds...and in the other they seek to drive up the cost of doing business to the point that shitty products are extremely expensive (GM, Ford). Unions used to be for protecting the workers and ensuring that companies were getting the very best skillsets when hiring. Now they protect the lazy, promote the well connected and drain efficiency from businesses. Longshoreman are the most shining example of how to destroy businesses...Port of Portland is now shuttered because they intentionally slowed down work to the point of forcing companies to go elsewhere. ILWU was hit with a $19M judgment because of the things it did in Portland.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  The quality of a union is a function of membership engagement and organizational structure. Shitty unions, shitty companies, these are all who is in charge and how they're governed and the transparency available. Better to admit we need better operating models for unions (and that unions need to work in partnership with management to create sustainable relationships and businesses), rigorous governance and oversight of them, and that that is likely superior to the current situation of labor's collective power to continue to erode over the last four decades. Not only does labor need a seat at the table, employee ownership should be strongly encouraged through policy (this also financially aligns incentives between management and labor, which is a good thing imho). "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
  - j_walter 6y ago
    But in many cases you can't choose which union you have to do business with. Do work at this location you have to do business with this union. Many examples of unions fighting other unions because they think they should get the work. I agree that better operating models could exist (more like European ones)...but the current unions in the US have a lot to lose by doing so.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    It is also a function of "closed shop" unions in the US. Rarely do you get to pick a union to join when you work at a company; if the company workers are represented, it is often exclusively by a single union. The result is that unions have the exact same leverage over employees as the companies themselves do, and do not often have sufficient accountability. It is not as simple as voting a union out once it has gotten in, and it takes on a life of its own. Also, stories like SEIU collaborating with the DFL in Minnesota to get family members of disabled adults declared "in home caretaker employees" of the state so that the union gets a cut of the disability benefits is terrible. There are surely good things that unions can do, but that doesn't mean they are an intrinsic good, or that they are appropriately structured in the US. Edit: reference: https://www.thecentersquare.com/minnesota/after-trump-rule-change-minnesota-home-care-workers-can-decide-for-themselves-whether-to-pay/article_04803098-701b-11e9-9087-a3bc73e9c907.html https://www.thecentersquare.com/minnesota/after-trump-rule-c...
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      So, it sounds like you're agreeing with me? Collective action is admittedly work. The alternative is, as we've seen, worse in my opinion. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ > From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 69.6 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 11.6 percent over 39 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years. > Rising productivity provides the potential for substantial growth in the pay for the vast majority. However, this potential has been squandered in recent decades. The income, wages, and wealth generated over the last four decades have failed to “trickle down” to the vast majority largely because policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power have exacerbated inequality. In essence, rising inequality has prevented potential pay growth from translating into actual pay growth for most workers. The result has been wage stagnation. https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/declining-worker-power-and-american-economic-performance/ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/declining-worker-pow... > "Declining unionization, increasingly demanding and empowered shareholders, decreasing real minimum wages, reduced worker protections, and the increases in outsourcing domestically and abroad have disempowered workers with profound consequences for the labor market and the broader economy."
- random5634 6y ago
  I actually know a bit about the german union model. A couple of factors - the overall labor force is pretty highly educated and skilled - so less free riding overall. Strong social safety net - so folks not suited to a job have a place to land with health care etc. a MUCH more cooperate relationship with management -> the unions in Germany at least also want productivity / common sense stuff. In the US, you can have totally illogical and inefficient work rules and unions will keep them on purpose just to drive up bargaining power, even though it hurts everyone (ie, being able to no show for work with no call etc). Not all of europe is the same. The french unions have a different approach than german unions etc.
  - j_walter 6y ago
    When I refer to the European model I'm probably talking about the German model. Many years ago the articles I was reading had been going over the VW union so it was likely Germany. The cooperation part and inefficiencies you mention are exactly the problem. Here in the US the union and company are enemies that battle each other...and like you say illogical rules that just benefit the union.
    - random5634 6y ago
      That's a bit of a special case as well - historically overall good relationship even when there were cuts / restructuring in 2017. Situation is very different in places like greece / italy / france even with much more militant unions and more protectionism for sectors. So it's def not EU wide. --- “I cannot complain about the cooperation with the works council,” VW brand chief executive Herbert Diess said at a news conference, citing “very constructive” dealings with the unions. VW’s mass-market brand has been undergoing heavy restructuring since it agreed with the works council on plans to cut 3.7 billion euros ($4.41 billion) of costs per year from 2020 and slash 23,000 jobs in Germany via natural attrition.
      - j_walter 6y ago
        Unfortunately the US auto unions try to capitalize on the good nature and cooperation of the VW union to say that they should unionize the VW plant in Kentucky or Tennessee (I think that was where it was). Saying that VW has unions already so it would be no different...except everyone that knows anything knows better. Greece has terrible unions, but many of those seem to be the public unions like teachers and transportation workers.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Port of Portland is now shuttered because they intentionally slowed down work to the point of forcing companies to go elsewhere." Unions should be everywhere, so these companies could not escape them by relocating. Capital trying to feel the country should also be taxed heavily for the same reason.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Sounds like a planned economy. We know how well that works.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      China has been doing okay using that sort of high level planning, where the government supervises a lot of the economy and limits the movement of capital.
      - j_walter 6y ago
        You really think that? Talk to any of the chinese citizens that have fled the country to live elsewhere. Certain parts of how that government runs may look good from afar, but not if you are actually living under their rule.
        maxerickson 6y ago
        I don't think the people have it good, but the economy has grown massively for ~40 years running.
      - refurb 6y ago
        That "sort of planning". But are they requiring unions, taxing all companies and preventing capital from fleeing? No.
        maxerickson 6y ago
        China has the strictest capital controls there have ever been. The other stuff, sure no, but I wondered if you were making a broader point about a controlled economy, which would be a point that China increasingly contradicts.
- purple_ferret 6y ago
  >Unions used to be for protecting the workers and ensuring that companies were getting the very best skillsets when hiring. Labor unions in the US formed primarily to combat exploitation by employers, often in the face of great oppression and cronyism that led to literal bloodshed[0]. This is one of the reasons unions can't be part of the companies their members work for, unlike in Europe. Unions in Europe formed from trade unions that had a longstanding history in European economy. That said, all you have to do is look at union activity in France, where there seems to be nationwide strikes every year, to dispel the myth that they are somehow more cooperative or amenable to making concessions. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
  - barbecue_sauce 6y ago
    I think you mean exploitation.
    - purple_ferret 6y ago
      i did ty
  - saiya-jin 6y ago
    French are no measure for strikes, as somebody living just across the borders the norm is some form of strike few months per year, every year. Colleagues can't get to work, public transport goes to standstill so everybody drives (very ecological). Its a double edged sword at best - government is properly afraid of the citizens. But overall the economy suffers badly. This is just a small part of overall french 'package' - high social benefits, its extremely hard to fire people, tons of paid holidays days per year, early retirement etc. Result is startups start elsewhere, companies move away whatever they can (even state semi-owned like car industry). Another result is tons of monopolies, which distort the market and make very small amount of citizens profit at he cost of everybody else. Economy is weak compared to Germany, I would say salaries are 1/2, although there shouldn't be the reason - big smart well educated population. But then comes the french mentality and way of doing things...
Barrin92 6y ago
what I'm astonished by is the degree to which American firms are allowed to sabotage unionisation efforts despite, as I understand it, the US actually having similar protections for workplace assembly as other Western countries. If you tried interfere with unions here in Germany you'd run up against the law, the media and so on very, very quickly, it's one of the things you don't want to screw with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- slg 6y ago
  It isn't surprising once you reframe the issue. These unions are successfully suppressed for the exact same reason that people are inclined to form them. The labor class in the US simply doesn't have (or perhaps more accurately doesn't yield) the political power that the labor class does in many other countries. The forming of unions will help them get more power, but the act of creating a union already requires a certain level of power which many US workers haven't yet achieved.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    The labor class has tons of power. The labor class just doesn’t care much for unions in the US.
  - asdff 6y ago
    That is by design, really. The working poor in this country have been ideologically divided by moral wedges such as abortion for decades now. Few poor republicans and poor democrats would like to admit that they are in the same economic boat, and as a result typically the former votes against their own economic interest on the grounds of their moral principles. For the wealthy in this country, the political footballism is the perfect machine to ensure their position on the economic ladder remains at it's lofty heights, and inequality continues to widen by the year. I really don't think republicans like Mitch McConnel care at all about an issue like abortion, they just use it to drum up votes from their base in order to further their economic policy goals.
random5634 6y ago
The propaganda unfortunately also comes from folks direct experience with unions. In the US, most unions are public sector. So folks see that Police unions may protect bad apples via union. Teachers unions may care more about teachers including bad ones then teaching kids. We had a famously terrible teacher at my school - unfirable - as kids we thought it was hilarious. As a parent now - not so cool. Non unionized schools seem to be coming up with innovate workaround during pandemic (outside / park / hiking classrooms etc). Absolutely horrendously drafted laws that make life miserable even for folks trying to do right (AB5, schools not allowed to keep reserves) that are union drafted, and require endless exceptions and modifications. Google employees unionizing and striking and walking out and otherwise throwing very highly paid fits over things that don't connect with average person. When you call what people have first hand experience of "propaganda" they may immediately will discount everything else you are saying. The real rule should be all poorly compensated folks paid $14/hr or less should automatically be in unions. That's where the real need is.
- Frondo 6y ago
  Just one comment on this: > Teachers unions may care more about teachers ... That's precisely the point of a union. It's an organization to protect its members. It's the purpose of the school system overall, including principals, school boards, and so on, to care about teaching kids.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    The #1 concern with a school should be the children, not the teachers. Public schools bend-over-backwards to help the teachers over the students. Public schools have remained essentially unchanged for 120 years - one teacher divulging knowledge to a room of kids in silent observation. Nothing will change when unions are in control - they have absolutely no incentive.
    - maya24 6y ago
      That is a failure of the public education system not unions. It is not as if the governments are trying to push innovative teaching methods and investing more in public education especially for the underprivileged.
dominotw 6y ago
> I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies Isn't the trend the rise of 'big' companies. I wish there were a lot of small/medium companies, instead, that were competing for workers, then we won't need 'solutions' like unions. Looks like we are just accepting these 'big' companies as fact of life and moving on to finding solutions to deal with them.
- mal10c 6y ago
  "I wish there were a lot of small/medium companies..." I hear this from a lot of different circles, and I'm not trying to target you, just more or less generically voicing my frustrations. If people wish there were more small/medium companies in the US, then by all means, go to your county courthouse and officially establish a business. You could found a sole proprietorship just to get started. I own a side business and I'm part of ownership at my main job. It's a lot of work, but worth it. If you feel you have a good idea and a good way to form and keep a customer base, then nobody is stopping you. That's one of the greatest aspects of living in the US. And since I'm on my rant now, I often times hear something along the lines that people need to form together to combat something they feel isn't fair in their place of work. While I sympathise with that, I also know for a fact that there aren't a lot of CEO's out there that are waking up asking themselves how they can screw over their employees - that just isn't how the world works. How it does work is often times when times get tough, more than not CEO's and other C-Suite managers will put their own assets on the line to ensure the company can make it through a rough patch. If the rough patch is looking more like the norm, then they may have to make really tough decisions to let some people go. That sucks for them because they're losing talent to (potentially) a competitor. Last thing: if people really don't like that company X doesn't give them some perk - whether that's forming a union or even giving away free popcorn, then start looking for a job that does that stuff!!! Don't expect your employer to just make those changes. Sorry for the rant, but I think it's important to share a view from a different perspective.
klmadfejno 6y ago
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard a major difference is that in Europe you generally have a choice of multiple competing unions, vs. the US where you're generally in or you're out. The competition forces the unions to remain focused on the desires of the general population, otherwise they just lose membership.
- pmyteh 6y ago
  Not really, at least in the UK. You can join any union that will have you, and there are several big 'general' unions. But most employers will only recognise a single union (if that) per group of workers. So, if you're an academic like me, you can join the University and College Union, and there will be a local organisation, probably a collective bargaining agreement with the university, and so on. Or join a different union and get no local representation and only 'central office' services. There are some places with multiple recognition (when I worked in local government Unison, GMB and the T&G were all recognised, with membership strengths in different parts of the council) but it's often just one. And that's if you're lucky: many employers recognise no unions. Of course, the UK also doesn't have the closed shop (union membership is strictly optional) so there is a competition between member and not-member that keeps some pressure on the union organisation. And each European country has its own traditions of union organisation and different working cultures, so this probably doesn't extend outside of Britain.
  - Thlom 6y ago
    Fairly similar in Norway, but many of the "competing" unions both have agreements with the employer organization. My wife actually switched union because the other union had an agreement which allowed a certain type of shift schedule that the other union did not have.
tchalla 6y ago
I’m sure Amazon can justify non union stand by one of their Leadership Principles.
KorematsuFred 6y ago
As someone who has seen the violence and damage unions do to businesses, workers and the unemployed. I hope these unionization efforts are thwarted by Amazon. I did not escape a socialist hellhole to end up in another one. The moral equivalence for me personally would be a jewish person supporting a new neo nazi movement claiming it is different this time. Having said that, right to form associations is a fundamental right and I support it for all workers everywhere, it is just that such unions should not get any privileges that an individual worker does not have. Amazon should be able to offer $1000 per year more for the workers who do not join any union.
- dang 6y ago
  Please keep ideological flamebait* out of your posts here. It leads to ideological flamewars, which are repetitive and nasty and not what this site is for. Please make your substantive points without it. *e.g. "socialist hellhole", "jewish person supporting a neo nazi movement"
  - KorematsuFred 6y ago
    Unionization is an ideological flamewar to begin with.
    - dang 6y ago
      It's possible to discuss it from an intellectually curious standpoint, as opposed to everyone just bringing in battle-hardened talking points and bashing each other with them, the same way they bashed each other last time. The former is what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
joshe 6y ago
American unions are quite different from European unions. European unions spend a lot of time running apprenticeship programs and doing things like advocating for more productivity. Like trying to figure out how to make the shop floor more efficient. American unions spend time preventing bad employees from being fired (like the NY teacher's rubber rooms and police unions fighting the firing of cops with 5 excessive force violations). Or spend time advocating for extra unneeded employees or forbidding employees from doing two different job roles. You can watch the longshoreman's season from the Wire for illustration. It's supposed to be a defense of unions, but accidentally illustrates why they are utterly broken in the US. There is a use for unions that advocate for increased pay and clearer benefits. But as constructed and run in the US they are poison to the company. A whole layer of weird incentives the company (and workers!) have to deal with. A lot of the sinister sounding anti-union education the companies do points this out. And there's enough truth that it's very effective. Pro union folks are always tweeting that companies spending $1 million to avoid an extra $100,000 a year in labor costs is evidence of a widespread conspiracy by the man to keep the working class down. Really the union is like adding a whole extra layer of horrible bureaucracy that costs way more than that $1 million. From that viewpoint shutting down a store or warehouse that unionizes make perfect sense.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  So how do we get european style unions here in america? How is it that they are able to avoid those issues and what lessons can we take that aren't "america just can't do unions right."
  - joshe 6y ago
    It would be great. I sometimes think that something like a "credible threat of peace" would be useful. "We are forming a union. If you vote for this union, we will allow workers here to chose other unions. We will never get in the way of firing someone. We will never create job roles that don't let workers move laterally or up. You can lay people off. We will not use our members money for political campaigns. Our workers can move into management without us freaking out. We will advocate for more pay, benefits, productivity, and training."
jariel 6y ago
Google and Amazon unions represent quite fundamentally different kinds of organizing principles. The Amazon union is of the much more classical form, is well past due, it's not entirely necessary, but it would be beneficial. I don't actually think that regular Google employees should be unionized, rather, it should be the non-technical staff, contractors and so many people not in privileged positions that should be probably be unionized to the exclusion of the talent, who want to form their union for entirely different reasons. I do not believe that the Google Union is oriented towards helping those who actually are powerless. Google technical staff are the most privileged and well taken care of workers literally in the entire world.
- rjstreur 6y ago
  So whether workers should be allowed to unionize should depend on which changes they are fighting for? Where's the line of powerlessness a union's beneficiaries need to be under in order for the union to be valid in your perspective? It seems like the main actions taken by the Google employees' union so far have been to push the company to behave more ethically, not to enhance their already-significant (indeed, outrageous) privilege. I see that as using their privileged positions as leverage for positive change, and I hope they succeed.
  - jariel 6y ago
    The Google Union is being formed so that specific employees to try to parlay their version of ethics - the assumption being that what they think of as 'ethical' is universally applicable, but this is definitely not the case. I don't trust Google Employees one bit more than I trust Google Management, as far as certain issues of ethnics, I'd much rather have intelligent and pragmatic regulation. Also, I didn't really hint at 'what was within their rights' or not. Finally, and ironically, if we're going to be concerned about 'ethics' it might start with tidying up their own household and using the tools of organizing like Unions for which they were intended, which is to say helping those who have no power i.e. the gazillion of 'secondary' actors at Google. If Googlers want to have more influence I'm not sure the Union model is it, because far more often than not, it's a system of entrenched power that will use their base to carry out the wishes of the vanguard. Student unions for example, tend to take positions that are wildly inconsistent with what the average student would want, but voter participation is low, the system is opaque, and many students don't pay any attention and are just resigned to the system. I don't know what the answer is, but it's probably not a union.
perfmode 6y ago
where can i learn more about the union activities at amazon in europe?
- franczesko 6y ago
  The problem is that EU cannot be considered as a whole. What you see in particular markets can largely differ one from another - what you have in UK, doesn't apply to France. What you have in the latter, doesn't apply to Germany, and so on...
- username90 6y ago
  Unions in Europe represent individuals and not companies. Anyone who wants can join a union and let the union represent them. Therefore there is no point in trying to hurt unionization efforts etc, because there is no switch to flop, workers will slowly go there if they feel they benefit from it.
abstractbarista 6y ago
I'm down for unions, but don't want a single cent of my pay to go to one. This is why I actually enjoy 'right to work' states.
jimbob45 6y ago
Google didn’t unionize. Their “union” isn’t federally certified and they have current membership of 700/250000 workers. Google is under no obligation to work with them on anything. In the future, they could get a majority of workers agree to have a union represent them but that’s not the case at this time. What the Google union did was obstruct real unionization efforts at Google. Source: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/googles-fake-union-insults-the-labor-movement-11610579343 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/googles-fake-union-insults-...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I agree with the general thrust of this, but it seems misleading to describe an organization belonging to CWA Local 1400 as fake or not really a part of the labor movement. For better or worse, the labor movement believes these kinds of non-majority pressure groups count as real unions.
- bluGill 6y ago
  The fact that google's union needs to be federally certified and isn't also says something about unions: they are a monopoly in the bad sense. Either the union doesn't need federal certification, or it should automatically be.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Fortunately most tech employees, including most Google employees, understand that unions don’t make any sense for them. Warehouse employees are very different, and it might make more sense there.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Have you read anything about the Google "union"? It is a basically a joke that .0001% of the company signed in on. You shouldn't use it as a data point on any kind of trend.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
It's hard to compare Google's "union" to this one. This one would be much more like the old factory workers banding together. The people at Amazon make far less than the people at google and often don't have the luxury to think about "societal concerns" they just want to put food on the table. I think all around it's good, but this would be a much different type of union and probably better be much larger or it will get squashed quickly

j_walter 6y ago

Unions in the US and unions is Europe are completely different. In one they cooperate to see that the company succeeds...and in the other they seek to drive up the cost of doing business to the point that shitty products are extremely expensive (GM, Ford). Unions used to be for protecting the workers and ensuring that companies were getting the very best skillsets when hiring. Now they protect the lazy, promote the well connected and drain efficiency from businesses. Longshoreman are the most shining example of how to destroy businesses...Port of Portland is now shuttered because they intentionally slowed down work to the point of forcing companies to go elsewhere. ILWU was hit with a $19M judgment because of the things it did in Portland.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
The quality of a union is a function of membership engagement and organizational structure. Shitty unions, shitty companies, these are all who is in charge and how they're governed and the transparency available. Better to admit we need better operating models for unions (and that unions need to work in partnership with management to create sustainable relationships and businesses), rigorous governance and oversight of them, and that that is likely superior to the current situation of labor's collective power to continue to erode over the last four decades. Not only does labor need a seat at the table, employee ownership should be strongly encouraged through policy (this also financially aligns incentives between management and labor, which is a good thing imho). "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- j_walter 6y ago
  But in many cases you can't choose which union you have to do business with. Do work at this location you have to do business with this union. Many examples of unions fighting other unions because they think they should get the work. I agree that better operating models could exist (more like European ones)...but the current unions in the US have a lot to lose by doing so.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- zdragnar 6y ago
  It is also a function of "closed shop" unions in the US. Rarely do you get to pick a union to join when you work at a company; if the company workers are represented, it is often exclusively by a single union. The result is that unions have the exact same leverage over employees as the companies themselves do, and do not often have sufficient accountability. It is not as simple as voting a union out once it has gotten in, and it takes on a life of its own. Also, stories like SEIU collaborating with the DFL in Minnesota to get family members of disabled adults declared "in home caretaker employees" of the state so that the union gets a cut of the disability benefits is terrible. There are surely good things that unions can do, but that doesn't mean they are an intrinsic good, or that they are appropriately structured in the US. Edit: reference: https://www.thecentersquare.com/minnesota/after-trump-rule-change-minnesota-home-care-workers-can-decide-for-themselves-whether-to-pay/article_04803098-701b-11e9-9087-a3bc73e9c907.html https://www.thecentersquare.com/minnesota/after-trump-rule-c...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    So, it sounds like you're agreeing with me? Collective action is admittedly work. The alternative is, as we've seen, worse in my opinion. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ > From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 69.6 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 11.6 percent over 39 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years. > Rising productivity provides the potential for substantial growth in the pay for the vast majority. However, this potential has been squandered in recent decades. The income, wages, and wealth generated over the last four decades have failed to “trickle down” to the vast majority largely because policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power have exacerbated inequality. In essence, rising inequality has prevented potential pay growth from translating into actual pay growth for most workers. The result has been wage stagnation. https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/declining-worker-power-and-american-economic-performance/ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/declining-worker-pow... > "Declining unionization, increasingly demanding and empowered shareholders, decreasing real minimum wages, reduced worker protections, and the increases in outsourcing domestically and abroad have disempowered workers with profound consequences for the labor market and the broader economy."
random5634 6y ago
I actually know a bit about the german union model. A couple of factors - the overall labor force is pretty highly educated and skilled - so less free riding overall. Strong social safety net - so folks not suited to a job have a place to land with health care etc. a MUCH more cooperate relationship with management -> the unions in Germany at least also want productivity / common sense stuff. In the US, you can have totally illogical and inefficient work rules and unions will keep them on purpose just to drive up bargaining power, even though it hurts everyone (ie, being able to no show for work with no call etc). Not all of europe is the same. The french unions have a different approach than german unions etc.
- j_walter 6y ago
  When I refer to the European model I'm probably talking about the German model. Many years ago the articles I was reading had been going over the VW union so it was likely Germany. The cooperation part and inefficiencies you mention are exactly the problem. Here in the US the union and company are enemies that battle each other...and like you say illogical rules that just benefit the union.
  - random5634 6y ago
    That's a bit of a special case as well - historically overall good relationship even when there were cuts / restructuring in 2017. Situation is very different in places like greece / italy / france even with much more militant unions and more protectionism for sectors. So it's def not EU wide. --- “I cannot complain about the cooperation with the works council,” VW brand chief executive Herbert Diess said at a news conference, citing “very constructive” dealings with the unions. VW’s mass-market brand has been undergoing heavy restructuring since it agreed with the works council on plans to cut 3.7 billion euros ($4.41 billion) of costs per year from 2020 and slash 23,000 jobs in Germany via natural attrition.
    - j_walter 6y ago
      Unfortunately the US auto unions try to capitalize on the good nature and cooperation of the VW union to say that they should unionize the VW plant in Kentucky or Tennessee (I think that was where it was). Saying that VW has unions already so it would be no different...except everyone that knows anything knows better. Greece has terrible unions, but many of those seem to be the public unions like teachers and transportation workers.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"Port of Portland is now shuttered because they intentionally slowed down work to the point of forcing companies to go elsewhere." Unions should be everywhere, so these companies could not escape them by relocating. Capital trying to feel the country should also be taxed heavily for the same reason.
- refurb 6y ago
  Sounds like a planned economy. We know how well that works.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    China has been doing okay using that sort of high level planning, where the government supervises a lot of the economy and limits the movement of capital.
    - j_walter 6y ago
      You really think that? Talk to any of the chinese citizens that have fled the country to live elsewhere. Certain parts of how that government runs may look good from afar, but not if you are actually living under their rule.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        I don't think the people have it good, but the economy has grown massively for ~40 years running.
    - refurb 6y ago
      That "sort of planning". But are they requiring unions, taxing all companies and preventing capital from fleeing? No.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        China has the strictest capital controls there have ever been. The other stuff, sure no, but I wondered if you were making a broader point about a controlled economy, which would be a point that China increasingly contradicts.
purple_ferret 6y ago
>Unions used to be for protecting the workers and ensuring that companies were getting the very best skillsets when hiring. Labor unions in the US formed primarily to combat exploitation by employers, often in the face of great oppression and cronyism that led to literal bloodshed[0]. This is one of the reasons unions can't be part of the companies their members work for, unlike in Europe. Unions in Europe formed from trade unions that had a longstanding history in European economy. That said, all you have to do is look at union activity in France, where there seems to be nationwide strikes every year, to dispel the myth that they are somehow more cooperative or amenable to making concessions. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
- barbecue_sauce 6y ago
  I think you mean exploitation.
  - purple_ferret 6y ago
    i did ty
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  French are no measure for strikes, as somebody living just across the borders the norm is some form of strike few months per year, every year. Colleagues can't get to work, public transport goes to standstill so everybody drives (very ecological). Its a double edged sword at best - government is properly afraid of the citizens. But overall the economy suffers badly. This is just a small part of overall french 'package' - high social benefits, its extremely hard to fire people, tons of paid holidays days per year, early retirement etc. Result is startups start elsewhere, companies move away whatever they can (even state semi-owned like car industry). Another result is tons of monopolies, which distort the market and make very small amount of citizens profit at he cost of everybody else. Economy is weak compared to Germany, I would say salaries are 1/2, although there shouldn't be the reason - big smart well educated population. But then comes the french mentality and way of doing things...

Barrin92 6y ago

what I'm astonished by is the degree to which American firms are allowed to sabotage unionisation efforts despite, as I understand it, the US actually having similar protections for workplace assembly as other Western countries. If you tried interfere with unions here in Germany you'd run up against the law, the media and so on very, very quickly, it's one of the things you don't want to screw with.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
slg 6y ago
It isn't surprising once you reframe the issue. These unions are successfully suppressed for the exact same reason that people are inclined to form them. The labor class in the US simply doesn't have (or perhaps more accurately doesn't yield) the political power that the labor class does in many other countries. The forming of unions will help them get more power, but the act of creating a union already requires a certain level of power which many US workers haven't yet achieved.
- kortilla 6y ago
  The labor class has tons of power. The labor class just doesn’t care much for unions in the US.
- asdff 6y ago
  That is by design, really. The working poor in this country have been ideologically divided by moral wedges such as abortion for decades now. Few poor republicans and poor democrats would like to admit that they are in the same economic boat, and as a result typically the former votes against their own economic interest on the grounds of their moral principles. For the wealthy in this country, the political footballism is the perfect machine to ensure their position on the economic ladder remains at it's lofty heights, and inequality continues to widen by the year. I really don't think republicans like Mitch McConnel care at all about an issue like abortion, they just use it to drum up votes from their base in order to further their economic policy goals.

random5634 6y ago

The propaganda unfortunately also comes from folks direct experience with unions. In the US, most unions are public sector. So folks see that Police unions may protect bad apples via union. Teachers unions may care more about teachers including bad ones then teaching kids. We had a famously terrible teacher at my school - unfirable - as kids we thought it was hilarious. As a parent now - not so cool. Non unionized schools seem to be coming up with innovate workaround during pandemic (outside / park / hiking classrooms etc). Absolutely horrendously drafted laws that make life miserable even for folks trying to do right (AB5, schools not allowed to keep reserves) that are union drafted, and require endless exceptions and modifications. Google employees unionizing and striking and walking out and otherwise throwing very highly paid fits over things that don't connect with average person. When you call what people have first hand experience of "propaganda" they may immediately will discount everything else you are saying. The real rule should be all poorly compensated folks paid $14/hr or less should automatically be in unions. That's where the real need is.

Frondo 6y ago
Just one comment on this: > Teachers unions may care more about teachers ... That's precisely the point of a union. It's an organization to protect its members. It's the purpose of the school system overall, including principals, school boards, and so on, to care about teaching kids.
- seibelj 6y ago
  The #1 concern with a school should be the children, not the teachers. Public schools bend-over-backwards to help the teachers over the students. Public schools have remained essentially unchanged for 120 years - one teacher divulging knowledge to a room of kids in silent observation. Nothing will change when unions are in control - they have absolutely no incentive.
  - maya24 6y ago
    That is a failure of the public education system not unions. It is not as if the governments are trying to push innovative teaching methods and investing more in public education especially for the underprivileged.

dominotw 6y ago

> I think it's a good trend to see them happening at big tech companies Isn't the trend the rise of 'big' companies. I wish there were a lot of small/medium companies, instead, that were competing for workers, then we won't need 'solutions' like unions. Looks like we are just accepting these 'big' companies as fact of life and moving on to finding solutions to deal with them.

mal10c 6y ago
"I wish there were a lot of small/medium companies..." I hear this from a lot of different circles, and I'm not trying to target you, just more or less generically voicing my frustrations. If people wish there were more small/medium companies in the US, then by all means, go to your county courthouse and officially establish a business. You could found a sole proprietorship just to get started. I own a side business and I'm part of ownership at my main job. It's a lot of work, but worth it. If you feel you have a good idea and a good way to form and keep a customer base, then nobody is stopping you. That's one of the greatest aspects of living in the US. And since I'm on my rant now, I often times hear something along the lines that people need to form together to combat something they feel isn't fair in their place of work. While I sympathise with that, I also know for a fact that there aren't a lot of CEO's out there that are waking up asking themselves how they can screw over their employees - that just isn't how the world works. How it does work is often times when times get tough, more than not CEO's and other C-Suite managers will put their own assets on the line to ensure the company can make it through a rough patch. If the rough patch is looking more like the norm, then they may have to make really tough decisions to let some people go. That sucks for them because they're losing talent to (potentially) a competitor. Last thing: if people really don't like that company X doesn't give them some perk - whether that's forming a union or even giving away free popcorn, then start looking for a job that does that stuff!!! Don't expect your employer to just make those changes. Sorry for the rant, but I think it's important to share a view from a different perspective.

klmadfejno 6y ago

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard a major difference is that in Europe you generally have a choice of multiple competing unions, vs. the US where you're generally in or you're out. The competition forces the unions to remain focused on the desires of the general population, otherwise they just lose membership.

pmyteh 6y ago
Not really, at least in the UK. You can join any union that will have you, and there are several big 'general' unions. But most employers will only recognise a single union (if that) per group of workers. So, if you're an academic like me, you can join the University and College Union, and there will be a local organisation, probably a collective bargaining agreement with the university, and so on. Or join a different union and get no local representation and only 'central office' services. There are some places with multiple recognition (when I worked in local government Unison, GMB and the T&G were all recognised, with membership strengths in different parts of the council) but it's often just one. And that's if you're lucky: many employers recognise no unions. Of course, the UK also doesn't have the closed shop (union membership is strictly optional) so there is a competition between member and not-member that keeps some pressure on the union organisation. And each European country has its own traditions of union organisation and different working cultures, so this probably doesn't extend outside of Britain.
- Thlom 6y ago
  Fairly similar in Norway, but many of the "competing" unions both have agreements with the employer organization. My wife actually switched union because the other union had an agreement which allowed a certain type of shift schedule that the other union did not have.

tchalla 6y ago

I’m sure Amazon can justify non union stand by one of their Leadership Principles.

KorematsuFred 6y ago

As someone who has seen the violence and damage unions do to businesses, workers and the unemployed. I hope these unionization efforts are thwarted by Amazon. I did not escape a socialist hellhole to end up in another one. The moral equivalence for me personally would be a jewish person supporting a new neo nazi movement claiming it is different this time. Having said that, right to form associations is a fundamental right and I support it for all workers everywhere, it is just that such unions should not get any privileges that an individual worker does not have. Amazon should be able to offer $1000 per year more for the workers who do not join any union.

dang 6y ago
Please keep ideological flamebait* out of your posts here. It leads to ideological flamewars, which are repetitive and nasty and not what this site is for. Please make your substantive points without it. *e.g. "socialist hellhole", "jewish person supporting a neo nazi movement"
- KorematsuFred 6y ago
  Unionization is an ideological flamewar to begin with.
  - dang 6y ago
    It's possible to discuss it from an intellectually curious standpoint, as opposed to everyone just bringing in battle-hardened talking points and bashing each other with them, the same way they bashed each other last time. The former is what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

joshe 6y ago

American unions are quite different from European unions. European unions spend a lot of time running apprenticeship programs and doing things like advocating for more productivity. Like trying to figure out how to make the shop floor more efficient. American unions spend time preventing bad employees from being fired (like the NY teacher's rubber rooms and police unions fighting the firing of cops with 5 excessive force violations). Or spend time advocating for extra unneeded employees or forbidding employees from doing two different job roles. You can watch the longshoreman's season from the Wire for illustration. It's supposed to be a defense of unions, but accidentally illustrates why they are utterly broken in the US. There is a use for unions that advocate for increased pay and clearer benefits. But as constructed and run in the US they are poison to the company. A whole layer of weird incentives the company (and workers!) have to deal with. A lot of the sinister sounding anti-union education the companies do points this out. And there's enough truth that it's very effective. Pro union folks are always tweeting that companies spending $1 million to avoid an extra $100,000 a year in labor costs is evidence of a widespread conspiracy by the man to keep the working class down. Really the union is like adding a whole extra layer of horrible bureaucracy that costs way more than that $1 million. From that viewpoint shutting down a store or warehouse that unionizes make perfect sense.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
So how do we get european style unions here in america? How is it that they are able to avoid those issues and what lessons can we take that aren't "america just can't do unions right."
- joshe 6y ago
  It would be great. I sometimes think that something like a "credible threat of peace" would be useful. "We are forming a union. If you vote for this union, we will allow workers here to chose other unions. We will never get in the way of firing someone. We will never create job roles that don't let workers move laterally or up. You can lay people off. We will not use our members money for political campaigns. Our workers can move into management without us freaking out. We will advocate for more pay, benefits, productivity, and training."

jariel 6y ago

Google and Amazon unions represent quite fundamentally different kinds of organizing principles. The Amazon union is of the much more classical form, is well past due, it's not entirely necessary, but it would be beneficial. I don't actually think that regular Google employees should be unionized, rather, it should be the non-technical staff, contractors and so many people not in privileged positions that should be probably be unionized to the exclusion of the talent, who want to form their union for entirely different reasons. I do not believe that the Google Union is oriented towards helping those who actually are powerless. Google technical staff are the most privileged and well taken care of workers literally in the entire world.

rjstreur 6y ago
So whether workers should be allowed to unionize should depend on which changes they are fighting for? Where's the line of powerlessness a union's beneficiaries need to be under in order for the union to be valid in your perspective? It seems like the main actions taken by the Google employees' union so far have been to push the company to behave more ethically, not to enhance their already-significant (indeed, outrageous) privilege. I see that as using their privileged positions as leverage for positive change, and I hope they succeed.
- jariel 6y ago
  The Google Union is being formed so that specific employees to try to parlay their version of ethics - the assumption being that what they think of as 'ethical' is universally applicable, but this is definitely not the case. I don't trust Google Employees one bit more than I trust Google Management, as far as certain issues of ethnics, I'd much rather have intelligent and pragmatic regulation. Also, I didn't really hint at 'what was within their rights' or not. Finally, and ironically, if we're going to be concerned about 'ethics' it might start with tidying up their own household and using the tools of organizing like Unions for which they were intended, which is to say helping those who have no power i.e. the gazillion of 'secondary' actors at Google. If Googlers want to have more influence I'm not sure the Union model is it, because far more often than not, it's a system of entrenched power that will use their base to carry out the wishes of the vanguard. Student unions for example, tend to take positions that are wildly inconsistent with what the average student would want, but voter participation is low, the system is opaque, and many students don't pay any attention and are just resigned to the system. I don't know what the answer is, but it's probably not a union.

perfmode 6y ago

where can i learn more about the union activities at amazon in europe?

franczesko 6y ago
The problem is that EU cannot be considered as a whole. What you see in particular markets can largely differ one from another - what you have in UK, doesn't apply to France. What you have in the latter, doesn't apply to Germany, and so on...
username90 6y ago
Unions in Europe represent individuals and not companies. Anyone who wants can join a union and let the union represent them. Therefore there is no point in trying to hurt unionization efforts etc, because there is no switch to flop, workers will slowly go there if they feel they benefit from it.

abstractbarista 6y ago

I'm down for unions, but don't want a single cent of my pay to go to one. This is why I actually enjoy 'right to work' states.

jimbob45 6y ago

Google didn’t unionize. Their “union” isn’t federally certified and they have current membership of 700/250000 workers. Google is under no obligation to work with them on anything. In the future, they could get a majority of workers agree to have a union represent them but that’s not the case at this time. What the Google union did was obstruct real unionization efforts at Google. Source: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/googles-fake-union-insults-the-labor-movement-11610579343 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/googles-fake-union-insults-...

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I agree with the general thrust of this, but it seems misleading to describe an organization belonging to CWA Local 1400 as fake or not really a part of the labor movement. For better or worse, the labor movement believes these kinds of non-majority pressure groups count as real unions.
bluGill 6y ago
The fact that google's union needs to be federally certified and isn't also says something about unions: they are a monopoly in the bad sense. Either the union doesn't need federal certification, or it should automatically be.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

Fortunately most tech employees, including most Google employees, understand that unions don’t make any sense for them. Warehouse employees are very different, and it might make more sense there.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Have you read anything about the Google "union"? It is a basically a joke that .0001% of the company signed in on. You shouldn't use it as a data point on any kind of trend.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

It's hard to compare Google's "union" to this one. This one would be much more like the old factory workers banding together. The people at Amazon make far less than the people at google and often don't have the luxury to think about "societal concerns" they just want to put food on the table. I think all around it's good, but this would be a much different type of union and probably better be much larger or it will get squashed quickly