8 ms·

When workers don't negotiate together, it's trivial for employers to reset compensation expectations like this. If you work for a company like Amazon, and you

• slt2021 4y ago
  unions are inefficient, because they promote mediocrity (regression to the mean) in terms of talent - and union bosses wield abnormal influence.
  • bhouston 4y ago
    > unions are inefficient, because they promote mediocrity (regression to the mean) in terms of talent - and union bosses wield abnormal influence They do stifle the ability for ultra-rich CEOs from becoming even more ultra rich at the expense of their workers.
    • slt2021 4y ago
      how exactly? looking at american unions I dont see a single effective at "stifling CEOs from becoming rich". american automakers produce one of the low quality cars, and heavy lobbying from lawmakers is the only thing that keeps them afloat.
      • Loughla 4y ago
        I really want to break your argument down, so you can maybe see how it doesn't really argue in any sort of way for what you think it does, and doesn't really make sense. I'm not trying to be hateful, but I really think you might benefit from seeing this from an outside perspective. Argument: I do not see a single [union] effective at "Stifling CEO's from becoming rich". 1st Proof: American Automakers produce low quality cars. 2nd Proof: The only thing keeping them in business is lobbying from American Lawmakers. Your proof has nothing to do with your argument. At all. They're not related. They're also very subjective and impossible to actually prove. They're not proof; they're opinion. A more effective argument would be: Proof: The largest Union employers are x, y, z, and their CEO's make $x, $y, $z.
        • slt2021 4y ago
          you are right, but the argument itself is flawed in the first place. CEOs are not the rich class, they are elite but they are employees. Plenty of CEOs get fired for doing bad job, or get softly pushed out. Argument that labor union keep CEOs from getting rich is absurd because CEOs are part of labor force. it is shareholders who get rich by squeezing profit, so I dont get why bring up CEOs. A CEO maybe get paid $10 mln a year. But shareholders get dividends/buybacks in order of hundreds of mils/blns My argument was that labor unions lead to piss poor quality due to mediocrity (example: US automakers). the japanese automakers have factories in the US and produce much higher quality cars without labor unions. How come???
          • dragonwriter 4y ago
            > CEOs are not the rich class, they are elite but they are employees. While this is sometimes true, the executive status class overlaps significantly with the haut bourgeois economic class (and most of the rest of the executive status class is in the petit bourgeois economic class; there are probably working class “CEOs” somewhere, but they are very much not the norm), and very typically they are specifically significant holders of capital in the firm of which they are CEOs. CEOS are not just employees, and their relationship to either the firms they control or the economy more generally are not very much like those of regular employees.
            • slt2021 4y ago
              huh? if we talking about tech layoffs and tech employees needing union - pls explain how Satya Nadella or Sundar are elites? they became CEOs just from being immigrant students. Started as engineers, and slowly rose through ranks. tech is more merit based, compared to traditional boomer's industries. I dont see how CEOs in tech are part of elite, while they are simply hired managers. You do your job well - you can become ceo one day
              • njbooher 4y ago
                Employees typically depend on their salaries to pay for necessary living expenses. If they lose their job, they need to get another one, or they'll eventually go broke. Any CEO making $10M/yr would only need to work for a year before they could retire and live comfortably the rest of their life without ever touching the principal. Layoffs affect these groups differently.
      • xtracto 4y ago
        Mexico has some strong unions, one of them is the SINDICATO NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA. AUTOMOTRIZ (auto maker/manufactring union). Still, there are lots of cars manufactured in Mexico which are of quite high quality[1]: Audi Q5 BMW Serie 3 BMW Serie 2 coupé Honda HR-V Hyundai Accent Infiniti QX50 Infiniti QX55 Jeep Compass KIA Rio KIA Forte Mazda CX-30 Mazda2 Mazda3 Mercedes-Benz GLB Nissan Kicks Nissan Versa Nissan NP300 Nissan Sentra Nissan March Nissan NV 200 Cargo Toyota Tacoma VW Tiguan VW Taos VW Jetta There is indeed a stigma that American cars (Ford, GM, Chevrolet) are trash, but I think that has more to do with a company policy, more than with Unions and manufacturing employees. [1] https://www.motorpasion.com.mx/industria/autos-produccion-mexico-2022 https://www.motorpasion.com.mx/industria/autos-produccion-me...
        • slt2021 4y ago
          with all due respect to Mexican workers - in Mexico most OEMs do mostly assembly of ready made parts. Engines, tranny, suspension parts are manufactured in US/Europe/Japan and simply shipped to Mexico for assembly due to NAFTA favorable trade agreement and cheaper labor for simple assembly
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • bhouston 3y ago
        > how exactly? looking at american unions I dont see a single effective at "stifling CEOs from becoming rich". You removed a major conditional. I do not care if the CEOs become rich, the dream of getting rich via business success is why capitalism works, what I care about is if they do it by underpaying their employees because of a power differential.
    • nerdponx 4y ago
      They also stifle the aspirational libertarian Ayn Rand wealth fantasy that American culture is built on.
  • red-iron-pine 4y ago
    wait until you hear about how inefficient executives are killer. there is a bell-curve for leadership, and it's pretty damn clear after centuries of mercantilism and capitalism that they're not smarter than you are. it's a cartel, and the bellcurve applies to them just as much as it applies to your SWE I's straight out of college.
    • slt2021 4y ago
      executives exist regardless of union exists or not, execs are hired by shareholders and employees have no vote into this
      • nerdponx 4y ago
        Why shouldn't employees also be shareholders with a collectively nontrivial voting stake?
        • slt2021 4y ago
          if they have $$$money$$$$ they are welcome to purchase on open market, as many shares as they would like. problem is most retail investors never even vote for annual shareholder meetings and never bother to read proxy statements and shareholders' meeting agenda.
          • nerdponx 4y ago
            I said collectively. Workers don't get paid enough individually to buy relevant ownership shares (or even any shares). This is literally the point of collective action.
            • slt2021 4y ago
              In industries where employees are critical part of business theybhave a vote and meaningful share. For example startups where early engineers have options/shares and management listens to them and wants to keep them happy. Sadly in most cases with big tech - there is no reason to give a vote to employee class because they are not critical. I mean look at twitter - musk fired everyone he could and twitter still works. Same with google - google could fire everyone outside Search&Ads and still run its cash cow machine. All critical code is written by early and now very senior engineers, current employees are tiny tiny cogs that are not critical to business. Why would anyone gove a vote to these people?
  • pera 4y ago
    Well I for one thank unions for the weekends and 40-hour work week (in addition to many other great things we now give for granted).
  • nerdponx 4y ago
    Mediocrity for all is better than exceptional outcomes for me and shit for everyone else.
    • slt2021 4y ago
      do you like communism, where everyone gets equal outcome? (true equity) Like in Cuba, Russia/Soviet Union, DPRK, or Campuchia during Pol Pot's time?
      • nerdponx 4y ago
        I knew someone was going to say this. There are a lot of things wrong with this line of thinking, but the simplest rebuttal is that there is a lot of room between "workers should organize for greater market power to prevent abuse by employers" and "we have abolished the State and everyone gets exactly the same outcome in all situations, and also we have executed half the population". To deny that is to argue in bad faith and/or deep ignorance.
        • slt2021 4y ago
          I am from Soviet Union (which had strong state) and witnessed labor unions - who did nothing of value absolutely. so no, not buying this argument at all. "workers should organize for greater market power to prevent abuse by employers" - tech engineers dont need it - because if you dont like it - you can simply leave to another employer. market forces will find equilibrium, labor union is only an obstacle in reaching market equilibrium. it is telling that people who escaped communist countries never want to see any sign of communism in their life. Because communism doesnt work, never worked, and will never work
          • nerdponx 4y ago
            > tech engineers dont need it - because if you dont like it you can simply leave to another employer. This is my whole point. This is only true for some, and it's not distributed according to merit. People get mistreated all the time at both tech and non-tech companies, even in career fields that are traditionally high-paying and high-mobility. The only way to stop that in a way that also promotes a relatively free labor market is for workers to self-organize, and for the government to legally protect their right to do so. I understand your concerns about communism. Nobody in their right mind is proposing that we bring communism to the USA. The fortunate workers who have market power uniting to support for their fellows who lack market power is not itself communism, nor does it lead to communism. American labor unions are not communism, and never will be. The USA once developed a strong tradition and culture of organized labor that brought us out of the brutality of the 19th century Industrial Revolution. There were plenty of smaller socialist and even anarchist groups at the time, but in general most people were not that radical, and no group anything resembling the Bolsheviks ever gained popular support in the USA. Ironically however, communism indirectly enabled big business to crush that tradition of organized labor, because the Red Scare of the early 20th century allowed them to label pro-labor policy as socialist or communist and therefore anti-American and anti-freedom. If anything, the kinds of labor unions that people join the USA are a uniquely capitalist institution, being dedicated specifically to the purpose of balancing asymmetric market power.
  • cmh89 4y ago
    Can you explain how unions promote mediocrity? I'm in a union and I get promotions frequently
    • nerdponx 4y ago
      In general, it's a tired decades-old anti-labor talking point. However there are many cases where it's hard to fire underperfoming unionized employees. And there's always the possibility of the union playing a kind of long game with management where they are willing to trade away the possibility of rewarding standout individuals in order to preserve the baseline.
      • cmh89 4y ago
        I've never seen a union contract that didn't have a clear path to firing someone. I've worked in a union and in HR labor relations. My experience is that 'hard to fire' stories usually boil down managers not understanding the union contract, not enforcing the union contract until its too late, or wanting to enforce the union contract differently based on the employee.
        • acdha 4y ago
          Ditto. 100% of the times I’ve seen that happen, the problem was created by bad management and often perpetuated because then they don’t want to have to explain why it wasn’t dealt with earlier.
  • monknomo 4y ago
    Does the screen actors guild promote mediocrity? Does the national basket ball players association promote mediocrity? There are a lot of ways to do a union, you don't have to set one up exactly like a detroit auto factory
    • slt2021 4y ago
      Two examples you mentioned heavily gatekeep profession and limit supply of labor to the market. Do you want Tech labor union to gatekeep profession? IT is already merit based and is good because there is no gatekeeping, just spin up your own website and start making money if you are that good. As an IT professional I simply dont understand why I need labor union to dictate rules to me, when I can negotiate on behalf of myself perfectly fine. If company decodes to lay me off - well it is company’s loss and fault - I will simply go work elsewhere or freelance, while company will struggle retaining skilled engineers
      • unethical_ban 3y ago
        One additional benefit of unions is coordinating strikes for the purposes of change, which is why we have many of the benefits taken for granted today as well as showing the importance of undervalued roles in society. And protesting retirement age hikes in France.
      • monknomo 4y ago
        you also don't have to set your union up exactly like SAG, either. My point is that the members of a union get to choose whether they are propping up mediocrity, gatekeeping or something else. Maybe interviewing or freelancing lead generation is a hassle - your local IUP (International Union of Programmers) could help sling jobs your way like a pipefitter union. Maybe you want something different? I bet we could find a model of some union doing that; the world is big
        • hot_gril 4y ago
          They don't get to choose. The only way to get above-market pay is to keep potential employees out who would otherwise be offering better price:performance. That's the goal of a union, but they'll represent it in different ways, sometimes less obvious than others.
  • aaomidi 4y ago
    Source on this claim?
• toast0 4y ago
  > If you work for a company like Amazon, and you don't want to be laid off, the only thing you can do to move the needle is join a union. If you don't like how one party can make changes to your job without your meaningful input, you should throw in so two parties can make changes to your job without your meaningful input? Also, you should be sure to pay some part of your wages to the second party, even if you don't like what they're up to.
  • pnt12 4y ago
    That's a very one sided opinion: more complexity is necessarily bad, no matter anything else. I'm not particularly pr-union but I'd argue for another dimension: to the company, you're an employee, but to the union you're a customer. If too many people dislike an union, it can dissolve. If too many people dislike a company, things aren't as simple, because they depend on their wages (and in the USA: insurance) to live.
    • toast0 4y ago
      > That's a very one sided opinion: more complexity is necessarily bad, no matter anything else. I think that's a fair summary of my worldview. I don't like unnecessary complexity in most of my life, and adding an intermediary to an important relationship needs to get over a high hurdle for me to consider it's necessary. Maybe if there's an example of software development under a union shop that you can point at and say this particular Union improved working conditions for people like me in this particular way, I can say hmmm, maybe that's worth the added complexity. But most of what I've seen from unions is that they add a significant chance of not being able to work because of disagreements between the union and the employer or solidarity in disagreements between other unions and other employers; as well as most often salary rules that are based on time at the job rather than quality of work. Quality of work is hard to measure, but I've been generally happy with the results of that measurement. Maybe the model of talent unions rather than blue-collar unions is a more appropriate model, but I'm not sure how that works. Do I need to give union dues and hire an agent, too?
  • harimau777 3y ago
    What's your alternative?
• screye 4y ago
  At the end of the day, a union is merely one of the ropes that workers can tug at to maintain leverage. Doctors don't use unions. They instead artificially limit supply by erecting massive barriers to enter their workforce. This keeps them in demand. Software contrasts this with an open-door policy. On top of that, all white-collar labor jobs barring software involve serious licensing requirements as further gatekeeping. Lawyers maintain leverage by making sure the it's Lawyers all the way up. No MBAs, people-persons or bean-counters controlling their profession. This means that the workers control important intangibles like customer relationships & hidden information ...both of which make you irreplaceable. Software instead pushes technical people from the stable-and-monetarily-rewarding positions by making the management-track entirely distinct from the working professional (IC). At the same time we obsess over building tools and systems that make everyone replaceable and automate ourselves away. Immigration is another form of leverage. Tech being majority immigrants, means that they lose all leverage in what they can ask for when the ultimate guillotine is held over their heads. Do tech workers vote as a block on matters of immigration to improve their leverage ? No. Work culture & pressure to conform can also be a type of leverage. If someone likes being well groomed, then professions that expect you to spend those 30 minutes getting perfectly ready are not cumbersome, it is leisure. Afterwork drinking ensures a good social life, but also ensures that everyone leaves work together at 5. It excludes, yes. But if you fit into that clique, then the conforming is effortless and the leverage comes for free. Consulting & finance are some examples of such businesses. Tech isn't the only broken business. Restaurants & game design are broken for similar reasons. Unions have their place, but a nation-wide tech worker union is a logistical impossibility. All too often, other levers are over-looked. Tech has made its bed : "learn to code. be a college drop out. get PMs to do the boring work and let them be promoted faster. I will let a glorified secretary be my manager. we will never put my community's 'legal' immigration priorities over those of the greater social issues I 'facilitating illegal immigration' my tribe asks me to commit to....and so on. No we have to lie in it.
  • ahzhou 4y ago
    > Doctors don't use unions. They instead artificially limit supply by erecting massive barriers to enter their workforce. This keeps them in demand. Software contrasts this with an open-door policy. On top of that, all white-collar labor jobs barring software involve serious licensing requirements as further gatekeeping. Some doctors do, however, collectively negotiate with hospital administration. The payment / profit sharing schemes can be very different depending on the hospital and what a particular group wanted. You can get totally socialized profits at one place and totally performance-based at another.
• esalman 4y ago
  I hardly think FAANG workers make good union members. One is about maximizing personal net worth, other is about making sacrifices for common good.