7 ms·

This is the first time I've heard someone argue that unionizing is a self-interested pursuit. It's called "collective bargaining" for a reason; workers who coop

This is the first time I've heard someone argue that unionizing is a self-interested pursuit. It's called "collective bargaining" for a reason; workers who cooperate in negotiations with their employers have more leverage than those who negotiate individually. The entire point is to work together for the betterment of the group!

akoboldfrying 20d ago
You have described self-interest. That's not to say unions, or self-interest itself, are bad.
jackdoe 20d ago
their point is while the 'group' wins, the rest of the world loses. localized gains, distributed loss.
- computerliker 20d ago
  as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss. a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions. thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.
  - drdaeman 20d ago
    > a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste So far ;-)
  - miki123211 20d ago
    > a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste Neither can a record player. Nevertheless, we consume recorded music.
    - Timon3 20d ago
      Surely you must be aware that record players don't compose the music they are playing?
      - optimisticedits 19d ago
        I enjoy looking at beautiful rock formations. I am also thankful for the Sun and the Moon. Who made those? What's wrong with Automated Intelligence (TM) making things for me to enjoy?
        Timon3 19d ago
        Is that question supposed to be profound? Because surely someone has explained the formation of our celestial bodies to you.
        optimisticedits 19d ago
        Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you. Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music. Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an automatic process? Hmm?
        Timon3 19d ago
        > Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you. I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you. > Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music. No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense. When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?
- binary132 20d ago
  There is no moral imperative to help the world reach an optimum. Rather, the world is full of competing interests.
sib 20d ago
See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor. Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)
- magicalist 20d ago
  > See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards. > Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc
  - fuck_google 20d ago
    [dead]
- Dayshine 20d ago
  > Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.
  - w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 20d ago
    In Italy too. We have national contracts that are negotiated by unions for the whole indistry and are valid for all workers of the same industry, not only members.
baron816 20d ago
Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?
- mattkevan 20d ago
  Maybe if employers offered better working conditions and salaries people wouldn’t feel the need to go on strike?
  - baron816 20d ago
    People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike. Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to. But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services. We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.
    - tyre 20d ago
      "Competition is universally good" is what has decimated American manufacturing since Reagan. It's hollowed out the US middle class, which affects what the country can build, purchasing power, and innovation. Free trade policies have destroyed cities, eliminated millions of well-paying jobs, cut social services, and ripped the social fabric from communities. There were no alternatives to just "take a job at a better company"; most manufacturing jobs that left had no alternatives. It was cynically selfish and short-sighted. The US from 1980–2020 is a perfect example of how much more complex systems, economies, worker dynamics, and second/third/nth order effects are.
csallen 20d ago
I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think their point was that they're against the self-interested nature of unionizing. I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening. And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me. Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.
Melatonic 20d ago
People also forget the role they play in protecting and helping corporations. Without unions as a legal and negotiating intermediary you get things like factory workers burning down the factories when they are overly exploited.
- akoboldfrying 20d ago
  Sorry, but I don't think that makes sense. Any mutiny-preventing deal that a union negotiates could instead have been offered voluntarily by the employer to all employees from the outset, no union required.

akoboldfrying 20d ago

You have described self-interest. That's not to say unions, or self-interest itself, are bad.

jackdoe 20d ago

their point is while the 'group' wins, the rest of the world loses. localized gains, distributed loss.

computerliker 20d ago
as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss. a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions. thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.
- drdaeman 20d ago
  > a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste So far ;-)
- miki123211 20d ago
  > a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste Neither can a record player. Nevertheless, we consume recorded music.
  - Timon3 20d ago
    Surely you must be aware that record players don't compose the music they are playing?
    - optimisticedits 19d ago
      I enjoy looking at beautiful rock formations. I am also thankful for the Sun and the Moon. Who made those? What's wrong with Automated Intelligence (TM) making things for me to enjoy?
      - Timon3 19d ago
        Is that question supposed to be profound? Because surely someone has explained the formation of our celestial bodies to you.
        optimisticedits 19d ago
        Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you. Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music. Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an automatic process? Hmm?
        Timon3 19d ago
        > Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you. I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you. > Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music. No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense. When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?
binary132 20d ago
There is no moral imperative to help the world reach an optimum. Rather, the world is full of competing interests.

sib 20d ago

See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor. Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)

magicalist 20d ago
> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards. > Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc
- fuck_google 20d ago
  [dead]
Dayshine 20d ago
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.
- w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 20d ago
  In Italy too. We have national contracts that are negotiated by unions for the whole indistry and are valid for all workers of the same industry, not only members.

baron816 20d ago

Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?

mattkevan 20d ago
Maybe if employers offered better working conditions and salaries people wouldn’t feel the need to go on strike?
- baron816 20d ago
  People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike. Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to. But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services. We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.
  - tyre 20d ago
    "Competition is universally good" is what has decimated American manufacturing since Reagan. It's hollowed out the US middle class, which affects what the country can build, purchasing power, and innovation. Free trade policies have destroyed cities, eliminated millions of well-paying jobs, cut social services, and ripped the social fabric from communities. There were no alternatives to just "take a job at a better company"; most manufacturing jobs that left had no alternatives. It was cynically selfish and short-sighted. The US from 1980–2020 is a perfect example of how much more complex systems, economies, worker dynamics, and second/third/nth order effects are.

csallen 20d ago

I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think their point was that they're against the self-interested nature of unionizing. I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening. And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me. Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.

Melatonic 20d ago

People also forget the role they play in protecting and helping corporations. Without unions as a legal and negotiating intermediary you get things like factory workers burning down the factories when they are overly exploited.

akoboldfrying 20d ago
Sorry, but I don't think that makes sense. Any mutiny-preventing deal that a union negotiates could instead have been offered voluntarily by the employer to all employees from the outset, no union required.