Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

What do you mean, "if they were allowed to unionize?"

They are "allowed" to - it just takes effort.

It... takes more than just effort, given the extent of anti-union efforts out there, including illegal firing (which the $15/hr single mom almost certainly isn't going to be able to fight), harassment, and so on.

We're somewhat lucky our ancestors at least mostly cut down on the fucking assassination, I guess, but it's still something that faces a great deal of obstacles, some of which takes a hell of a lot more than just "effort".

[hector13]

Exactly, just because an employee is allowed to unionize doesn’t mean the employer is going to let them.

I used to work in a place in which if a store manager was in charge when a union was formed, they’d have their wages cut significantly. How likely do you think a store manager in that position is going to be amenable to union efforts in their store?

[McTraveller]

Right, and all that stuff is technically illegal, but hard to prove. Which is why I said "why doesn't the union use its war chest to help those people when they lose their jobs to tide them over while the lawsuits take place?"

I haven't heard or seen any news reports of any union doing that for people not already in a union.

[Maximum™]

I mean, the NLRB just had a win I recall hearing about where if ANY efforts are made at punishing a group for trying to organize a union it automatically gains recognition, so suddenly employers have a choice between:

a. negotiate contracts such as they are able
or
b. accept whatever contracts the union put forth

Which is great! Fuck them bosses!


Also:

What do you mean, "if they were allowed to unionize?"

They are "allowed" to - it just takes effort. Unionizing isn't from some magic union fairy coming in to rescue anyone.  I suppose if unions used their war chests to help people get by until they get union benefits instead of or in addition to funding strikes, I might think they are doing more to help the people they need it.

Also I don't know many single moms that can do union jobs - most of those schedules don't align with school hours, may require even cross-town relocation that isn't paid because "it's too close", and child care inevitably eats up all the extra union wage (have you ever looked at day care prices?)  So unless the unions can simultaneously increase wages for their "own" as well as help keep price pressures down for everyone else, unions are not really not the panacea it seems.

Unions existing tends to put upward pressure on all wages among related industries/workforces. This is why bosses hate them.

Basically it takes a community of people working together, not vilifying everyone who is in a different group... in-group/out-group dynamics are terrible. Bad enough on just neighborhood economic and neighbor-dispute scales, but even worse in international politics, as we sadly see in the news every day...

So one might say it takes a community of people working together, united for a common purpose, forming some sort of unified front to secure a better bargaining position for their members, perhaps?


Like, I really don't think you're doing it on purpose, but you seem to have picked up a lot of anti-union propaganda, or at least a general vibe of learned helplessness maybe?

[McTraveller]

I'm neither pro- nor anti-union.  I'm anti "screw those people because they're not us!"

I'm also I guess too much of an optimist...thinking that there's a way to improve the plight of the downtrodden without "going to war with the rich class" or without war in general.  Maybe I have to much faith that maybe business owners who just try to pay the least they can, realize that it's actually better for business to treat people fairly.

[Lord Shonus]

I'm anti "screw those people because they're not us!"

If you think that's what unions are about, then you're hardcore anti-union.

[Maximum™]

Plus, the war of the wealthy vs everyone else was already started by the wealthy.

Nobody earns a billion dollars, you steal it or inherit it from someone else who stole it.

The type of theft people think about when they hear the term "theft" is stuff like shoplifting or burglary or mugging, but in fact those combined are dwarfed by wage theft and people don't even think about it existing, much less that it is theft when an employer underpays their employees, cheats them out of breaks, overtime, medical leave, and so forth.

Unions fight against that, and benefit members and non-members alike, in fact the only people who AREN'T helped by unions are employers trying to screw over their employees, or other rich people who directly benefit from shit like wage theft and the like.

[eerr]

I'm anti "screw those people because they're not us!"

If you think that's what unions are about, then you're hardcore anti-union.

It is almost exactly that... though.

[hector13]

I'm anti "screw those people because they're not us!"

If you think that's what unions are about, then you're hardcore anti-union.

It is almost exactly that... though.

Based on..?

[lemon10]

I'm also I guess too much of an optimist...thinking that there's a way to improve the plight of the downtrodden without "going to war with the rich class" or without war in general.  Maybe I have to much faith that maybe business owners who just try to pay the least they can, realize that it's actually better for business to treat people fairly.

Yes, this is incredibly naive. As Max says, there already is a class war going on, and it wasn't started by the poor people.

As with any war, going "Well, we don't want to fight, let's be friends" once the other side is already fighting is a terrible strategy that ends with lots of people on your "side" dying.

Small business owners care sometimes of course, but the idea that Walmart is going to turn around and start paying their employees a living wage is laughable.

[McTraveller]

Yeah so I think I should clarify my stance. What I want is effectively a universal labor union, not these piecemeal industry- and geography-specific unions.  Ostensibly that is what the labor laws in the US did for a while, and was partly why the unions got weak - the workers had their protections in law, and they were paying for it with taxes, so didn't really want to double-pay by also paying union dues.

My other concerns are the unions are targeting the employers - which are the entities that generally are actually creating wealth - instead of targeting the industries that are charging people lots of money.  You don't get a functional economy by stressing the entities that actually create wealth.

I almost think we don't need labor unions, but we need consumer unions.  Collective bargaining for housing, for instance.  I dunno how you'd swing that, to be honest, but it's an interesting thought.  Make a resident-owned real-estate conglomerate, with the goal not of making money, but of keeping prices down.

[hector13]

Most homeowners want to keep the prices of houses up. Homeowners Associations are a thing, and that’s generally what they’re for.

[eerr]

I'm anti "screw those people because they're not us!"

If you think that's what unions are about, then you're hardcore anti-union.

It is almost exactly that... though.

Based on..?

Personal experience.

[Frumple]

I almost think we don't need labor unions, but we need consumer unions.  Collective bargaining for housing, for instance.  I dunno how you'd swing that, to be honest, but it's an interesting thought.  Make a resident-owned real-estate conglomerate, with the goal not of making money, but of keeping prices down.

Uh, swinging that is what you call price/rent controls? "Consumer union" is ostensibly a, y'know... government. They do things like that sometimes, and oh but does it make certain talking heads howl.

That's also where a universal labor union would be coming from, for that matter. Tighten up labor laws and employee protections to the point you de facto have one, basically. Anything lower level than that and by the time you actually have it, you... have a government built up.

It's not even an impossible thought to think, you'd just need to see a lot of CEOs at a minimum get their back broken, and I'm not sure how metaphorical that condition would be. Then you'd need a persistent effort to keep those backs shattered in perpetuity.

My other concerns are the unions are targeting the employers - which are the entities that generally are actually creating wealth - instead of targeting the industries that are charging people lots of money.  You don't get a functional economy by stressing the entities that actually create wealth.

I mean, you're not entirely wrong on that last sentence, but you're wildly wrong on the first? Employers rarely create much or any wealth, they extract it from employees and anyone else they can manage to squeeze money out of. That's functionally the entire friggin' point of a capitalist system, at the end of the day, folks with money/administrative control shaving wealth off the efforts of workers. It's one of the reasons the greatest type of theft in the US by a pretty bloody long shot is wage theft.

[Maximum™]

Capitalists try to find a niche where they can own capital and let people use it to create more value which they can skim off the top and call profits while the really successful pricks are the ones who figured out how to stake out a new territory they can rent to capitalists.

This is why everything went streaming/cloud based, capitalists hate capitalism, they'd all rather become techno-feudalists if they could, plus they know if they don't do it first then their compatriots are gonna beat them to it.

Cory Doctorow explains lots of this stuff: https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/11/equal-opportunity-class-war/#inclusive-scabbing and yeah, he goes into other fascinating topics like that and more.