[lenticular]

>Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that.

True. Unfortunately, many unions are incredibly milquetoast. However, even in such cases the union can still function as sort of an insurance policy against future severe abuses. Folks can also engage with their union: they will listen to workers.

[icelancer]

> Folks can also engage with their union: they will listen to workers.

Uh, the same group dynamics that cause cliques to form and higher powers within bureaucracies also can happen in unions. This happens regularly, and I've been a part of one, where regular workers were not listened to but the upper "management" of the union (can't use that word though) controlled the fates of everyone below.

You needed regular workers to rebel against the union to even get representation against management. All the while they collect dues.

Plenty of unions are good. But acting like all of them are, or why you can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to unionize, is really naive.

[lenticular]

Workers are ultimately in control of their union. If the union is doing a bad job, workers can fix it. It just requires coordination and will.

[whatshisface]

"The Union," as an entity, has power over the workers in many of the same ways that corporations do (especially the power of coordination). You'd need a union-union so that workers could bargain collectively with the union leadership. For N people employed by a corporation, you could have N groups: One containing all N (the corporation), one containing N-1 (the union, whose membership consists of all but the CEO), one containing N-2 (the union union, whose membership consists of all but the CEO and the top union leader), and so on all the way down to the N-(N-1)th subunion which consists only of the intern.

Now, there may be more than one equal among the top corporate leadership, and there might be more than one equal in the top union leadership. So, instead of having to have N unions, you could have N/m where m is the number of voting equals at the top of each level of the hierarchy.

This is not entirely facetious, many democratic countries essentially work like this. For example, Americans have a county legislature, a state legislature, and a federal legislature, and to some extent (a greater extent early in the country's history), they perform this sort of nested bargaining.

[ohithereyou]

The historic links between unions and political machines and unions and organized crime suggests that the concept of workers fixing a bad union is great in theory but nearly impossible in practice.

[smogcutter]

The historic links between the capital owning class, political machines, and organized paramilitary forces suggests that the concept of individual workers fixing a bad company is great in theory but nearly impossible in practice.

[marcosdumay]

You mean that unions do not work? Because that's what I understand from what you said.

[_mdpn]

I'm not sure that undercuts my argument. At best, most unions provide an ineffectual outlet for worker frustration at the company negotiating with the union with the union leaders colluding with management and eating steak and caviar on management's tab. At worst, union leaders are completely ignored by management and line their pockets on the misery of their members, occasionally stepping in to right a wrong but mostly acting the treacle in the gears of actually getting things done.

Almost every modern union is the textbook definition of controlled opposition.

The only escape is likely violent revolution of the anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-communist variety, these systems still share the problem of rich and powerful people with guns.

[icelancer]

If the workers are capable of doing this, then they wouldn't need a union. They would represent themselves against management.

[vkou]

No, they couldn't, because unless you bargain collectively, you have a lot more to lose in these negotiations, then your boss does.

You derive 100% of your income from your employer. Your employer derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you.

[chimeracoder]

> No, they couldn't, because unless you bargain collectively, you have a lot more to lose in these negotiations, then your boss does. You derive 100% of your income from your employer. Your employer derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you.

You derive 100% of your income from your union membership, which is a mandatory term of your employment. Your union derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you.

(It actually derives even less than that, because it operates as a syndicate representing workers across multiple employers).

[deadmetheny]

Have you actually been part of a union? In practice, this is very rarely true when dealing with a poor-quality union.

[maxk42]

> the union can still function as sort of an insurance policy against future severe abuses

Except by the union.