Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by toomuchtodo 1979 days 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."

2 comments

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-c...

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/

> 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-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."

There's a distinction between collective action and government-sanctioned monopolies on labor. It's one thing for workers to bargain collectively. It's another thing when the government prohibits the company from finding another labor pool, and effectively gives the union a monopoly on labor. The latter is when corruption runs rampant, and unions have no competition.
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.