[rvnx]

Then instead of being able to negotiate by yourself or freely pool together with other employees, you will have to go through the union.

Which means it becomes a political game where the union is going to help you only if you help them.

Essentially adding a third-party that lives on the monster.

And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know personally the people who represent the union, etc.

And you end up with a negotiator that will negotiates his own best interests.

[nrook]

Er, what exactly do you think "freely pooling together with other employees" looks like? A group of employees that negotiates together is a union.

You can negotiate alone, but you have much less bargaining power that way. There's a reason the big tech companies all work together on their side of this negotiation (colluding with other employers to lower salaries, all doing layoffs at the same time, etc.): it works.

[brightlancer]

> Er, what exactly do you think "freely pooling together with other employees" looks like? A group of employees that negotiates together is a union.

In states without Right-to-work laws, once the union is in place, employees are NOT able to freely pool with other employees, they're restricted to pooling with ALL of the union members in that shop, or even multiple shops.

[anigbrowl]

Then instead of being able to negotiate by yourself or freely pool together with other employees, you will have to go through the union.

Freely pooling together...like a union? Your argument seems to hang on the notion that once people do pool together, they lose all control and the union they created turns on its own members. That's like saying corporations shouldn't have any management because the managers will just enrich themselves at the expense of the owners.

It's particularly odd to read this since the person you replied told you that they're literally on the bargaining committee. So you're warning them about...themselves?

[rvnx]

If it's was so easy to form an union they would already have one.

Yes I'm sure that OP already knows that sitting at the negotiating table is a good position for him but all the other members of the Union don't have that privilege.

[anigbrowl]

I can't speak for OP's situation obviously, but in most union contexts a person on the bargaining committee is answerable to other members, subject to removal, and reliant on re-election. Some organizations have practices of job rotation or term limits to ensure no single individual is irreplaceable.

[bwestergard]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

All bargaining sessions are open to observation by all unit members, and have been since day one. Ten percent of the unit was elected by single transferrable vote (Meek Rule) to speak at the bargaining table. But that is just to keep the bargaining orderly; union proposals are drafted by any interested members. We keep them all in a Google Drive so anyone can check in on the state of bargaining. We also take extensive notes for members who could not observe in real time to catch up the state of bargaining.

Once the bargaining committee reaches a tentative agreement with the employer, the whole membership will have to ratify it by secret ballot before it goes into effect.

Where is the "privilege" in this system, exactly?

[anonymouskimmer]

> Which means it becomes a political game where the union is going to help you only if you help them.

In the US unions are required to assist even non-members who are in jobs represented by the union. It's called the "free rider" problem.

> And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know personally the people who represent the union, etc.

This has historically been a problem in non-worker-run unions, and may still be. In worker-run unions workers directly elect their representatives from the membership. If you think your current leadership is too tight with management then you can run against them, or vote for someone who does.

[phpisthebest]

>>If you think your current leadership is too tight with management then you can run against them, or vote for someone who does.

Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no understanding of the business, which never works out for anyone either the workers or the business.

Workers could get screwed with out knowing it, or the demands are soo outside what the business can support the business would never agree.

[anonymouskimmer]

> the demands are soo outside what the business can support the business would never agree.

Contract negotiations typically always start this way, from both sides of the bargaining table. That's why it's called contract bargaining. After a few rounds of back and forth you're supposed to hit something that's acceptable to both sides.

[anonymouskimmer]

> Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no understanding of the business, which never works out for anyone either the workers or the business.

The elected person is still a worker at the business. Still talks with other workers at the business, as well as management. And still has access to the non-elected employees of the union whose job it is to catalog and remember institutional knowledge.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Then you can get the opposite problem..

Spunds like damned if you do, damned of you don't

Is there any way for a worker to stand up for himself that sits right with you?

[phpisthebest]

I am an individualist.. Standing up for yourself means exactly that... do it yourself not via a collectivist organization

[anonymouskimmer]

Well this would be fine, but they made dueling illegal right around the time they made everyone equal before the law. How can a regular person stand up for themself these days?

[anonymouskimmer]

Since when are businesses not collectivist organizations? So good for thee but not for me?

[illiarian]

This is such a bleak and very American view.

Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few) benefits and rights that workers have in the States are thanks to unions.

[phpisthebest]

>>Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few) benefits and rights that workers have in the States are thanks to unions.

This is very slanted view of how labor developed in the US to simply give unions 100% of the credit, it is very revisionist history and not completely factual.

Unions can claim some credit, but to say they are solely responsible for "benefits and rights that workers have" is false.

Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price controls during WWII than they are to unions. as employers had to get creative with compensation to attract workers as they could not simply raise raw wages

[illiarian]

> Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price controls during WWII than they are to unions.

I'd say the system of vacations and health insurance in the US is so shitty precisely because unions were gutted after WWII.

[phpisthebest]

then you have no understanding of what most workers actually prefer. Not what they claim on surveys but what they actually vote for both in unions and via the market place of jobs.

Workers routinely reveal their preference for higher wages over more time off. Given the option both in unions and in non-unions most workers will trade away increases in vacation time for high wage increases or starting wages.

One of the most unpopular changes my employer ever did was taking away the ability to Cash out vacation time. Many workers preferred just to cash out that time instead of taking it off.

[illiarian]

> then you have no understanding of what most workers actually prefer.

Have you asked those workers? Do those workers even know that anything other than the status quo exists (e.g. in other countries)?

> Given the option both in unions and in non-unions most workers will trade away increases in vacation time for high wage increases or starting wages.

Again, that is a very American thing, too. Of course you'd take increased wages instead of anything just because there are little to no saftey net anywhere to guarantee that your vacation time won't end up in a horrible unrecoverable disaster of some sort.

[phpisthebest]

>>Have you asked those workers?

you clearly did not understand my statement. I would specifically not get the accurate results by "asking the workers" as my claim is about revealed preferences, not stated preferences [1]. There are alots of things people claim to value when you ask them, but releval they really dont when to enter the marketplace. For example "Made in America".. people often claim they would happily pay considerable amounts more for a product if ti was "made in America" but then when presented with options they mostly choose the cheaper product regardless of where it is made revealing they do not place that much value in the nation of origin.

Similarly people often claim they want more time off, however their reveled preference by looking at their actions tell a much different story.

>Again, that is a very American thing, too

yes, it is and given we are talking about an American Company, American Unions, and American Retail stores I think talking about American work culture is relevant. People from Europe have never, and likely will never understand it, and people from American have never and will never understand Europe work culture. Personally though I am tried of Europeans being arrogant enough to claim their way is the correct, proper and only way, and that Americans are all being taken advantage of, abused, etc because we do not get 150 days off a year and do not allow our government to control our health........

>>Of course you'd take increased wages instead of anything just because there are little to no saftey net anywhere to guarantee that your vacation time won't end up in a horrible unrecoverable disaster of some sort.

While that may be true for some people, allow me to give my privileged position as an example. I created my own Safety net. I am more or less debt free, I own my home, I have enough in liquid assets to cover my expenses for a year, I have enough in less than liquid assets to cover me for a few years... I still will take increases in pay over more time off, I am just not interested in time off. I probably will continue to work well past the time I am able to financially retire.. I am not unique in America

As to more general safety nets... It is untrue that America lacks any safety nets for people. One of the most often cited negative about America by Europeans is actually one of those safety nets. Bankruptcy, which contrary to both international and domestic stigma is does not leave one destitute, homeless or anything of the sort and has LOTS of protections for people built into the system.

Then there are TON of government programs for Poor people.

In reality is the working lower middle class that have it the worst, people above the 25th percentile of income, and below the 75th percentile of income. Those are the struggling Americans.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp