[nabla9]

Good point. Sweden has better institutions and labor laws to reduce friction and enable cooperation.

Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.

In sectoral bargaining, unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts representing corporations. When nobody gets competitive edge over others, there is less downside for agreeing.

[s1artibartfast]

I would also add that many (most?) European countries allow multiple unions in the same shop, with worker choice. Inter-union competition is important to keep unions honest and aligned with their workers. I think this more than anything else is responsible for the anti-union sentiment in the US.

[cyberax]

This really helps. There are also other ways unions can be corrupt.

For example, the ILWU union allows its members to give their position to their children as an inheritance. It's literally a mafia ("family").

And of course, any random Joe can't just apply for a job with the ILWU. In rare cases where positions become available, they conduct a lottery.

The end result is that the ILWU-controlled ports are competing with each other for the coveted last place in the global Port Performance Index. Right now, it's held by the LA ports.

[lotsofpulp]

The US also has lots of tribal/ethnic/skin color/religious/socioeconomic delineated groups that are not necessarily aligned with each other, and are OK with other groups being screwed.

One example I especially like to use is how agricultural workers are somehow not deserving of the same minimum wage as others. Even in the progressive states. Surely, it could not have anything to do with the workers mostly being poorer immigrants from a certain region.

[virgildotcodes]

I'd say corporations and their wealthy owners, far more than any other factor, are responsible for the anti-union sentiment in the US.

[SonicScrub]

I feel like this is a very convenient scapegoat for American unions to avoid looking internally at their own flaws. Many Americans have negative opinions of unions. Corporations and their wealthy owners have certainly put a lot of money to influence public opinion this way, but they aren't omnipotent. These efforts would be laughable off if the value-add of the union was readily-apparent. Dismissing anyone's negative opinion of a union as being the victim of a propaganda campaign is infantilizing, and dismissive of lived-experiences.

My negative opinion of a union came from my own direct experience as being part of a mega-union that crossed multiple industries. The structure of the union was such that they were so divorced from the actual work being done that they could not possibly help us. Advancement meant playing the union political game, and not being good at your job. They were a constant thorn in all of our sides. I try to limit my disdain to that union in particular (not all unions are like this). But your comment dismissing concerns such as these fault of the business sound incredibly tone deaf. And as a result will not lead to a positive opinion of unions in America.

[virgildotcodes]

I was talking about the predominant contributing factor to anti-union sentiment in the US, not that there aren't legitimate gripes against unions.

When looking at the vast amount of energy and resources dedicated by the wealthy and by corporations over the last hundred years to crush unions in the US, the government going so far as to murder strikers and violently oppose them on behalf of those interests, legislation like the Taft-Hartley act, etc etc. -- it seems clear to me that forces external and opposed to the unions are far more influential in the erosion of those unions than legitimate internal gripes by union members.

[nabla9]

If you think this little more, you must realize that this is not a good argument

Systemic and institutional reasons are more important than individuals.Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.

[InCityDreams]

...amd the Unions can also be in cahoots with each other (to not piss off the employer). A deal here, a deal there, between themselves and then with the employer, everybody is happy apart from the workers. Nb: 1st hand experience, currently ongoing.

[lotsofpulp]

Union members can be in cahoots amongst others even in the same union.

All across the US, if you are younger, you likely get less compensation than if you are older. Older union members vote for higher compensation for themselves and reduced compensation for young and future union members, since they cannot vote. For example, if you look up collective bargaining agreements, you will often see tier 1 benefits for employees hired before year x, tier 2 benefits for before year y, and tier 3 benefits for after year y, etc.

A similar dynamic plays out with taxpayer funded benefits and older voters vs younger voters.

The US has an “Additional Medicare Tax”, to help pay for healthcare for older people. But there is no “Additional Medicaid Tax”, to help pay for healthcare for poorer/younger people.

[s1artibartfast]

A classic example of this is teachers unions, where senior members can earn 2x the salary as junior ones for doing literally the same job. Similarly, unions frequently bargain away the retirement benefits of junior and future members.

[dfxm12]

I think, based on the anti-union talking points I see, the media is most responsible for anti-union sentiment, whether it's the normal corporate friendly mainstream media or classic films like On the Waterfront where union corruption is a side plot. Complimenting this are books, biopics, news stories, etc. of mythologized biographies portraying some business leaders as people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, when they were really born into a privileged position (see: Gates, Musk, Zuck, etc.).

[avgcorrection]

> Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.

I suppose they will always hide behind “competitive” edge. The more naked truth seems to be that between the stakeholders of the CEO+board of directors v.s. workers—avoiding the nebolous “company interest”—there is always inherently a zero sum game. Like one of the automative CEOs in the US who boasted about how she was paid according to her performance—her performance being, among other things, directly related to how low she could keep wages for the rank and file.

[s1artibartfast]

Yes, there is always a competition between workers and owners for money. However, The structure of US unions also change the incentives.

[banannaise]

> Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.

This is how companies treat enterprise bargaining. It is rarely true.

Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours.

But executives/corporations don't see it this way - they see this all of this as a power game, and every union demand they agree to is a fight lost.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours.

In cases where this is actually true, the company would be offering these things of its own volition -- as happens in many industries without unions. So then what would you need the union for?

You could obviously have poorly managed companies that get this wrong, but then they would be at a competitive disadvantage in the market.

Where this more often doesn't happen is in the places where it isn't true. There are some jobs where worker productivity isn't that salient -- or is only relevant to the extent that it allows the company to employ fewer people, which is the sort of thing a union would then try to prevent.

[edgyquant]

I think that reality is always more nuanced than partisan talking points. Both unions and corps make good points about certain things and exaggerate others for their own benefit.

[VoxPelli]

And when the government is in on it as well and gives the unions and employer organizations room to be innovative and flexible with one another, then it’s even a net gain over having the government giving detailed guidelines for everything

[AnthonyMouse]

> In sectoral bargaining, unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts representing corporations. When nobody gets competitive edge over others, there is less downside for agreeing.

That's assuming the company/industry doesn't have competitors in other countries.

[ttymck]

> reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors

Except for, ostensibly, employee satisfaction and quality of life?