[HN Gopher] Apple's anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials
say
Author : dc1rjj
Score : 300 points
Date : 2022-12-06 10:32 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| mikeyouse wrote:
| That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every
| extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently
| anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them,
| is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.
| fundad wrote:
| There is no authority to enforce these laws so it doesn't take
| much will to break them.
| halpmeh wrote:
| > The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and
| reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to
| impose punitive damages on companies.
|
| So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its
| behavior.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| It just works
| aesh2Xa1 wrote:
| Or else it gets the hose again
| danuker wrote:
| I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies.
|
| That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect
| (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating
| position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
| refurb wrote:
| I think the challenge is the way unions are set up in the US.
| It's very different than Europe. I recall some HNer mentioning
| in the UK (I think) your work place can have multiple unions,
| you can join whichever one you want.
| Macha wrote:
| Yeah, the whole concept of employers recognizing a union or
| employees being required to join a union which is raised in
| US union discussions are kind of weird.
|
| Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe,
| employees can still join and avail of legal support or group
| actions by those employees that did join.
|
| Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union,
| you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't
| bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair
| dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you
| employment terms different to what the union employees get
| because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little
| leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual
| negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Minority unions undermine the collective bargaining that
| underpins the very concept of a union. They make no sense
| to me, at all. The whole point of a union is having a large
| enough block of workers committed to act together that the
| company is forced to either negotiate or perish. This
| obviously works when you have all the workers unionized, as
| a company without employees can achieve nothing at all. As
| the union gets a smaller and smaller fraction of the
| workforce, however, their bargaining power diminishes
| dramatically.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Because unions often support policies that significant
| portions of the workforce do not like. If you're a
| teacher in America chances are your union dues are being
| used to oppose merit-based pay increases and retain
| seniority based pay. If you're a teacher who wants merit-
| based pay increases then you're being forced by the
| government to fund a group that is actively working
| against your own interests.
|
| Multiple unions would let workers join the union alined
| with their interest.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| That sounds like a really good argument for a union
| providing sufficiently valuable services to their members
| that they _want_ to be a member. If a union isn 't
| serving its members those members should be able to seek
| better options.
|
| If unions worked like this in the US, it seems like many
| more people would be in favor of them.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Unions by and large do work like this in the US. There's
| fewer unions, but the unions that do exist tend to do a
| very good job of representing their members. The main
| force acting against unionization efforts here isn't that
| the unions are ineffective, it's that they're so
| effective that companies fight tooth and nail to suppress
| them, including spreading a lot of propaganda.
|
| And the problem with open shops and opt-in unions is that
| scabs can be found who think in terms of the short term.
| A company, in contrast, has the luxury of playing the
| long game. So, faced with union demands, a company can
| hire a bunch of scabs offering benefits and pay
| equivalent or better than the union is currently fighting
| for, then when the union is crushed gradually fire the
| scabs and replace them with new workers who are back to
| the square 1 the union was fighting from. And because
| unionizing takes effort and conviction, the new lot might
| not unionize. The company wins.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The practice is called a "closed shop", and it was ended in
| the UK by Thatcher and Labour gave up on trying to reinstate
| it because it was unpopular.
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/18/labour-
| aban...
| wccrawford wrote:
| As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree
| that they're necessary as a check on corporations.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union?
|
| I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local),
| and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than
| people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial.
| Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other
| than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB
| complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any
| competent employer can usually effectively dance around.
| Rallying and building public support comes with all the
| pitfalls of politics, media, etc.
|
| The worst part is actually my employer _hates_ the union for
| no other reason than its an organization they can 't control,
| so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic
| unfortunately.
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| You joined a union where more than a dozen of the leaders
| were recently convicted of embezzlement. The UAW is in a
| bit of a pickle for awhile.
| teachrdan wrote:
| Many of us on HackerNews work for businesses like Amazon,
| or Tesla, or Apple, or Microsoft, which have also been
| found to have broken the law. Anywhere there is power
| there is corruption. It seems to me that joining a union
| where some of leadership have been convicted of crimes
| should be no different than working for a corporation
| where some of the leadership has been convicted of crimes
| -- you make your own decision on a case by case basis.
|
| If none of us ever associated with anyone who's broken
| the law, I don't know how many folks here would ever work
| for a company bigger than 100 people.
| splistud wrote:
| catiopatio wrote:
| > Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union?
|
| There's no upside for me, and severe downsides.
|
| My reasoning, in particular:
|
| 1) My skills are unique and in high demand. I can best
| maximize my own compensation through direct negotiation.
|
| 2) Compensation is effectively zero-sum, and I don't want
| to subsidize low performers.
|
| 3) I don't want to subsidize a parallel, mostly useless
| (and probably entirely useless) shadow management hierarchy
| in the form of union officials.
| sfteus wrote:
| From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about
| anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils
| down to a few things:
|
| 1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs
| or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen
| as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the
| latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them
| untouchable, or believe that the supply of high-level tech
| workers will never meet demand so they will simply be able
| to move to another company if needed without much friction.
|
| 2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time
| protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting
| barriers to protect employees from quick firing for
| performance will hurt the overall team/company.
|
| 3) Many people also believe that both paying union dues,
| and a union negotiating for the "average" worker will lead
| to them making significantly less money. IE, say your
| company was split 75% junior/25% senior devs, and paid
| junior devs $75k and senior devs $300k. If the union put
| pressure on the employer to raise the minimum salary to
| $100k, then they believe that money will come out of the
| senior devs salaries (reducing it to ~$225k).
|
| I can say in my experience, the first point is at least
| somewhat true right now (I had no issues moving to a more
| senior and better paid job after my last company sold out).
| I personally think the sentiment of point #2 is
| interesting; I generally don't view this as "protecting"
| those who should be fired, and more view it as a public
| defender ensuring everyone receives legal representation,
| even if they are clearly guilty.
|
| I'd also just note that even I'm not blanket pro-union;
| Police unions are a prime example of what happens when
| unions consolidate too much power because they went decades
| without any pushback. I'd consider that an extreme outlier
| though.
| kodah wrote:
| I can be kind of mixed from a union standpoint. It really
| just depends on the goals and outcomes of a particular
| union. Airline unions tend to be particularly bad when it
| comes to controlling internal dissent against the union,
| and regulating peoples pay and flying hours (especially
| around furloughs). Things may have changed since I heard
| this criticism, but I'd hate to have this happen in
| software.
|
| That said, we could use standardization in pay, better
| and more standardized promotions, and someone to tear
| down the existing LeetCode interview process. I have not
| seen any software unions that aim to do this though.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Why would I want standardization in pay? I would make
| less money.
|
| Why would I want standardized promotions? I don't want to
| be lead by people just because they have been around
| longer than me.
|
| Why would I want to tear down the leetcode interview
| process? It's much easier.than having to do demo
| projects.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| There are a lot of people here who see themselves as
| temporarily disenfranchised members of the ownership
| class, and so unions are a negative thing for them
| because some day they'll hit it big and be rewarded for
| their steadfast adherence to greed.
| taeric wrote:
| There are at least a few of us that view unions as just a
| smaller extra government entity, and would prefer we
| rather had stronger governments. To wit, I don't want
| folks dependent on their job. Period. And unions often do
| give workers better conditions, but only so long as they
| are workers.
|
| That said, I typically fall on the pro-union side of most
| debates. Often is a better alternative than where we are.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| It would be great if benefits unions are known for
| fighting for like health care was guaranteed by the
| government, but there's some things that a union closer
| to the workers, which is focused on one thing, can better
| fight for than the government, like standards for safety
| beyond OSHA, standards for scheduling, training,
| discipline, etc. If I understand what you're saying
| right.
|
| If you think unions are a smaller extra government
| entity, how do you view Apple in that same lens? Likely,
| the unions have the _least_ power in this triangle
| (besides individual employees not covered by a union),
| and Apple has more power than the government in some, but
| not all, respects.
| taeric wrote:
| I'm not clear what you mean "safety beyond OSHA."
| Training and such can feel better tailored to the
| company, I suppose?
|
| I'm not sure what your point is on companies regarding
| smaller extra governments. I do think corporate power
| needs checks. My view is that that is best done by
| governments. I'm also game for training and other
| benefits, but I don't like them being tied to employment.
| Especially not a particular employment. Health care is a
| good example of how that goes wrong.
|
| Unions are odd because they are setup as representative
| governments. Complete with elections and essentially
| taxation of the represented individuals in the form of
| dues. Note that I am explicitly not arguing against the
| dues, necessarily. I would instead argue that those
| should go to make the entire community stronger in the
| form of general taxes.
|
| And again, with the current setup, I would likely fall
| fully on the "pro-union" side for most debates.
| bumby wrote:
| > _Police unions_
|
| Public unions seem to be a special case and, while I
| generally support unions, I can understand the
| perspective that public unions bring about specific
| problems.
|
| E.g., a strong bargaining chip for a union is the right
| to strike. The idea that a public service can strike
| creates problems. As another example, I witnessed changes
| in competition and economics force auto unions to
| compromise for the business to remain solvent; in the
| public sphere there is not the same competitive pressure.
| Geezus-42 wrote:
| The main problem with the police union (in the US) is
| that they have been able to repeatedly stop officers who
| have done horrible things from being fired or even truly
| punished (paid leave is not punishment).
| bumby wrote:
| This is the same argument about unions protecting bad
| employees or low performers. It seems to be an underlying
| problem of organizational power and not a distinction
| between public/private unions.
|
| The issues I was pointing out are somewhat different. For
| example, there are unique problems if a police force
| tries to strike. In the private sector, there is the
| opportunity for other organizations to fill that void due
| to competition within the market. There is no such
| mechanism for most public services, public unions may
| have disproportionate power.
| taeric wrote:
| Can you explain a check that prevents the same abuse from
| happening in other settings?
|
| I'm always very wary of the arguments that somehow police
| are a special industry where unions are bad. I don't
| really see any logical reasoning put forth to support
| that. Just evidence on how things have gone. :(
| bumby wrote:
| > _are a special industry_
|
| Public services are a special industry (not unique to
| just police) so the dynamics of unions are different.
|
| For one, many public services exist because they are
| critical to the functioning of society. You can tell this
| is fundamentally special case because the govt carves out
| special mechanisms to mitigate the risk (see the the
| current threat of a rail strike). Secondly, the
| government doesn't allow competition, so there is not the
| same solvency problem that a private union has to
| address. This second point exacerbates the first. A
| private police force can't just come in and out-compete
| the existing one to show that they can work better or
| more efficiently.
| taeric wrote:
| This still feels like a bit of a stretch. In that I can
| almost certainly list reasons why a big industry in a
| city is critical to the functioning of said city. All the
| more true for all too many cities around here.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| People often say "there should be a register of police
| offers nationwide that records officers who were
| terminated for cause, resigned in lieu of termination,
| etc."
|
| And there is.
|
| But in the very vast majority of police departments, the
| CBA with the police union prohibits the use of this
| register for hiring decisions.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I see unions as mostly other entrenched institutions that
| add their own layers of bureaucracy and politics. They
| aren't any better or worse than corporations and
| governments, but simply by having a place at the table,
| things move slower and with less efficiency than they
| could. Of course, if the alternative is abuse of power by
| corporations and/or governments, they are a necessary
| evil.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time
| protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting
| barriers to protect employees from quick firing for
| performance will hurt the overall team/company.
|
| This is not a "some people think" issue. This is a
| reality of running an organization like a union.
|
| Literally every low barrier to entry organization from
| unions to political parties to organized religion to
| organized crime has to invest a significant amount of
| resources in giving a good chunk of its "dolts" a better
| deal than they could get anywhere else (even sometimes
| going to an extent that is not sustainable in order to
| advertise to other members how far the organization
| can/will go for you) because that ensures that those
| people will 100% go to bat for the organization. It is a
| necessary part of operations at scale.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| This is especially true of teacher's unions, who have
| been openly hostile towards any meaningful way of
| measuring teacher performance, and have made it
| astronomically expensive to fire any teacher no matter
| how bad or incompetent. The world would be a much better
| place if teacher's unions didn't exist.
| andrepd wrote:
| How do you measure teacher performance? Have you looked
| at the actual proposals? They're atrocious, as if
| education needed to be any more of a rat race of chasing
| idiotic """performance""" metrics.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| What might make for sensible, objective teacher metrics?
| [deleted]
| Ancapistani wrote:
| I'm very much anti-unionization, but don't really fall
| into any of those buckets. To be fair, I didn't take it
| to be an exhaustive list.
|
| Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the US
| because of the government being involved and
| "artificially" granting them power.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the
| US because of the government being involved and
| "artificially" granting them power.
|
| Artificial is an unfair characterization of history. The
| President didn't just descend from on high and grant
| unions powers out of magnanimity. At one point the unions
| were extremely powerful to the point that they were able
| to codify in law the rights they had attained.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > the rights they had attained
|
| Rights they had to fight for, in many cases _die_ for.
| Corporations and the government were not above using
| police, private firms to do violence, even fatal
| violence, to employees who were not willing to bend over
| backwards (unsafe, unhealthy, inhumane working
| conditions) for their employer.
| ruined wrote:
| most american laws around unions are actually prohibitory
| and limiting. if legal recognition and regulation for
| organized labor were eliminated, i don't think it would
| result in less power wielded by unions.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| The government artificially grants corporations power by
| virtue of creating the concept of a corporation and
| limited liability, so to me it seems only fair for them
| to grant a collective of workers power as well.
| andrepd wrote:
| As opposed to enforcing "artificial" property rights.
| That's government interference that you can tolerate :)
| jpollock wrote:
| I have no desire to be part of a union because of my one-
| person removed (friends) experience with union violence.
|
| 1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to cross
| the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike). My
| friend (female) was punched in the face by a union member.
|
| 2) Another friend working on the factory floor, doubled
| then tripled their work quota. They were pulled aside and
| told it was amazing how much damage can happen to a vehicle
| in the parking lot when it's snowy.
|
| Yeah, I have no interest in helping or encouraging that.
|
| However, I do support people's ability to organize and
| strike. I disagree with a union deciding that they won't
| cross picket lines. That's cartel-like behavior, like price
| fixing between shipping companies, or OPEC.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > 1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to
| cross the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike).
| My friend (female) was punched in the face by a union
| member.
|
| This would have made news and I cannot find it.
| teachrdan wrote:
| It seems you are anti-union because of bad experiences
| two friends had. Do you have any friends who have bad
| experiences with corporations? Do you hold corporations
| to a lower standard than unions?
| wccrawford wrote:
| I think you made my point for me, at least partially.
|
| The real teeth in a union is the ability to strike. In
| joining a union, you signify that you're willing to strike
| if enough _other_ people aren 't getting what they want.
|
| I'm happy with what I have. My team seems pretty happy,
| too.
|
| If things were bad, I'd consider joining a union. But until
| they are bad, union dues are just wasted money, and the
| obligation to strike if enough others want to.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I think you've also pointed out the need for unions,
| though. _Lots_ of employees literally can 't afford to
| strike because it means they don't get paid, even if it's
| temporarily. That means that your assertion that "if
| enough others want to" is kinda meaningless.
| nickpp wrote:
| Corporations are kept in check by competition from other
| corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal.
|
| Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely,
| until they become multinational humongous forces like
| Teamsters.
|
| So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
| Jotra7 wrote:
| krageon wrote:
| And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error
| somewhere along this heavily elided process.
| nickpp wrote:
| Please do point out my logical error. I see countless
| examples of competition keeping corporations in check.
| What is keeping Unions in check then?
| tareqak wrote:
| The legislative and executive branches of the US
| government blocking the majority of rail workers from
| going ahead with a rail strike:
| https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-
| congress... .
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Your premises are unsound.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were
| correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to
| multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid
| of getting the union angry, as this is not the case
| something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot,
| at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose.
|
| That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable
| logical error does not mean that it gives the correct
| result.
| nickpp wrote:
| And unions are exactly that powerful. A strike can easily
| shut down a company, a town or a country. I do not see a
| similar power on the corporation's side. Firing everybody
| would just kill the corporation as well.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| The data here seems to indicate otherwise
| https://www.epi.org/publication/latest-data-release-on-
| union...
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/5
| 0-y...
|
| Now it's true I have not lived all over the world, but I
| have lived in numerous places in the U.S, in Denmark, and
| spend some time in Italy every now and then. I also lived
| in Germany as a kid, but I've never really seen these
| fearsome unions you are familiar with, and did I say
| again I am in Denmark? Even here it isn't like such a
| powerful organization.
|
| Certainly one can find historical instances of powerful
| unions, but they do not seem to exist now, and thus your
| analysis must be faulty somehow. If unions are naturally
| more powerful than the other forces of society their
| power should always increase and not decrease, but as the
| data linked above shows the opposite is the case.
|
| If you want people to accept your logic you will probably
| need to back it up with data, arguing about real world
| things like unions tend to bring forth such requirements.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _What is keeping Unions in check then?_
|
| Poor media coverage: https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-
| depicts-labor-issues
|
| Conservative judges:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME
|
| Right to work laws
|
| Corporations, like Apple, Amazon, etc.
|
| Even "The Most Pro-Union President You've Ever Seen"
| couldn't bring himself to side with the rail union. The
| sad part is despite this, even though he isn't the most
| pro union president, he might be up there. That is to
| say, our federal government in general is very pro
| corporate.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Unions are kept in check by attrition of the companies
| they are associated with.
| splistud wrote:
| bmicraft wrote:
| Which is good because corporations aren't people. If
| company goes under its owner(s) arn't usually weeks away
| from being on the street.
| nickpp wrote:
| Aren't unions just as much "people" as corporations are?
|
| And corporation owners could very well be pension
| funds...
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Why not with SMB? Often employees at these have an even harder
| time calling attention to abuse or exploitation.
| danuker wrote:
| In a small business, maybe you're the only person doing
| <critical task X>. This is a more level playing field, but
| maybe a union is still useful here also.
| GoOnThenDoTell wrote:
| In a small company, a real conversation is possible. In a
| large one the CEO is 100% doublespeak and the HR
| departments are cold
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| >In a small company, a real conversation is possible.
|
| Why do you think employees have enough leverage across
| most SMBs to the extent that workers shouldn't organize?
|
| Even SMB owners and managers organize adversarially
| against their workers (eg by setting compensation and
| benefits per VC or consultant provided guidance on labor
| market, by hiring HR specialists to coordinate with
| managers on keeping wages as low as the market will
| bear). Why should workers not in turn organize in those
| cases?
| fsociety wrote:
| In my experience, I have seen more power imbalance at
| small/medium sized businesses. Whereas larger companies
| you tend to get lost in the bureaucracy and have the
| ability to switch teams/orgs and get out of bad
| situations. HR is usually more helpful with this too.
| krageon wrote:
| A real conversation is generally not possible anywhere.
| Your boss has enormous power over you and the reality is
| that even _if_ you are somehow special, they won 't see
| you that way. It sounds hopeless, but if you approach
| your boss in this manner (he couldn't care less whether
| or not you do actually get hit by a bus) the negotiation
| is easier to do.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the
| government (or atleast one side of it).
|
| Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering
| the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay),
| because their political parties were against those, even if the
| workers themselves would benefit from those.
|
| We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where
| you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of
| the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off
| someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
| dccoolgai wrote:
| Many companies also do things that are a lot worse, like
| taking massive profits and then laying off the people that
| gave up time with their families and other opportunities to
| create those profits. I heard they also do things like give
| executives that don't do a great job millions while stiffing
| the individual contributors. Unions can help companies run
| better by forcing them to take a "longer than 2 year" view on
| decisions.
| catiopatio wrote:
| Unions can also (and quite often do) capture as much value
| as they can, while producing none.
| kennywinker wrote:
| > while producing none
|
| increasing wages, workplace safety, and benefits for
| workers is something productive.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| IF they do that.
|
| Lower tax on paychecks would increase wages, but our
| union was against that. What kind of a union does that?
| frippertronics wrote:
| I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on
| anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one
| can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good
| unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Well, yes, but if there's a one-to-one correspondence
| between good unions and bad unions,that pretty much implies
| that the expected value of a union vote is zero. It's just
| the same as not unionizing.
|
| In my personal anecdotal experience, the unions at the
| places I've worked have been mired in factions. They
| supported some workers but not others because they picked
| sides. They weren't just neutral, they undermined some
| workers to benefit others. It really soured me on them.
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Weren't the Teamsters also super corrupt?
|
| (My only knowledge comes from watching The Irishman)
| willcipriano wrote:
| Philly roofers union firebombed my grandfathers truck
| beacuse he was non-union.
| westmeal wrote:
| Oh yeah big time. The entire east coast got it's strings
| pulled by the unions.
| cmh89 wrote:
| There was corruption at the height of organized crime.
| The average Teamster is doing a lot better than than
| average non-unionized trucker
| eastbound wrote:
| Unions or union managers are sometimes paid by the company to
| provide a business-friendly outcome.
| cmh89 wrote:
| >Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the
| lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross
| pay), because their political parties were against those,
| even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.
|
| You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is
| usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but
| it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole
| situation.
|
| >We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company),
| where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by
| one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to
| pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very
| cozy job).
|
| Corruption is going to exist without strict governance
| regardless of unions. I'm a unionized worker in the USA and
| no one needs to bribe their way into a job here. We have
| robust oversight and documentation of the hiring process.
| fallingknife wrote:
| They certainly can raise taxes without improving services,
| so why not the opposite?
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep, we still have a """temporary""" increase of VAT in
| action (19->22%) from the 2008 financial crisis... and we
| got nothing new (neither new or better services) from
| this.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff,
| which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the
| context here but it stands to reason that you are not
| giving the whole situation.
|
| You cannot increase wages without loss of profits or
| increase in prices.
|
| The union should fight for the wages, the profits and
| prices are someone elses problem (owners, customers).
| LeanderK wrote:
| This is not a law of nature, many unions just do their job.
| Many companies also treat their workers unfairly, so there's
| that. Workers need a way to organise.
|
| What's worse, a company churning through employee after
| employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.
| noelherrick wrote:
| Unions that are run like a business eventually become a
| business. Unions need to be democratically-controlled, where
| regular workers can propose new contract terms and vote on
| them, as well as voting to call a strike.
| yardie wrote:
| > any worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on
| paychecks (higher net with same gross pay),
|
| Seems to be quite a lot of context missing. I think nearly
| everyone agrees they want to pay less taxes and take home
| more money. Now if lowering taxes does not result in more
| money then you don't need politicians and unions to make that
| case.
|
| I'm guessing lowering taxes would result in more expensive,
| privatized services and voters figured that wouldn't work.
| blackbear_ wrote:
| So just like lobbying, just from the other side?
| brchn wrote:
| Voting against a tax decrease could still be in the workers'
| best interest, no? I think some context is needed
| andrepd wrote:
| I feel like this is such an obvious fact that I don't know how
| people say "contract of free association" with a straight face
| when it comes to the employment market.
| diob wrote:
| Exactly, and companies can stand to starve folks out. Strikes
| aren't as big a deal as they used to be even.
| e12e wrote:
| One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is
| that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So
| they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts,
| training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed
| bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a
| whole.
|
| Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages
| aside)?
|
| It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant
| to join unions, while employers are eager to join
| organizations.
|
| Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's
| isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation,
| and I have relativly good bargaining position.
| eesmith wrote:
| Also, anti-poaching agreements -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching :
|
| > Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors'
| contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger
| King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to
| hire the workers of other franchisees
|
| You mentioned "standard contracts".
|
| I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in
| favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or
| settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if
| they were sued for their use of my software then I would have
| to pay the court costs.
|
| This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came
| from a "subscription based contract database and resource
| center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners
| draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at
| https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-
| indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense,
| will defend any action brought against Customer based on a
| claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States
| patent, copyright or trademark and ..."
|
| So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor
| perspective.
|
| BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause
| will require renegotiation of the price as I have not
| included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an
| appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."
| ars wrote:
| Keep in mind that unions in Europe are not the same thing as
| US unions, despite the same name.
|
| In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an
| employer. This competition keeps them working well.
|
| In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the
| employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some
| states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay
| fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the
| union is more interested in their goals, than yours.
| xg15 wrote:
| Can't confirm this for Germany - we usually have a single
| (dominant) union per trade or industry segment - e.g.
| Ver.di for the _entire_ service sector. I think in this
| way, unions here are significantly more centralized than in
| the US.
|
| Standard salary rates are usually negotiated by those
| dominant unions for the entire sector (though in the last
| decades, a lot of this stuff has been deregulated, so the
| salary rates have become less relevant today, except for
| state employees)
|
| Employees are not required to join a union - however in
| every company above a certain size, they have the right to
| a work council. Unions can initiate an election for such a
| council even against the orders of the company's
| management. While the unions can enforce creation of work
| councils and usually offer ongoing support, the councils
| are generally independent and staffed by company employees.
|
| See Ver.di vs Twitter for a current example where a work
| council is founded in opposition of management (text in
| german) : https://www.verdi.de/themen/recht-
| datenschutz/++co++43ec9312...
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require
| employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency's current
| general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such "captive audience"
| gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is
| pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at
| Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied
| wrongdoing._
|
| So it sounds like Apple's tactics _weren 't_ illegal but this new
| counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are _now_
| illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side
| of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of
| this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the
| court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions
| Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books
| but you can't keep the people down!
|
| You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased
| migration to keep wages down.
| winReInstall wrote:
| Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy
| entirely and push some ursurper on a throne.
|
| After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer
| to a company anyway.
|
| What has democracy ever done for us?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people
| laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I've never heard of this before. Are there other political
| paradoxes you're aware of, say for example, a paradox of
| the right?
| lexiPrime wrote:
| Is the answer to this supposed to be obvious enough to
| not actually require a response? Whether or not that is
| the case, it seems useful to lay out an example.
|
| A paradox of the Right is that they say that they fight
| for peoples' freedoms, yet they continue to fight to
| restrict freedoms. See any of the Right's stances
| regarding the freedoms of LGBT people for a salient and
| current example.
|
| You could say "the Right is against rights", if you want
| to be cute about it.
| kennywinker wrote:
| The promise of automation has always been that you'll get a
| better job with less menial labour if your job is
| automated. But I don't believe that's been the case,
| overall. It seems to me that automation causes people to be
| displaced from jobs where their skills are valued, to jobs
| where their skills are seen as replaceable. In a capitalist
| system, without something like UBI, that's a huge problem
| because once you're at the bottom it's easy to fall out of
| the system entirely. So, you frame it as a choice between
| hard work and easy work - but I think ultimately it's
| closer to a choice between hard work and poverty or death.
|
| There is no mechanism in our capitalist system for allowing
| people to be automated out of a job while still living a
| good life.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Yes, workers don't benefit from automation under
| capitalism. Productivity increases far outpace wages
| earned which have even moved in opposite directions
| Bilal_io wrote:
| Is it really?
|
| There is nothing wrong with fighting for workers rights
| while automation is not here yet.
|
| The problem is that automation has to be taxed accordingly
| to allow us to live with dignity when there is no job to
| occupy (i.e UBI), and guess who's against taxation? "The
| left" would be the wrong answer.
|
| I don't see any paradox. 1.Tax the rich now. 2. Improve
| worker rights which will push us faster towards automation.
| 3. Prepare legislation to tax automation and implement UBI.
|
| What happens if we don't do that?
|
| 1. The rich will continue to take advantage of people's
| labor while paying them peanuts. 2. The middle class
| disappears, we end up with a system of two classes, the
| slaves and the lords. 3. Automation will come regardless
| and we won't be ready for it regulation wise, and people
| will die from hunger.
|
| Pick
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| See
| https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/real-
| commun...
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| > What has democracy ever done for us?
|
| The labor movement gave us the 40 hour workweek, weekends off
| and the minimum wage. They're the reason you have time to
| opine online right now instead of working.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-
| workw... https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/labor/living-
| wage
| indymike wrote:
| >> What has democracy ever done for us?
|
| Labor unions, for one thing.
| fundad wrote:
| What has democracy done for whomst?
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased
| migration to keep wages down.
|
| I find it funny, that here (my country, slovenia), we have
| right(ish) parties against immigration but more liberal
| workforce rules, and on the other side, we have both leftish
| and pure "communist" parties (even with a red star in the
| logo), supposedly "fighting for the workers" and at the same
| time supporting more immigration.
| Jotra7 wrote:
| martimarkov wrote:
| You fight for more votes. Get more workers to fight for and
| more ppl vote for you. ;)
| phone8675309 wrote:
| Anti-union tactics aren't illegal so long as the company that
| employs them isn't completely ruined as a result of the
| punishment they get.
| peterjmag wrote:
| https://archive.ph/ld0KF
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-06 23:02 UTC)