> Everyone rags on unions. But you know, I have great healthcare at a fair price, salary is good, protection from management fads like stack ranking, etc. The only real downside IMO is the focus on seniority.
I have those things (well not “protection from stack ranking” but my employer doesn’t do it) without the focus on seniority. A union is not requisite nor sufficient for those things.
>> The idea of a union is that it insulates you from being instantly punished for factors you might not be able to control a little better than the market is doing right now (look for news about new parents who were part of the layoffs recently).
Since when has this been the idea of the union? Recall that nearly all union rules are set by seniority, not personal factors like having a bad day or having a child.
> Also, if everyone has the same retirement and insurance plan but they are not good plans or the pay isn't good, are they not getting ripped off ?
Um. Not necessarily. If I sell you a car that has no tires and no engine, are you getting ripped off? Not necessarily. So I'd like to know the specifics of this case.
FWIW, I understand that just because my employees have the same compensation as I do, it may still be unfair. If I have no job responsibilities and they have to perform death-defying tasks, they might benefit from a union.
Then again, they might benefit even more from quitting and finding a different job.
> I never understand employees who don't want to unionize. It just shows what a sorry state the labor movement is in.
You need to be a part of a terrible union to understand why people would think that way. It's pretty simple once you've been in one that siphons off dues and does very little to combat management, of which there are many groups that will do this.
>So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary?
Honestly? Because 1) you are very replaceable and 2) you have a very low chance in succeeding at organizing any kind of group/union action. If either of those two facts were different, you would have more leverage. But they aren't so you don't.
A union can get a monopoly over a certain employer, such that all hires are required to join the union or they don't get the job. Union dues can be half the annual salary with no benefit to the union member unless they remain a member for 10-20 years. Though this practice is technically illegal, it goes on without any Labor Department intervention. Why would you want to give up half your salary for no benefit until you've been working for years?
> Which is all to say that if common workers in your industry unionize you will probably be able to negotiate an even higher premium in exchange for not joining the union.
Or the union can force you out of your job by forcing the employer to hire unionized employees only.
> What I can fault is them lobbying against/killing labor unions [0]. Labor Unions would fix this problem in a capitalist way.
But that's not true at all. Unions do not actually benefit all workers equally, they benefit senior workers more at the expense of the more junior workers. And because of Union wage requirements, many times the junior workers are pushed to supplement their income by working in other industries, by suppressing wages in other industries.
Unions have a lot of problems associated with them, you should talk to someone who is young and part of a union and see all the issues they have.
I once had a conversation with an actor who was claiming the huge benefits of actors union and how because of that she is able to afford to have healthcare. The problem with this conversation was that this was happening while she was talking my order at a restaurant where she worked to supplement her income. I mean that defeats the whole point of union, wouldn't it be better if she was able to work more number of hours on screen at a lower wage and increase her skill set rather than working as a waitress on the side?
Nearly all the union attempts to increase wages result in companies either dropping the number of employees they have or drop the number of hours they employ them for. Sadly only the younger or junior workers pay this cost. If you are an older union workers, then there are nothing but benefits for you.
> If you work for a company like Amazon, and you don't want to be laid off, the only thing you can do to move the needle is join a union.
If you don't like how one party can make changes to your job without your meaningful input, you should throw in so two parties can make changes to your job without your meaningful input? Also, you should be sure to pay some part of your wages to the second party, even if you don't like what they're up to.
>why don't people simply negotiate for higher wages and refuse to do the work otherwise?
Because union membership has been outlawed or seriously frowned upon in many professions. Most other people seem to think unionism is somehow destructive and end up only looking out for themselves, not realising they have been divided and conquered. Obviously, your experiences with this may differ.
> This is why I spend a lot of think wondering what could a union even do for me?
I mean the same thing it does for Tom Cruise.
You're really thinking about this the wrong way. Companies all the time join trade groups and pay membership fees to coordinate their efforts. Are you going to argue that companies are making a fiscally irresponsible decision?
A union is strictly the same thing as a trade group except its membership is labor and not management.
Because you will one day be 45 years old ...
reply