@suuuoppp: To stop the speculation and DM's I am receiving. I chose to quit my role at LTT because it, and the working environment I was facing, were ruining my mental health. The number of daily items...…
If I ever start a corporation and if for some reason it isn’t a workers co-op, I will make the employees unionize. I see little reason other than absolute profit maximization to not treat your employees as a great asset, assuming they’re doing reasonably well. But I’m a dirty socialist so…
Dirty? Nah, you’re fresh as hell, comrade. Workers co-ops are great
I guess I have my own special version of pessimism where if I see an employer not actively hiring Pinkertons I think if it add a little w for workers these days
I have two uncles who worked for the same company, in different departments but in similar roles. Both were engineers, one was a CAE, and the other an ME. The CAE was not part of a union, and the ME was. They had a comparable lifestyle, so I assume they made a comparable salary (they live about a mile from each other, in a similarly sized house, drive similar cars, take similar amounts of vacations, etc).
Here’s the work history of my unionized uncle:
multiple unpaid strikes, where the main output was a marginal benefit to employees (from tertiary sources, it wasn’t worth the strike)
layoff (maybe 2? I don’t recall), and later rehire in a separate department (was laid off for months); this resulted in complications with the company pension (I think the pension got rolled into the 401k because the new group hadn’t negotiated a pension)
consistent work location - always worked at the same plant, except for a handful of visits to others
And here’s the work history of my non-unionized uncle:
no layoffs, and optional participation in strikes
inconsistent work location, but had some WFH flexibility in the last 15-ish years of employment (i.e. could work 9/80s, WFH one day/week, etc)
maintained control over retirement benefits, so retired with a pension and a 401k
This is obviously a very small sample, so it’s hardly enough evidence to say whether unions are a net positive or net negative. So whether a union is better for you depends on a lot of factors, such as:
role - white collar jobs benefit less from unions vs blue collar jobs
unions can suck, and non-unionized employers can rock; the latter can change overnight, whereas the former likely won’t
your best tool is your own personal skillset; regardless of whether you’re in a union, ensure your skills are up-to-date so you have a good chance of getting a new job should you lose yours
But one thing that should be universally true is that openly anti-union employers should be avoided.
unwanted strikes - if your union goes on strike, you are not allowed to work
special treatment - unions try to equalize, so higher performers may not be fairly compensated
An awesome employer shouldn’t discourage unionization, and ideally they’d encourage attempts to unionize, but they wouldn’t recommend unionization, assuming the employer intended to maintain control and monitor managers throughout the chain. If the employer can provide all of the benefits employees would get through unionization, unionizing merely adds extra BS that employees and employers need to deal with.
What does the employer have to go through the union for?
unwanted strikes - if your union goes on strike, you are not allowed to work
If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?
special treatment - unions try to equalize, so higher performers may not be fairly compensated
This doesn’t feel right but I can’t quite put my finger on why so I’ll reserve judgement for now. 😄
I can see the extra layer of overhead in the case when everything is perfect, but given the incentives in traditional for-profit corporations I can’t see that case ever being realistic. In addition, even if a company is perfect today, the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change especially if there’s no worker-controlled counterbalance to such change. So just on the basis of that, if I’m an awesome, perfect employer, and I presumably want this to go on, because that really is part of being awesome, I should want to create this counterbalance against change for the worse. Assuming a for-profit, not-a-co-op corporation that is. It looks to me like this overhead is the price of preserving this perfect environment over the long term. Doesn’t that make sense?
What does the employer have to go through the union for?
Benefits, and depending on the union’s rules, salary adjustments. Some unions also require informing them of schedule changes.
The reverse is also true, employees may need to go through the union depending on the union’s rules.
If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?
Idk, perhaps communication issues w/ management? Over-zealous union leadership?
The point is, the employee isn’t empowered here, they’re subject to whatever the union agrees to do.
My uncle went through multiple strikes, few (if any) he actually agreed with, but had to deal with being out of work. He wished he wasn’t union so he could just continue working.
the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change
Sure, which is why it absolutely depends on the type of organization. Something owner-operated has a much lower risk of unexpected awful changes than something publicly traded.
A lot of owner-operated businesses don’t intend to sell to someone else, the owner will just shut it down when they’re done operating it. So “long term” in this sense is until the owner retires. And if they do intend to sell, they could at that point encourage the employees to make any employment adjustments needed.
An genuine employer who isn’t against unions and has their employees wellbeing as a top priority should encourage the employees to unionize.
Fair point, well made. I would love to live in a world like this one day
If I ever start a corporation and if for some reason it isn’t a workers co-op, I will make the employees unionize. I see little reason other than absolute profit maximization to not treat your employees as a great asset, assuming they’re doing reasonably well. But I’m a dirty socialist so…
Dirty? Nah, you’re fresh as hell, comrade. Workers co-ops are great
I guess I have my own special version of pessimism where if I see an employer not actively hiring Pinkertons I think if it add a little w for workers these days
I’m not convinced.
I have two uncles who worked for the same company, in different departments but in similar roles. Both were engineers, one was a CAE, and the other an ME. The CAE was not part of a union, and the ME was. They had a comparable lifestyle, so I assume they made a comparable salary (they live about a mile from each other, in a similarly sized house, drive similar cars, take similar amounts of vacations, etc).
Here’s the work history of my unionized uncle:
And here’s the work history of my non-unionized uncle:
This is obviously a very small sample, so it’s hardly enough evidence to say whether unions are a net positive or net negative. So whether a union is better for you depends on a lot of factors, such as:
But one thing that should be universally true is that openly anti-union employers should be avoided.
That wasn’t quite the point. What would be a good reason for a well meaning, rocking employer to not encourage unionization?
Lots of reasons:
An awesome employer shouldn’t discourage unionization, and ideally they’d encourage attempts to unionize, but they wouldn’t recommend unionization, assuming the employer intended to maintain control and monitor managers throughout the chain. If the employer can provide all of the benefits employees would get through unionization, unionizing merely adds extra BS that employees and employers need to deal with.
Alright, so let’s take a look.
No escaping this one.
What does the employer have to go through the union for?
If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?
This doesn’t feel right but I can’t quite put my finger on why so I’ll reserve judgement for now. 😄
I can see the extra layer of overhead in the case when everything is perfect, but given the incentives in traditional for-profit corporations I can’t see that case ever being realistic. In addition, even if a company is perfect today, the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change especially if there’s no worker-controlled counterbalance to such change. So just on the basis of that, if I’m an awesome, perfect employer, and I presumably want this to go on, because that really is part of being awesome, I should want to create this counterbalance against change for the worse. Assuming a for-profit, not-a-co-op corporation that is. It looks to me like this overhead is the price of preserving this perfect environment over the long term. Doesn’t that make sense?
Benefits, and depending on the union’s rules, salary adjustments. Some unions also require informing them of schedule changes.
The reverse is also true, employees may need to go through the union depending on the union’s rules.
Idk, perhaps communication issues w/ management? Over-zealous union leadership?
The point is, the employee isn’t empowered here, they’re subject to whatever the union agrees to do.
My uncle went through multiple strikes, few (if any) he actually agreed with, but had to deal with being out of work. He wished he wasn’t union so he could just continue working.
Sure, which is why it absolutely depends on the type of organization. Something owner-operated has a much lower risk of unexpected awful changes than something publicly traded.
A lot of owner-operated businesses don’t intend to sell to someone else, the owner will just shut it down when they’re done operating it. So “long term” in this sense is until the owner retires. And if they do intend to sell, they could at that point encourage the employees to make any employment adjustments needed.