Are labor unions a net negative for most workers?

[Hardkill]

This host and the caller he head on this show both say that being a part of a labor unions does more harm than good for workers in general:

 

Are these guys overstating the negatives or are what they are saying true?

Edited March 6, 2023 by Hardkill

[Devin]

        They're a net negative, depending on how wide a perspective you want to take. Narrow; yes they're positive for most workers, they make more money, work less, better benefits. Wider; all of those things are relative, that raises consumer prices, it lowers productivity and morale in the workplace because it removes the incentive to work harder for more pay, it pits employer vs employee instead of having a family culture to a company.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Devin

[Danioover9000]

@Hardkill

13 hours ago, Hardkill said:

This host and the caller he head on this show both say that being a part of a labor unions does more harm than good for workers in general:

 

Are these guys overstating the negatives or are what they are saying true?

   Net negative, unless they have a strong chain of command and are centralized. Don't be like BLM, a decentralized movement, that apparently made the donations disappear.

[something_else]

3 hours ago, Devin said:

having a family culture to a company.

 

 

 

Have you ever worked somewhere that told you everyone there was 'one big family'? and then you tried to ask for literally the smallest, most reasonable request and being denied because it's not policy and they can't make exceptions? or being fired on a moments notice? or them making record profits and buy you all a cake to celebrate and give you 15 mins extra break one day, instead of you know, a raise that matches inflation? or have your contract redesigned to fuck you over out of even more money? Those things are not what a family would do, but massive companies who tell employees they are family will do them all the time.

Places that tell you they are a big family are full of shit. You want to work for companies that acknowledge and respect the serious working arrangement you have, not bullshit and gaslight you.

Quote

it pits employer vs employee

 

 

 

A large part of that comes from employers doing essentially everything they can to de-humanise workers and treat them as a resource instead of human beings. You don't need a union at a good company that respects its workers, where you can sort things out without a more formal protest. But most companies are not decent to their workers. They see them as a replaceable resource.

Edited March 6, 2023 by something_else

[RareGodzilla]

I think the host is overgeneralizing the situation. Someone like an artist or a designer can maybe contribute personally to the work and even have a "relationship" with the company's leadership. Since they might have good individual bargaining power, they might not need a union personally. A McDonald's wage slave can only have so much individual input. Unions are very important for these kinds of jobs. Individual barging power of a garbageman is almost 0. However, if all of the garbagemen go on strike, the system stops working. This kind of profession needs collective bargaining.

The host compares the workplace to a relationship, seeing a union as being unfaithful. But keep in mind that it's important that the power is balanced in a romantic couple. We don't allow 16 year olds to date their teachers because we are aware that it's not a healthy relationship if one spouse has such power over the other. In business, it's only fair that both parties negotiate in good faith on an equal footing.

I also really don't understand this sentiment that people having more free time and better working conditions is a net negative. Bad health caused by overwork is a net negative for society. Bad relationships caused by a lack of time to socialize are a net negative.

Edited March 6, 2023 by RareGodzilla

[Devin]

6 minutes ago, something_else said:

Have you ever worked somewhere that told you everyone there was 'one big family'? and then you tried to ask for literally the smallest, most reasonable request and being denied because it's not policy and they can't make exceptions? or being fired on a moments notice? or them making record profits and buy you all a cake to celebrate and give you 15 mins extra break one day, instead of you know, a raise that matches inflation? or have your contract redesigned to fuck you over out of even more money? Those things are not what a family would do, but massive companies who tell employees they are family will do them all the time.

Places that tell you they are a big family are full of shit. You want to work for companies that acknowledge and respect the serious working arrangement you have, not bullshit and gaslight you.

A large part of that comes from employers doing essentially everything they can to de-humanise workers and treat them as a resource instead of human beings. You don't need a union at a good company that respects its workers, where you can sort things out without a more formal protest. But most companies are not decent to their workers. They see them as a replaceable resource.

            LOL, you ever had a friend with strict parents? Some families are like that.

          I agree many employers are toxic, but that doesn't mean unions solve that problem. Unions brought into that situation help that employer in a way, employees would otherwise naturally begin to leave for healthier employers, an evolution of employment, helping the better employers, hurting the worse offenders. Unions mask the underlying issue, a toxic leadership, muddying the waters, like an abused woman staying in a relationship because the husband increased her allowance.

[Danioover9000]

@Devin

4 hours ago, Devin said:

        They're a net negative, depending on how wide a perspective you want to take. Narrow; yes they're positive for most workers, they make more money, work less, better benefits. Wider; all of those things are relative, that raises consumer prices, it lowers productivity and morale in the workplace because it removes the incentive to work harder for more pay, it pits employer vs employee instead of having a family culture to a company.

   Yes, it may depend on the many other contexts that make it either net positive or negative. To me, a union needs some form of centralization, a chain of command, not a decentralized form like BLM.

[something_else]

19 hours ago, Devin said:

LOL, you ever had a friend with strict parents? Some families are like that.

 

Heh, fair point  but not healthy ones

19 hours ago, Devin said:

I agree many employers are toxic, but that doesn't mean unions solve that problem. Unions brought into that situation help that employer in a way, employees would otherwise naturally begin to leave for healthier employers, an evolution of employment, helping the better employers, hurting the worse offenders. Unions mask the underlying issue, a toxic leadership, muddying the waters, like an abused woman staying in a relationship because the husband increased her allowance.

 

The toxic employer issue is a much deeper problem. Fixing that requires a slow but meteoric shift in the way society is structured. For the time being things like unions are our best solution, even if they can sometimes be quite flawed.

[Danioover9000]

   Well, this is interesting:

 

[Devin]

29 minutes ago, something_else said:

Heh, fair point  but not healthy ones

The toxic employer issue is a much deeper problem. Fixing that requires a slow but meteoric shift in the way society is structured. For the time being things like unions are our best solution, even if they can sometimes be quite flawed.

           How are unions a solution for that at all? I've experienced several awesome employers, I do contract work and have been an embedded contractor at many companies, which is where I developed my disdain for unions, the Union facilities were toxic, non-union was a family environment(usually the healthy kind). I've done work with a lot of industrial companies where unions are common, hands down I would choose non-union, night and day difference. Some were comparable same industry companies, Ford and Honda for example.

       And it's not just employer vs employee, the union leadership which is the older members, sellout the younger members interests for their own.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Devin

[something_else]

28 minutes ago, Devin said:

           How are unions a solution for that at all? I've experienced several awesome employers, I do contract work and have been an embedded contractor at many companies, which is where I developed my disdain for unions, the Union facilities were toxic, non-union was a family environment(usually the healthy kind). I've done work with a lot of industrial companies where unions are common, hands down I would choose non-union, night and day difference. Some were comparable same industry companies, Ford and Honda for example.

       And it's not just employer vs employee, the union leadership which is the older members, sellout the younger members interests for their own.

 

 

 

 

 

You worked at quality companies doing a skilled job. I would not feel like I needed a union at my current company either, nor is it big enough to even warrant one.

But if you are a fast food worker in mcdonalds, or a low skill factory worker, you're either in a union, or you're entirely at the mercy of a large company that views you as replaceable.

Edited March 7, 2023 by something_else

[Devin]

15 minutes ago, something_else said:

You worked at quality companies doing a skilled job. I would not feel like I needed a union at my current company either, nor is it big enough to even warrant one.

But if you are a fast food worker in mcdonalds, or a low skill factory worker, you're either in a union, or you're entirely at the mercy of a large company that views you as replaceable.

         So how does the union help the mcdonalds workers of the world? The best they can do is raise wages, which just raises inflation on the worker, but in my eyes the union pits employer vs employee with zero hope for any care for the worker, all while introducing what is effectively a tax to pay for the union.

[bmcnicho]

All relevant data shows that unions are essential for workers.  The destruction of America’s unions is why wages have been stagnant for 40 years despite productivity and corporate profits rising dramatically

[Devin]

1 hour ago, bmcnicho said:

All relevant data shows that unions are essential for workers.  The destruction of America’s unions is why wages have been stagnant for 40 years despite productivity and corporate profits rising dramatically

      Why did the mass union exodus start in the 60s then? Why did everyone start going non union? Look at unionized european countries compared to the u.s., u.s. workers earn more.

       You can't compare profits to worker wages seriously, that's communism, it's irrelevant to worker conditions. U.S. wages "stagnated" if anything due to globalization, which was exacerbated by unions actually. And are you claiming the workers are working harder with your productivity statement? That's purely from capital investment from the profiteers.

        Look at your claim for instance, 40 years of union decline, working conditions have increased extraordinarily actually in that time period.

Life expectancy has even increased

1983 74

2023 79

       Socialists like to claim it's relatively worse these days but people back then weren't all buying beach houses, they all worked their life to payoff their mortgages. And no, before you go off on rent, apartments are not a frugal sacrifice, apartments are a luxury.

https://apps.realtor.com/mUAZ/wm4kn4et

$570 month for mortgage, and you could even rent out a room

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Devin

[Hardkill]

On 3/7/2023 at 9:16 AM, Devin said:

      Why did the mass union exodus start in the 60s then? Why did everyone start going non union? Look at unionized european countries compared to the u.s., u.s. workers earn more.

       You can't compare profits to worker wages seriously, that's communism, it's irrelevant to worker conditions. U.S. wages "stagnated" if anything due to globalization, which was exacerbated by unions actually. And are you claiming the workers are working harder with your productivity statement? That's purely from capital investment from the profiteers.

        Look at your claim for instance, 40 years of union decline, working conditions have increased extraordinarily actually in that time period.

Life expectancy has even increased

1983 74

2023 79

       Socialists like to claim it's relatively worse these days but people back then weren't all buying beach houses, they all worked their life to payoff their mortgages. And no, before you go off on rent, apartments are not a frugal sacrifice, apartments are a luxury.

https://apps.realtor.com/mUAZ/wm4kn4et

$570 month for mortgage, and you could even rent out a room

 

Actually, most employee's real wages in the US have decreased since the 70s, largely because we don't have enough strong labor unions in the service sector. 

Paul Krugman mentioned how most employees in the sandinavians countries like Denmark, have much better wages, a much stronger social safety net, and a mostly unionized work force. In fact, all of the sandinavian countries have also been about as open to world trade as America has been if not more. Denmark, actually has a lot more free trade than the US.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/dataset?geozone=world&page=dataset&min-year=2&max-year=0&filter=0&sort-field=freedomToTradeInternationally&sort-reversed=1

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

 Paul Krugman mentioned how most employees in the sandinavians countries like Denmark, have much better wages, a much stronger social safety net, and a mostly unionized work force. In fact, all of the sandinavian countries have also been about as open to world trade as America has been if not more. Denmark, actually has a lot more free trade than the US.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/dataset?geozone=world&page=dataset&min-year=2&max-year=0&filter=0&sort-field=freedomToTradeInternationally&sort-reversed=1

Not when you factor in higher cost per living and taxes, 20% difference. Unions raise costs, inflating the number. And that's the top european state, there are u.s. states that individually earn higher than Denmark, like Massachusetts.

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Actually, most employee's real wages in the US have decreased since the 70s, largely because we don't have enough strong labor unions in the service sector. 

The only data I've seen that shows that is highly biased, look at this, pew research says it hasn't budged. But look at that and then also consider the lifestyle improvements in those 50 years, they were breathing leaded gasoline fumes.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Edited March 9, 2023 by Devin

[Hardkill]

8 minutes ago, Devin said:

The only data I've seen that shows that is highly biased, look at this, pew research says it hasn't budged. But look at that and then also consider the lifestyle improvements in those 50 years, they were breathing leaded gasoline fumes.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Yes, safety conditions and standards of living conditions have risen over the past 50 years in many respects, but ever since stagflation in the 70s and the rise of neoliberalism/reaganism in the 80s, the middle class has been destroyed by the rich and corporations, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Furthermore, the right-wing libertarian rich elite and Republican corporate donors have also been helping the far-right destroying our democracy.

You need to have a more nuanced understanding of what has been going on.

 

 

 

 

[Devin]

12 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yes, safety conditions and standards of living conditions have risen over the past 50 years in many respects, but ever since stagflation in the 70s and the rise of neoliberalism/reaganism in the 80s, the middle class has been destroyed by the rich and corporations, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Furthermore, the right-wing libertarian rich elite and Republican corporate donors have also been helping the far-right destroying our democracy.

You need to have a more nuanced understanding of what has been going on.

 

 

 

 

     I agree the rich are getting richer, that's what they're good at, that's why they're rich. I disagree the poor are getting poorer, their conditions have improved as well.

      I hate the Republican party by the way. But here's my problem with your kind; can most Americans sacrifice to a point where they would be able to invest a little money? I think the vast majority could, but they don't, they need to grow the hell up and take some personal agency, imagine generation after generation in a family doing that, any family in America can be what you're calling the rich that's getting richer.

        Quit your worker mindset, workers aren't kings and never will be. They'll always profit the rich, they choose to by staying in that lane. Invest.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Devin

[Hardkill]

15 minutes ago, Devin said:

Not when you factor in higher cost per living and taxes, 20% difference. Unions raise costs, inflating the number.

The higher taxes in the scandinavian countries have provided their countries the means for universal healthcare, free public colleges and universities tuition, and other essentials social safety net programs for each and every citizen.

So, what if unions raise costs? That's what happened when unions membership reached a peak in the mid 1900s in the US and the US was still the wealthiest country in the world during those times.

[Hardkill]

9 minutes ago, Devin said:

     I agree the rich are getting richer, that's what they're good at, that's why they're rich. I disagree the poor are getting poorer, their conditions have improved as well.

      I hate the Republican party by the way. But here's my problem with your kind; can most Americans sacrifice to a point where they would be able to invest a little money? I think the vast majority could, but they don't, they need to grow the hell up and take some personal agency, imagine generation after generation in a family doing that, any family in America can be what you're calling the rich that's getting richer.

        Quit your worker mindset, workers aren't kings and never will be. They'll always profit the rich, they choose to by staying in that lane. Invest.

Are you aware of the fact that there have been countless Americans who have been struggling to get by through no fault of their own because they haven't been given enough of a living wage.

Even Mark Cuban, who is one of the most successful businessmen in the world said that the minimum wage should be a living wage, even though it hasn't been for numerous people in the country.

Most billionaires and multimillionaires in the US have become as wealthy as they are because of how much economic power and skill they have at being able to steal so much of the wealth that they don't deserve and need. They also have been allowed to legally exploit most of their employees unjustly. Plus, many big corporations such as big Pharma have been a lot of price gouging for decades ever since the beginning of Reaganism. Not to mention, the number of monopolies that have grown in America since the 80s.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Hardkill