| ▲ | triceratops 21 hours ago |
| > good employees don't want to work for unions because it limits career growth and innovation Tell that to any movie star, director, writer, NFL starting quarterback, soccer star... |
|
| ▲ | sojsurf 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I live near Detroit, not Hollywood. Most union workers are not movie stars, directors, staring quarterbacks or soccer stars. Most are cops, teachers and automotive workers. Speaking with a friend around me who worked in automotive, the unions are a double edged sword. They provide security for you, but they also provide security for a bunch of folks who realized they won't get fired if they put in the bare minimum. My friend found this incredibly frustrating. Many unions here put large amounts of money toward political goals I don't support. If I want a job at such a company, under Michigan state law I can be compelled to pay the dues, even if the union is working against me politically. Until I can work somewhere without being forced to pay union dues, I am not interested in those jobs, even if they pay more. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > they won't get fired if they put in the bare minimum Why should anyone, union or not, be fired for that? Not promoted, not given raises, sure that's fine. The "bare minimum" is by definition the least acceptable level of productivity from a worker. > I can be compelled to pay the dues, even if the union is working against me politically Depends on what that means. Politically its job is to get you the most pay and job security possible. | |
| ▲ | nradov 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sometimes they won't get fired even if they put in less than the bare minimum. I know a number of people who have worked in the Detroit area auto industry and they tell stories of hourly workers who kept their jobs after being caught literally sleeping or drunk on the clock. Union leadership doesn't seem to understand that by defending those slackers they might get a temporary "win" and stick it to management, but ultimately it just encourages management to move production elsewhere. | | | |
| ▲ | throwaway67499 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure where to mention these, but they seem relevant to this part of the thread: Ben Hamper's Rivethead is a good read about working on the line during the decline of Flint. It's an excellent companion to Michael Moore's Roger & Me. |
|
|
| ▲ | CamperBob2 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unions can make sense for talent and services that you don't want to keep on your payroll full-time. You could argue that rideshare drivers qualify in that sense, given that the whole idea is to keep them off of a regular payroll... but watch them fight tooth and nail to lock out autonomous operators like Waymo. That'll be next, rest assured. It'll be about "jobs," "safety," and probably, somehow, "the children." Otherwise, the people you list are very well-represented by private agencies. Unions like the SAG can benefit the lower-level people in some respects, but they mostly serve to gatekeep their industry and encourage films to be made outside their jurisdiction. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | The person I responded to said "good employees" are inhibited in "growth and innovation" whenever they belong to a union. A single counter-example, of good employees with talent and innovation, reaping tremendous personal rewards, is enough to falsify that statement. I gave several such examples. On the other hand you have retail workers and food service workers, who are largely not unionized. So what can we blame their low pay and status on? Talent and genius and innovative ideas being rewarded (or not) is largely orthogonal to union membership. It is a factor of demand and supply, and prevailing profit margins in that industry. That is all. Detroit declined because factory workers are more fungible than movie stars. Their unions didn't pay attention to the threat of foreign labor or competition by superior foreign firms. Their management also became complacent about competition and chose to blame it on unions. Germany is very famously pro-union and boasts a strong auto industry. What did they do differently? | | |
| ▲ | nradov 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The German auto industry is slowly dying. It has been steadily laying off employees and cutting wages. Unionization has done nothing to prevent this. They are not cost competitive with China in terms of labor, energy, and batteries. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6pzwj6qq7o | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The German auto industry is slowly dying Like the American auto industry, and also the Japanese, they've been asleep at the wheel as EVs eat their lunch. For a long time it was quite strong though. > It has been steadily laying off employees and cutting wages. Unionization has done nothing to prevent this It can't. Unionization can't raise wages and it can't lower wages. It can provide job and wage stability. It can ensure non-union workers are laid off first. But if there's no money or the industry is doing poorly it's a management or international trade issue. |
| |
| ▲ | floren 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | no you don't get it, the unions are going to tamp down on all the incredibly innovative ideas the Uber drivers are coming up with. Mostly mine seem to innovate new ways to fail at hiding that they've been smoking in the car... | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Germany is very famously pro-union and boasts a strong auto industry. What did they do differently The German auto industry is in a world of shit, actually, but I don't think they can blame the unions for that. Their "works council" model is very different from a typical UAW stronghold in the US. The unions (and in many cases the state itself) are active partners in corporate ownership and management, so they have a stronger incentive not to kill the golden goose. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a more reasonable take than the person I responded to. They had the lazy anti-union talking points of "they take your dues and you stay poor". Which must be straight out of a Pinkerton handbook from the 1910s or something. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
