| |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Lots of research shows that generally places where unions exist have better work conditions and perform better over the long term. Do you have any non-partisan sources for this? Genuinely curious. When you say perform better what do you mean specifically? And does better work conditions include better pay or just on-site conditions or something similar? | | |
| ▲ | bix6 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.nber.org/digest/202508/unpacking-union-wage-prem... They earn more and are more productive. Here is one Canadian study but I’m sure you can find more if you’re interested. | | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself. I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore. | | |
| ▲ | j16sdiz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We have gone a long way since industrial revolution. e.g. Child labor now outlawed. There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change) Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Child labor now outlawed. For now. Many US states are currently trying to roll back these laws though, aren't they? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/22/child-labor-... https://www.justiceatwork.com/how-are-child-labor-laws-chang... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-several-states-are-pus... | | |
| ▲ | wildfireday2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Teens want summer jobs again and you act like they’re sending 8 year olds back to the coal breakers. |
| |
| ▲ | unknownfuture a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Literally demonstrating the point in dofm's second paragraph right here... | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | Thank you. Almost all of the US discourse around unions seems to involve accepting the literally cartoonish framing that the US corporate right managed to force into popular culture. The fact that union culture in the USA is broken is not a problem with the idea of unions. It's a problem with the USA. | | |
| ▲ | unknownfuture a day ago | parent [-] | | Honestly it's hard to blame folks. The US (and Canada, where I'm from) has seen a 40+ year concerted effort to destroy unions and the propaganda runs deep. There's been a long-running cultural project to depict unions as purely lazy, corrupt, and self-dealing. That same project also involved demonizing social safety nets ("welfare queen") and public projects more broadly using the exact same rhetoric: some people might cheat so we must tear these systems down. It's a language that directs the anger of the aggrieved away from those in power toward those who are powerless, and for nearly a half a century it's been wildly successful. |
|
| |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | What you described is the result of the government acting as one big, but very conservative, union. |
| |
| ▲ | TheTaytay a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think working conditions have changed enough since then to make a request for non-biased studies a reasonable one.
Most debates about unions seem to boil down to “I just know” or anecdotes. I would expect unions to fund research to show that working conditions are better in union shops, but not include the fact that some unionized shops can’t compete in a market with non union shops and might go out of business. (But have great working conditions until the last day)
And vice-versa for pro industry research.
Unions are adversarial, and feel necessary to people that view employment or employers through that lens.
It’s possible that we can still credit unions with the status quo, but 1they have nowhere near the adoption of vaccines to make the analogy a good one.
I’d rather debate “which employers/industries” need unions than debate whether they are objectively good in all circumstances. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them? Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share honest financial numbers with their unions. | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). That’s not at all what a union is. Why else would federal workers need their own unions? The point of a union is collective bargaining power for labor. Federal workers have little to no bargaining power when budgets are set by Congress. Especially when they can’t strike. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | I can't parse this comment in relation to the context. | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is what I was arguing against: > Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). | |
| ▲ | senordevnyc a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | They’re pointing out that calling the federal government “a big union” is inaccurate, and reasons why. | | |
| ▲ | lukeschlather a day ago | parent [-] | | It's accurate. The constitution of the United States explicitly describes it as a union in the preamble. | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Don’t be dense, we’re discussing labor unions, not all possible interpretations of the word “union” | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The constitution of the United States explicitly describes it as a union in the preamble. No, there's no relation. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | j16sdiz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them? Playing devil's advocate: - Having government functionally like one big union make individual union obsolete. -- | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | But the government isn't very good at it. The government also represents the owners of the companies, and it did the bare minimum to stop the workers from literally murdering the owners and setting their houses on fire, which used to happen regularly before the government guaranteed minimum worker rights. |
| |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Where would we be without them? Where will you be without them, you mean. The current trajectory of the US government is the opposite of strengthening the rights of labour. |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself. I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been). > I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore. I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions? I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I have additionally gone down a bit of a rabbit hole on this bit: > the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws To a meaningful extent, especially in 19th century Britain, the concept of the general public is the product of labour organisation, not the source of it. It's a pretty new concept — the idea that the public have any single collective solidarity or consensus, can be consulted, have the ability to read newspapers etc. A non-trivial part of that comes from the empowerment of labour, from the creation of commercial schools and universal education (which emerges from the social contract that grew as a result of organised labour interacting with the state etc. Unions were powerful in the education of adults, they created unified leisure time, they furthered the idea of trade schools, they created a path to politics for the underclass, etc.; I don't think there would have been a general public without labour organisation. Just a rarified wealthy upper class. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | I reject the notion that the public is the same thing as a union in the manner you are describing. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | Again, I am literally not saying that they are. I very clearly say that, in some significant measure, the former is the product of the latter. That is the word I used. Not "the same thing". Don't do these silly bad faith, straw man characterisations. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > Don't do these silly bad faith, straw man characterisations. I reject the association literally or otherwise. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Labor laws came about because before there were labor laws, the employees would form an angry mob to burn down the boss's house and shoot his cat, and the boss would flee before he was next. This is the same reason the government protects unions. | |
| ▲ | robin_reala a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | none of the Mag 7 have unions They all recognise unions and have unionised employees in countries where unions are the default, with the exception of Tesla. | | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been). > […] > I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Then you don't really know history. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | I know history better than you do, generally speaking. You cherry-picked the wrong comment. Vaccines and vaccine adoption has nothing to do with unions nor are they even remotely comparable. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy. (Though as it goes, I suspect vaccine rollout and universal healthcare does, in fact, owe some of its ability to function to the products of the organised labour movement; national, universal healthcare in the UK literally sprang from the first Labour government) If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy. ??? > we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore. > If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture. If you want to remove vaccines and these analogies that's fine but you're clearly doing something you're claiming you are not. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | It's an analogy. In that sentence I'm not saying that one has to do with the other. I am talking there about the relationship of people arguing against a concept with the status quo for that respective concept. The way those arguments are made is similarly ignorant of history, is the simple point. It's not that difficult. Really. Other people grasped it. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | It's not a good analogy though. Unions aren't a clear public good. > The way those arguments are made is similarly ignorant of history, is the simple point. Yes and that point is rejected by me. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | The comparison is the unambiguous gains for society union labour organisation achieved through industrial history, which was a clear public good, and what is lost if there are no longer unions to defend those gains. Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Unions, even in their flawed American form, are a force pushing back on that. You still need them. In just the same way that you still need continued vaccination to protect the gains made by vaccination. I am obviously not bothered if you reject my points; I am disappointed with the way you argue, though. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > The comparison is the unambiguous gains for society union labour organisation achieved through industrial history, which was a clear public good, and what is lost if there are no longer unions to defend those gains. It's a loose comparison. I think vaccines are a much more clear public good. > Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Unions, even in their flawed American form, are a force pushing back on that. Ok... https://apnews.com/article/trump-chavezderemer-labor-secreta... > You still need them. In just the same way that you still need continued vaccination to protect the gains made by vaccination. I'm not sure we need them. I don't need one. But I do need vaccines and society at large to be vaccinated. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | It's a logical mistake to think anyone cosies up to a politician because of what they have already done to benefit them. It's much more about what they could be persuaded to do or not do, or worse, might do if they don't reach out. In short the picture there is not what you suggest. Unions have notable concerns about the current administration, and about trends in state governments which are going backwards. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/01/us-surge-efforts... https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-workers-rights-wa... https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/12/twists-and-turns-t... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/19/how-unions-p... https://betterinaunion.org/project-2025 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/excl... | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't matter what the media publishes, it matters what blue-collar former democrats vote and they vote Trump. You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward, you claim the current state is the country is regressing, and yet union members voted for Trump. And they did so despite Trump's anti-worker record. Your view doesn't match reality. | | |
| ▲ | dofm 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said. I have certainly argued that unions did in the past push the USA forward in terms of labour rights and worker protections — you only have to read about the history of the AFL-CIO to know that this is true. You have most of your few workers rights because of collective action (and as a country you have lost job security you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions). But at this point it is not about forward progress, particularly; workers need unions to push back against regressions more than anything else. Those regressions are happening. That is what I have said. > you claim the current state is the country is regressing You think it is not? > Your view doesn't match reality. Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again? Pretty sure I could find you links from 2024 where he promised not to get the USA into wars and promised to keep prices down. But what's the point? Also some of those links I shared were union pages, and one of them is a White House document literally announcing the elimination of collective bargaining power for federal workers, so, no, it is not just the media. Here's another: https://mnaflcio.org/news/trump-champion-workers-his-anti-un... My view, I think, matches the reality of 2026 pretty well. You have an anti-union government which is committed to rolling back union power and has already done so. I can't change how blue-collar voters acted against their own interests when tempted with populist baubles (which is a time-honoured tradition), but their dubious vote doesn't particularly validate your argument or invalidate mine, does it? You can think what you like, though. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said. Ok then let's characterize it better. Are unions today a force for pushing the country forward? > you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions I'm not arguing against unions. Just to be clear. > Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again? There's a saying I think. Have you heard it? A very famous person once said it: "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again." I think voters, regardless of political party, know pretty well what they're voting for. That includes Trump voters. I don't think he lied to them, he said in many ways exactly what he would do if elected to office and he has tried to in many ways to fulfill those campaign promises. It's just that while some policies are arguably harming workers, those workers or those who voted for Trump (which was a majority of the country by the way) cared about other issues (immigration, COVID policies, whatever) than they do the issues you think they should care about. > Also some of those links I shared were union pages, and one of them is a White House document literally announcing the elimination of collective bargaining power for federal workers, so, no, it is not just the media. Well there are two problems with this. The first is that union leadership statements are not the same thing as union members voting. The second is that of course unionized federal workers would be against the federal government dissolving their unionized workforce. Other unions don't face quite the same level of existential crises or dissolution by fiat. > https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts... > when tempted with populist baubles Right, like the DSA ;) ? Politically, if you wanted to pin me down more accurately I'm against all populists. MAGA, Socialists, Communists, or otherwise. I really don't have a problem with unions, I just think the points you are making are incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zetanor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The conceptual level breaks down in places where an open shop is illegal or disincentivized, which I suspect is the case in California where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. Europe usually has open shops, not closed shops, for example. | | |
| ▲ | cool_dude85 a day ago | parent [-] | | No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as an "open shop" in the US, even under right to freeload. Union membership is determined by job classification. If you are working in a unionized environment, and your job title is a union job title, you are in the union. You will be covered by the contract your union bargains with the employer. The only question, then, is whether you pay the dues to cover the costs of union membership. In a right to freeload state, you can choose not to pay the costs. | | |
| ▲ | wildfireday2 a day ago | parent [-] | | You both have it mostly backwards. The Taft-Hartley act
mostly bans closed shops and allows states to pass “right to work” laws making payment of any agency fees to unions optional. In no state are any employees compelled to formally join a union. In an American-style “closed shops” in a non-right-to-work state, if you don’t join the union the bargaining agreement can charge nonmembers an agency fee representing most of the dues they would pay as members. Not to mention pressure tactics to join. Also especially in the trades in major markets unions control apprenticeship programs and hiring halls and make it virtually impossible for nonmembers to get union work, as well as gatekeeping access to apprenticeship programs in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | cool_dude85 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Right to freeload laws work as I describe. Although no employees are forced to "join a union" in the sense of signing a piece of paper joining the union, in all cases they are union employees in practice. That is, the union collectively bargains their working conditions, the union supports them via grievance if the employer doesn't follow the contract, and so on. The right to freeload allows for such a person to get by without paying dues - that is, the cost of providing these collective bargaining and legal representation services. | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It just struck me how dystopian the phrase "right to work" is. Like, you have the right to go down the coal mine for 16 hours a day and get lung cancer! No right to get paid, though... | | |
| ▲ | wildfireday2 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | “Right to work” is in the context of criminal wage theft laws, OSHA, EPA, Black Lung Benefits Act, Federal Employees Compensation Act, minimum wage (not that this affects mine workers), overtime, etc. Mine work in the USA is one of the most heavily regulated jobs there is and mine workers are very well paid. “No right to get paid” indeed. Mine workers don’t get paid when there is no mine work to do. | |
| ▲ | hamper653 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Workers must be doubly free. "For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power. " |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hamper653 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is union recognition legally required to, say, organise a strike? Do workers who participate in a strike organised by a non-recognised union expose themselves to getting fired? | | |
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent [-] | | When strikes are legal is really complicated and depends on industry. The thing to understand is that labor law in the US was created to "reduce labor strife." Unions existed before they were recognized as legal. What labor law tries to do is make an orderly process with the goal is no strikes and a mutually agreed-on contract. The company recognizing the union is the first step towards a contract. Basically it's saying "I understand this organization represents these employees and I should negotiate with it." | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | This reminds me of the German approach to street marches. They are allowed, must be registered with the police, and the police will ensure there are several policemen around for each protestor just in case any of them "try anything". The police form a box around the protest, restricting it from going anywhere not approved and restricting people from seeing the signs; they also blare their sirens so that the chants can't be heard outside the box. The cost of all this is, of course, billed to the protest organiser. So as you can see, they have incredible free speech! They allow just anyone to carry out a street march! | | |
| ▲ | dgellow a day ago | parent [-] | | As someone living in Germany, what you're saying is not true. It is correct that protests have to be registered, that's the case for pretty much all developed countries. It is also correct that the organizers are responsible to cover costs. But the police doesn't restrict people from seeing signs, doesn't blare their sirens. They mostly stay on the side while handling the traffic, and intervene if the protest becomes chaotic. In the vast majority of protests they do literally nothing other than being present. Compared to the US where multiple protesters have been killed on video by ICE this year Germany is a dream of free speech | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | amazingamazing a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no evidence of unions performing better for digital services at all. Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death. | | |
| ▲ | dgellow a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death. You mean, like actors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAG-AFTRA Or teachers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association Or service employees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_Internationa... | |
| ▲ | saghm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death. Sure, the arguably most successful union in the history of the US, the Screen Actors Guild, is only useful because it kept all of those actors from being worked to death, and it has nothing to do with all of the millions of dollars that its members make yearly. | |
| ▲ | acdha a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | “No evidence” or “I haven’t looked for evidence”? Unions do more than just keeping people from dying in mining accidents — for example, I read this yesterday with what sure looks to be concrete benefits for the workers: https://www.propublicaguild.org/updates/propublica-guild-rat... | | |
| ▲ | amazingamazing a day ago | parent [-] | | This isn’t impressive. 13% over 4 years? In any case this can’t be evaluated without knowing what was initially offered pre union and what they initially asked for. | | |
| ▲ | acdha a day ago | parent [-] | | Can you show the research you did before declaring there is no evidence of better performance? For example, how does the ProPublica contract compare to the industry trend? |
|
| |
| ▲ | cholantesh a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Luckily, desk workers can never get tired or experience physical or psychological stress, or be subjected to unreasonable demands from leadership; these are just laws of nature. |
| |
| ▲ | matchbok3 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | hamper653 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Wikimedia Foundation is asking for an election to ensure everyone actually wants this. Why? Does recognition entail that every worker is compelled to join the union? | | |
| ▲ | jacobgkau a day ago | parent [-] | | My dad worked for the United States Postal Service for decades. He never joined the union, but he was still legally required to pay union dues, and the union was still legally required to represent him. So at least in some cases, yes, starting a union does affect all employees and practically requires them to "join" even if there's an option to not join on paper. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't it be better to join so that you can have a vote in the union operations, including to disband it? |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelvinjps10 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is not what happened?
WWU announced on 28 July that they would file for a union election with the National Labor Relations Board. The announcement also accused the Wikimedia Foundation of being disingenuous in their public communications: Also on the communication by wales he says he wasn’t happy with the election because people knew who voted for, but he didn’t deny there was some kinda of election? | |
| ▲ | nekusar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This is incorrect. Voluntary recognition, which is what this article is about, means that an election is not done. Wikimedia Foundation is asking for an election to ensure everyone actually wants this. Misinformation. Voluntary recognition just means that there isn't a 120 hard fight against union elections to decide if there CAN BE a union. Dark Horse comics just voluntarily acknowledged their union. After that is union elections, to decide who the union elected is. | | |
| ▲ | matchbok3 a day ago | parent [-] | | Handwavy. Voluntary recognition is just that, voluntary. Opposing is not inherently evil so I'm not sure what this whole thing is even about. | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF a day ago | parent [-] | | > I'm not sure what this whole thing is even about The choice to voluntarily recognize the union would remove an obstacle for its creation. Deciding not to, in that context, can be seen as choosing to leave the obstacle in place. That, in turn, can be seen as intended to prevent the union from forming. The union is primarily a means of increasing bargaining power for its members. Therefore, this decision by WMF can be seen as intentionally weakening their employees' bargaining power. |
|
|
|
|
