Hacker News Reader

Comment by weeksie | Hacker News Reader

It's simple: workers have less bargaining power than they used to have so they can't demand a share of the profits the way that those at the top can. I'm not a fan of unions because they have the same power-structure problems that any large organizations have, but the rise in pay inequality clearly coincides with the decline of unions.

No idea what the answer is. Whether it's some version of ensuring a worker advocate is on the board of a corporation or that some kind of coop ownership scheme gives employees voting rights, hell I have no idea, but pay inequality won't change on its own.

Workers that have done well are those who can either draw a direct line between their contribution and profits (sales) or are scarce enough to demand high compensation (tech workers). Most everybody else is shit out of luck from a negotiation perspective, at least without some form of collective action.

View on HN

Unions have to make a comeback. Look at German unions. They are organized over a whole industry, not just companies, have a seat on the board of directors. I think this system works really well.

Why would they though? This doesn't magically happen and unions didn't magically disappear. There are strong disincentives towards forming unions (i.e. the ability to offshore labor) and as long as those exist, nothing will change.

Yeah, but that's in Germany. They evolved that system over a long period of time, just like we've evolved our current (dysfunctional) system over a long period of time. You can't just change; that's like telling a devout religious person to just stop believing in that religion and adopt a secular worldview. Sure, the German system may work very well according to actual measurable metrics as seen by multiple independent observers, but extremely religious people don't care about evidence and won't change their beliefs because of it. That's where we are as a society.

I'm not confident that Unions would work for huge issue that is coming up - Mass Mechanization. There will be very few jobs Robotics will not be able to replace in a decade or so. This will easily facilitate few people owning large chunks of means of production. I don't see any serious solutions to this issue on the horizon.

One answer is to accept that unions, like other human organizations, will always have power-structure problems but that on balance, we do better when workers have actual bargaining power.

Most of the problems with unions could be mitigated by enforced transparency - same as with corporations and governments.

on balance, we do better when workers have actual bargaining power.

I don't know, look at some of the cities around the country going bankrupt as the bill comes due for union-imposed obligations. I'm not against collective bargaining, but it seems like unions as they were known fifty years ago were destined to eventually collapse and/or make their communities eventually collapse.

Now, collective bargaining could just be a cyclical thing- power to the bosses, power to the workers, power back to the bosses. We could be approaching the swing back in the other direction.

That can just as easily be explained by government officials not doing their duty, and not funding the obligations they promised. During the boom times, they assumed growth would always be huge, so they diverted money meant to go to these funds to cover other shortfalls in budget.

If party A makes unreasonable demands and party B accepts, responsibility does not lie solely with party B.

This doesn't tell the whole story. In states like Illinois, the pension assumptions were unrealistic to begin with. From what I've read, they assumed 7% annual growth and included 3% annual increases to account for inflation. Even if government officials had property invested the funds, we still would've ended up with a massive shortfall compounded over several decades.

Unions are incentivized to bargain for as much compensation as possible and politicians are incentivized to give it to them if union workers make up a significant chunk of votes. Politicians don't have to be concerned with whether or not those obligations are realistic because they'll be out of office by the time the whole thing falls apart.

"Unions are incentivized to bargain for as much compensation as possible"

Yes, they are. And companies are incentivized to bargain for as much profit and as little employee compensation as possible, yet people here seem to consider that a moral imperative. I cannot, and will not begrudge unions for trying to get the best deal for their members while that is the case.

The problem isn't so much that unions are incentivized to bargain for as much as possible. Every one who participates in the economy is trying to get the best deal for themselves. The problem is that politicians aren't restrained by cost. If a union demands that hole diggers be paid $100 an hour instead of $10 an hour, a politician will gladly give it to them even if it will bankrupt the state.

Edit: I think I should note that I'm specifically referring to unionized government workers.

That's entirely wrong; those politicians are still accountable to the voters.

>companies are incentivized to bargain for as much profit and as little employee compensation as possible

Not necessarily, especially when employees are in high demand. Netflix has done quite well by paying employees well above average in order to effectively have their pick of the talent.

Paying employees poorly can increase training costs, recruiting costs, cause negative customer perception, etc.

Well, with most unions, I as a worker have the ability to affect union leadership and policy. I have very little or zero ability to affect management policy.

The answer is open shop unionization. The US is closed shop, which means you can only have one choice of union, take it or leave it.

With open shops, the unions have to compete for your membership so they actually have to do stuff in your interest, or you can make your own union to replace them.

With closed shop, you get stuff like the UAW pushing for pay caps on graduate students (really).

In the US, "closed shop" means the company can only hire union members, which is illegal. "Open shop" means the union has to represent non-members but they don't have to pay for it. It sounds like you're talking about members-only unions.

"No idea what the answer is."

Unions?

Unions seem like a good answer to increasing consolidation of businesses. Even in tech there has been wage/benefit reducing collusion/monopoly behavior.

Why are people so anti-union? Would opt-in collective bargaining work better?

>Why are people so anti-union?

Because big corporations hate unions, and big corporations run the US media and own most US politicians.

In the beginning unions were heroes & did great things. In the end they were doing fewer great things and more negative things.

Many people alive today were not around to remember the beginning stage, they only read about it in history books, while they lived the end stage. It could be that simple.

I think now that unions are disappearing and people in jobs that used to be unionized see their wages and benefits decrease, those people are slowly realizing unions are still doing heroic and great things for their members.

Too many people just assumed workers financial situations would continue to improve without unions, which is not really turning out to be true.

Unions are good at providing collective benefits but not so good at individual ones. If you want a retirement package - something that everyone gets without regard to performance. Or vacation days. Unions are the way to go. If you want a raise... this is an unpolitic opinion but unions are not so good at that. They will try to give everyone a raise. This leaves almost everyone unhappy because almost everyone feels they're doing a good job and then slacker they work with is a layabout who should be happy they're not getting fired. And everyone intuitively understands that there's a limited pot of money for salaries - it's a zero sum game. In truth retirement benefits aren't really much different but they aren't viewed that way. Same with vacation.

Not one of the posters in this thread, but I can offer my perspective. I am not anti-union per se, if people want to bargain collectively - let them! The one and only aspect I do not like about the unions is that if I - as an individual - want to work for a unionized corporation, I am obligated to join the union. I understand why it is done this way, but this is something that I find as limiting my freedom.

Disclaimer: apart from my student and TA years, I have never been in unionized industry/hired by a corporation for a unionized position, so I may not know the full reality.

> but this is something that I find as limiting my freedom.

What freedom do you see as being limited?

"Opt-in collective bargaining" sounds suspiciously like "right to work" laws. I don't think you meant it like that, but it sounds like that.

In case someone isn't aware, a union shop, has a union that negotiates a contract with management. It sets wages, benefits, safety, all sorts of stuff. Most importantly, it negotiates for all workers at the shop. The reason why it negotiates for all workers (or more precisely all workers that qualify for union (e.g. all pilots, all janitors, all machinists, etc.) is that 1) it increases bargaining power, and 2) it simplifies things for the company. As a result, in a union shop, if you work there in a capacity that is union eligible, you're compelled to pay dues to union for the purposes of contract negotiating. (Dues for other purposes are not compelled.) Everyone benefits from the contract. Everyone pays to negotiate said contract.

"Right to work" laws say that you can't be compelled to pay dues to negotiate contracts, and yet you still benefit from the contracts. It's a legal carve out for free riders, with the purpose to starve unions of money and thus negotiating power. This isn't a side effect of this policy, it's its purpose. That's why you find pro-management groups and politicians advocating for these laws, while denigrating unions.

Decades of propaganda telling them that unions are responsible for all the ills of labor right now, instead of having the company own up to their own misgivings.

> Even in tech there has been wage/benefit reducing collusion/monopoly behavior. > Why are people so anti-union?

You realize that unions are cartels/monopolies on labor, right? You already recognize that monopolies distort markets, promote corruption and rent-seeking, and produce bad outcomes for society. Why would it be any different with unions?

> unions are cartels/monopolies on labor

They're no different than businesses that sell commodities other than labor.

By that logic every company is already a monopoly in its own labor and a union is just a second monopoly with equivalent bargaining power as a counter balance.

==Whether it's some version of ensuring a worker advocate is on the board of a corporation or that some kind of coop ownership scheme gives employees voting rights, hell I have no idea, but pay inequality won't change on its own.==

Senator Elizabeth Warren is proposing a bill [1] that hits pretty close to these points. It's a unique way to tackle inequality without mandating wage hikes or raising taxes.

[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-acco...

Hahaha wow, that's awesome. Thanks for the pointer, I'll have to read more deeply before forming an opinion but I love the sentiment.

> the rise in pay inequality clearly coincides with the decline of unions.

You have it completely backwards. The rise in inequality coincides with the rise of unions, because unions favor cash profit sharing over equity.

> The rise in inequality coincides with the rise of unions

Gonna need a citation on that one.

Joseph Blasi talks about this in his book The Citizen's Share: Putting Ownership Back Into Democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com