This seems to be an advertorial for a union; it is based on a report by UNI Global Union, and also authored by someone from there.
For one it is about workers having some say in their lives outside of voting with their feet. Collective bargaining is one proven way to achieve that.
The other is about the dehumanization of work environments with the help of "AI" AKA software. Similarly there are companies that force you to install spyware on your working device.
If it’s their device, what’s wrong with that? Use your own device when you want privacy.
Also, it is not strictly "their" device in every case. There are firms that require freelancers/contractors to do the same on their device.
This kind of behavior is a huge red flag, but too many juniors otherwise naive or desperate workers tolerate it.
Do you use it in your house? Does it then record everything it can see and hear within your house?
Of course when companies do it - through trade associations or lobbying - it's seen as natural and necessary for their survival.
On any union site - there are terms like "solidarity" with images of fists raised rather than actual data about improvement of wages or working conditions.
This is why unions get trounced in votes by real workers, things like Prop 22 pass with easy margins, etc.
I think it also has to do with the massive discrepancy in resources pro and anti-union advocates are able to put towards those races. Uber and Lyft invested massively in defeating prop 22, even advertising in their app directly.
1) I do not believe they are in equal footing generally and never stated that - I was pointing out the nuances with respect to Prop 22. Gig cos. didn't win just because they had more money - they won because AB5 is a despised policy.
2) Unions != Labor. Workers == Labor. This is the key point I'm trying to make.
This would seem to imply equal footing, wouldn't it?
> Unions != Labor. Workers == Labor. This is the key point I'm trying to make.
So I'm not sure how this is relevant to the prop 22 discussion - did the legislation have anything to do with unionization? As far as I know it was only about extending existing labor protections to gig workers.
And there's a distinction there, to be sure, albeit a pedantic one. Outside of organized labour, how exactly do these "workers" exert any power in the work place or politics?
Prop 22 is strongly linked with AB5 - the entire push was by union leaders and the leaders of both AB5 and No on 22 (e.g. Lorena Gonzalez) regularly tweet things like "#AB5IntoAUnion."
I actually think there is no currently effective system. I believe in collective bargaining, but I just think that unions as a tool have become increasingly concerned with political representation and political power rather than worker representation. Using AB5 as a case study, there are virtually n=0 freelancers in California (incl. myself) that are happy with the law. It's a universally despised policy by workers and businesses alike, loved by unions...
What does this mean and why aren't you being specific about what you're saying was dirty fighting? You're omitting your argument and just leaving the FUD.
I find it sad.
Every job I didn't despise secretly had union affiliation.
Uber did buy prop 22. They used simple psychological ployes to pass their prop. (Yes--I know prop 22 was just about Independant Contrators. They will use similar tactics if we ever see an uptick in unions.)
More start-ups/companys will use it in the future.
Uber knew they could get desperate guys to go out and buy a late model 4 door car, pay all expenses, and be at the mercy of Uber.
America The Great is not so great anymore. An idiot became president exploiting the obvious. Yes--he went to race, but it's of his flock only went to working conditions.
We have a lot of lousy jobs.
Calling it a Side Hussle, or your ouwn boss, was just a beautiful ploy. I hope the fresh faced immoral corporate MBA stooge who brought that up in the meeting was well compensated.
I don't know very many people (Americans) who don't believe they will make it someday. They liked the little bit of autonomy Uber provided, even if that meant working for under minimum wage, after computing the car, insurance, maintance, and gas.
Driving for Uber was just going to be temporary.
The psychology is I'm an entrepreneur, and this Uber gig is just a stepping stone until I get a better gig. (Rap music playing in the backround)
The truth is most will never get a better gig, or worse--might go bankrupt, be fired over email, or just become Judgement proof after they ruin their credit.
Uber played into this mind puck beautifully.
They actually got those desperate guys fearful they would not be successful if they were just employees.
This is probably the purest, and most direct example of the insane propaganda trying to separate economics and politics as if they weren’t inherently and inseparably tied together.
“Oh, I’m so sorry that we can’t spend money on health care, or pay a living wage, or provide elder care, unfortunately, due to ECONOMICS.
Ah, you need some corporate pork, and a bailout..? Of course! Let’s shower private enterprise with tax payer money, it’s the best course of action due to ECONOMICS”
None of this shit is apolitical, and the suggestion that it is, is deeply political, no matter how much people try to define themselves out of reality.
The fact that you have already have been convinced that unions are the big problem, while corporations are stealing tax payer-money (while utilizing “tax avoidance” to not even contribute in the US), says it all doesn’t it?
If you want to improve conditions for workers, just say that you want to improve pay / $hr, increase break time by x min, and define xyz working conditions and have a detailed plan to support that. I've personally seen 0 unions pursue this approach... but have seen plenty advocate support for completely unrelated, purely political topics (e.g. voicing support for Palestine)
What kind of reasoning is it to look for one or a few examples of individuals screwing up and then claiming it as a property of the species? I think we found more than one criminal company or CEO, but you would not use that as an example for how useless or even bad companies and CEOs are.
I would also have preferred that OP instead of pointing to the name of the source (and nothing else!) would at least have added something about the actual content of the linked article. It seems to me to be rarely justified to argue by just pointing at the source of the argument as if that is a counter argument to the actual argument that was made (which at that point remains unexplored and unknown, implying it's not even worth looking at it - but it was still worth formulating a comment?).
Switzerland is next to Germany, and has almost no union and there is not so much difference in overall standard of living and how workers are treated.
The idea that Unions are this universal good and talking negative about them is simply being anti-worker pro-capitalist exploitation is a tiered talking point.
- business owner
- absolute free market fetishists
- one bad experience cherry pickers
Just because you don't hear of it - or don't want to hear of it - doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
* Governments are frequently corrupt and when they are they should be reformed.
* Businesses are frequently corrupt and when they are they should be reformed.
* Unions are frequently corrupt. They should therefore not exist.
Realistically corruption is a feature of all human institutions. Unions are special only insofar as they are institutions that threaten rather than defend the wealth of the American ruling classes.
You can't realistically abolish businesses. An economy of just individual tradesmen all working independently cant come close to the efficiency gains a large business has and just straight up lack the capacity for large scale projects and R&D. It's going to lead to the same outcome as your government being abolished and then businesses being reinstated.
Listed alongside the other two, the special thing about unions is they don't have this "you just straight up cant get rid of them and keep them gone" factor. So I think its completely reasonable for a person very concerned with corruption to take reform, reform, get rid of them stances respectively. Remove the institutions you can and fight corruption in the ones you cant.
You can abolish businesses too. The 2nd largest economy from 1950-1970 did precisely that, TINA propaganda notwithstanding. Chinese SOEs also serve as a model for a business that isnt really a business. It's great if you're on the central committee.
You can abolish unions as well. The results also arent exactly pleasant for the 90% of people who rely on selling their labor to survive.
But it's fucking great for that top 10% if they dont exist.
The only solution is to maintain and expand democratic decision making from within. An organization that claims to be about the people, its members, absolutely has to be run by those people directly.
And even such general things such as negotiating pay will only be good for the lower performers, anyone who is a high performer will be better off negotiating their own salary.
Workers are not dumb, do not lack agency nor are as influenceable by propaganda as one might think - this a myth perpetuated by the paternalistic left, which has actually served it terribly - and in many cases have freely chosen to ignore or root out these organizations.
People don't notice the propaganda that works on them. Indeed, many go as far as to unknowingly make it part of their identity.
People only notice the propaganda that doesn't work on them.
>paternalistic left
Realistically there is no organized left left - paternalistic or otherwise. There are two competing corporate factions, each as paternalistic as the other.
in the USA unions are pretty shit IMO. Over here in austria, they bargain for ALL workers in that field. And that bargaining sets a minimum per law, which means that no matter if you are union or not, you can still bargain yourself into a better deal.
Are you talking about unions, or companies?
It's also not voluntary when there's a law that says one cannot work in a particular profession without joining the union.