Hacker News Reader

Comment by csomar | Hacker News Reader

See here

> tilt the uneven power dynamic between employer and employee towards the employee

With here

> unions seem to often go overboard with impractical demands and are more political than in Europe

Gives you Union Employee who grab the power from the actual owners of the company. The relation is now even worse: The Union leader have both power, and no skin in the game. At least the employers cared about the longevity of the company.

Unions don't solve the power dynamics. They just tilt it to a new side. Worse: They encourage the idea that force (strikes) can yield power/money; which is why countries with Unions degenerate.

Of course, someone here is going to get angry because of the "poor" employees and their work conditions.

View on HN

Interesting. Didn't think about it this way.

Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe? Unions seems negotiate reasonable contracts, raises, and safety measures there.

And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members.

In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad.

> Why is it (typically) not a problem is Europe?

Unions are bad in France. There is a strike every other day + they are far from being fair rather than being greedy. So Europe is not an exception here. Here is a recent strike in Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-security-workers-go-on-strike-...

Unions can be good if you have two rational parties negotiating reasonably. A greedy employer, and an unreasonable/powerful union and you suddenly unleash hell.

> And why is a union leader who abuses the power not removed from that position? It's not benefiting the union members.

He is benefiting the members in the short-term. And many of your employees can't see past that or read an accounting statement.

> In the end, looking at this in black or white (including your statement) is part of the problem. Unions are neither universally good, nor are they universally bad.

I'm not looking at it in either color. What I am saying is that Unions do not solve the power dynamic problem; and thus can't be the answer for either employees or employers.

The way you are presenting this it is as if we only have two options:

a) we give all the power to the union leadership: and suffer strikes every other day because an unreasonable and very powerful union leadership orders it, or

b) we give all the power to our bosses: and suffer poor working conditions, bad pay, hard working hours, loose our paid leaves, etc.

Frankly if these were the two choices I would pick option (a). Seeing how things turned up for America after they abandoned their unions, a strike every other day doesn’t seem too bad.

However this dichotomy is false, there are more options. A union doesn’t need to be unreasonable and powerful. A good union leadership will extend the solidarity to all workers (not just their members), and my experience with a striking workforce (the European country where I’m from also has a strike “every other day”) is that the leadership usually considers the wider implications. For example: striking kindergarden teachers are perfectly aware that they are needed for for other workers, which is why they usually try as they can to minimize the impact of the strike for non-member working parents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com