‘Old-school union busting’: how US corps are quashing the new wave of organizing | Hacker News Reader

‘Old-school union busting’: how US corps are quashing the new wave of organizing

theguardian.com

46 pointsrntn24 comments

We've seen various workplaces unionise (Some Starbucks stores, Amazon in some warehouses etc). What have they achieved so far? I ask because the core things that would attract me to a union (higher pay, perks, better conditions etc) and the kind of things the unions were selling themselves on (more diverse workforces, ethical statements by corporations) had very little overlap...

To be clear: I think people have a right to unionise and to push for what they want. I am just interested in what they want and how effective the process is at getting it...

Edit: It seems like there has been no actual progress yet:

> Workers won breakthrough union victories at Starbucks in December 2021, and the next year saw several other organizing victories. REI workers had a successful union vote in March 2022, Amazon in April, Apple in June, Trader Joe’s in July and Chipotle in August, but none of those companies have reached a first contract.

This is sort of what I thought would happen: people thought a union meant they'd get what they wanted. But unions can only get you what they have the power to force employers to give up. And when you only unionise one store that is basically nothing...

> people thought a union meant they'd get what they wanted. But unions can only get you what they have the power to force employers to give up. And when you only unionise one store that is basically nothing...

You should write news copy for stories on HN startups. "They thought they would have big success, but they only acquired one customer so far, which is basically nothing".

I had not thought of it like this before, but I think it's more like a start up that has signed up dozens of customers but now has to build the product. Demand is easy in this market, but can anyone actually supply the product in question?

Where are you seeing unions selling themselves on more diverse workforces and ethical corporate statements?

The unions that are trying to bring tech workers together are pointing to examples like France and Germany where, for example, the recent Google layoffs were essentially blocked entirely. This level of collective bargaining is the selling point.

Google's an instructive example, because they have a small union in the US, and their mission statement (https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statemen...) focuses exclusively on corporate ethics and diversity. It wouldn't be fair to say they don't care about wages or layoffs, but they seem to be clear side topics.

You read that whole mission statement and your takeaway was their focus was diversity? I think this says more about your biases than about the aims of the Alphabet Workers Union.

nowhere in that thing do I see any mention of things like work life balance, it's just a bunch of claptrap about "infrastructures of oppression". Whatever that's supposed to mean

no wonder it's a small union. No economic incentives? No thanks

I am just interested in what they want and how effective the process is at getting it

You can compare Europe to the USA to see that

USA Union membership vs Europe

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/03/30/how-us...

USA Employee conditions vs Europe

https://4liberty.eu/everyday-reality-of-employees-in-us-vs-e...

> USA Union membership vs Europe

This article is obviously talking with a US version of unions in mind. I'm going to give the French perspective because that's where I work, but I know something similar (and even better) exists in Germany.

Alongside traditional unions, which exist and are prevalent in traditional industries (e.g. railway workers are very unionised and often demonstrate/strike), there's also the so-called CSE(comité social et économique), a mini-union. It's mandatory for companies with more than 20 employees, and with more than 50 there's also a mandatory budget, time dedicated from employees, etc. There are elections to elect employee representatives, and they cannot be managers. They have a representative role before the 50 employee threshold, afterwards with the (mandatory) budget and time they also usually add other stuff like partnerships/perks/"fun" projects. The representative role is up to them (e.g. they can propose to management that X or Y be implemented, like profit sharing), but also within a legal framework (e.g. if the company wants to do layoffs, they have to consult the CSE on the layoff plan. If an employee is being pushed out/fired, the CSE can help (they can't block a firing, but they can provide guidance on rights, ensure things are done according to the law, etc.).

In Germany they take this a step further and at bigger companies (unsure of the exact threshold) employee representatives have board seats.

Thanks, so that explains why French 'Union' membership was so low in this graph: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/03/30/how-us... ... its because they have something else instead

Your articles do a good job of presenting all of the ways in which Europeans have it better than Americans. The counterpoint is pretty strong, though: average US household disposable income is ~67% higher than the OECD average.

[0]https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/....

> average US household disposable income is ~67% higher than the OECD average.

It's unclear (but doesn't sound like it) if that number is adjusted for Cost of Living. In the US education, healthcare and transportation are significantly more expensive than in most OECD countries. For instance, it's pretty much unheard of across the OECD for education to cost tens to hundreds of thousands of USD and workers to start their work life with massive debts. Healthcare-related bankruptcies are also extremely rare outside of the US.

And the work-life balance rating of 5.2/10 is pretty damning. What good is that extra money (if it's actually extra money and not going to savings to be able to afford the next surprise medical bill) if you have no holidays and have to work 80 hour weeks so it's actually impossible to spend it?

> It's unclear (but doesn't sound like it) if that number is adjusted for Cost of Living.

It is adjusted--per another OECD page, "This indicator is in US dollars per capita at current prices and PPPs".[0]

> In the US education, healthcare and transportation are significantly more expensive than in most OECD countries. For instance, it's pretty much unheard of across the OECD for education to cost tens to hundreds of thousands of USD and workers to start their work life with massive debts. Healthcare-related bankruptcies are also extremely rare outside of the US.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average US household spends ~5K per year on healthcare. The median student loan debt is ~30K (so ~5K per year for 10 years), but only ~20% of Americans hold this debt. I'm not sure where you got the info about transportation cost differences, but I doubt it makes up the difference.

> Healthcare-related bankruptcies are also extremely rare outside of the US.

That's true! But then, only a small number of households experience this. Meanwhile, the average European has a huge amount of household debt--far more than the average American![1]

> And the work-life balance rating of 5.2/10 is pretty damning. What good is that extra money (if it's actually extra money and not going to savings to be able to afford the next surprise medical bill) if you have no holidays and have to work 80 hour weeks so it's actually impossible to spend it?

I'm sure it's convenient to pretend that working 80 hour weeks is normal in America, but it's... not. Also, unpaid vacation exists. Take it if you want it. It's nice to have options, huh?

[0]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm [1]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm#indicator-chart

This is perfect example of how statistics can mislead. For one, the average in the US is far from the median income. But more importantly, these metrics ignore many other factors in standard of living, such as days off per year or the amount of income that you need to put into basic human costs like housing and healthcare.

> I am just interested in what they want and how effective the process is at getting it...

What they want and what union leadership wants may not be the same.

There was momentum in tech about 5 years go to unionise; it mostly got squashed and only some front-line workers (retail, contractors, manual testers) made some minor strides towards collective bargaining. But in that same time, the Big Tech companies spent tons buying competitors, doing stock buybacks, and also doing overt union busting. All of these result in wage suppression and any NLRB fines will be minuscule in comparison.

I think the "old school" included a lot more violence.

Use of the Pinkerton agency for union busting was brought back curtsey of Amazon.

Is there a chartered reason why the NLRB does not actively offer a nationwide platform to private sector employees where they can seek and coordinate unionization?

Does the gov actually want more unions?

This journalist should disclose that he himself is unionized, and that protects him from competition from other workers for his job.

I wish tech workers would unionize solely for fun it would be when they go on strike and turn the servers off.

And if they did, I'd like to see them set business hours for online services: Amazon.com open from 8AM to 7PM local time. Some exceptions like emergency services that are operated by union and rewarded with overtime or triple pay for afterhours.

Also everything must be done manually. No automation allowed, lest it take union jobs away.

Threat to designate clear sunny days, ie no cloud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com