Hacker News Reader

Comment by autoexec | Hacker News Reader

Unions are made up of workers so they automatically have skin in the game. If the workers can't work, the union dies. Workers (and therefore unions) are very much interested in companies being successful. Stable employment is a nice thing for a worker to have.

View on HN

Does unionization really make companies more successful? If unions have such high interest in the company stability and success I presume the evidence shows union shop companies have more success and longevity after unionizing vs like ones that dont?

And my biggest fear as a worker is not longevity but my marketability to gain new jobs. If unions make it easier for me to get hired and promoted without consideration of tenure of other union members I'd probably be interested in joining

I'd argue that workers who don't feel exploited are more productive and that more productive employees can have a positive impact on a company. I'd bet that employees who are treated well tend to stick around longer too and that also can have a positive impact a company.

I think research might be a little difficult since there are a lot of things that can impact a company's longevity and success (however that's being defined) that have nothing to do with employees (unionized or otherwise), but I imagine a good study might be able to account for that to some extent.

NBER research suggests unions correlate with lower relative employment for certain more vulnerable populations such as young and old.

There's also the risk the union basically exploits the young and old by driving their wage from shitty to zero (by setting them too high to bear for anything but the most able bodied middle age). This pretty much mimics my experience younger working construction; union gigs set my wage at '0' by making me the outgroup. Being exploited by middle age union workers is bad for longevity imo.

I can understand that if the pay is high enough companies will want the most skilled/effective workers, but you'd hope for some kind of apprentice program to get younger workers trained up. I think older workers will always suffer in industries like construction or physically demanding work through.

Yeah. For the record I'm not against unions. It's just as a worker it's always been way too exploitive / exclusionary to be practical. I don't doubt it's great if you're a chosen apprentice due to connections with the union boss or whatever, or one of the guys that can use their card to shut out more vulnerable workers from the job.

> Does unionization really make companies more successful?

In the US auto industry (which is the relevant industry for the article under discussion), it hasn't. Companies like Toyota that employ non-union workers in the US are doing at least as well as (and have arguably done better than over time) the Big Three.

I think the answer to your first question depends on the definition of success. The metrics for financial performance and better pay and conditions for workers are hard to compare, and the people that benefit (shareholders/investors vs employees) are different.

> Workers (and therefore unions) are very much interested in companies being successful.

For some definition of "successful", yes. But their definition won't necessarily be the same as the definition used by the company's owners or management.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com