Hacker News Reader

Comment by changoplatanero | Hacker News Reader

What's the argument for how unions benefit both parties? What do unions do to benefit the employer?

The employer benefits the employer. The union benefits the employee, thus providing a balance in the power between employer and employee.

This is the theory. In America, the union benefits the union first, the employee second, and the employer a very distant third if at all.

This isn't true as a blanket statement in the US. There certainly have been, and probably still are, bad union organizations (just like anything else), but that's an indictment if those particular organizations, not unions in general. There are also good ones.

Sorry. That's just anti-union FUD. Unions are quite cognizant that they don't exist without an employer, employees, and providing value to each.

That’s a pretty broad brush you’re using. My experience is mostly with the IBEW and so won’t be applicable in all cases. But, the employer gets a flexible, locally licensed work force. They can hire as many people as they need off the union book (no need for lengthy recruitment, skill assessment, and compensation negotiation) on demand and they can lay off electricians as a job winds down. Each local contract will be different, but I think it’s common for benefits to be handled by the union as well. Moreover, the union runs its apprenticeship program so they handle a growing and evolving workforce.

It's my impression that the skilled trades unions (electricians, ironworkers, steamfitters, etc.) are different from e.g. the UAW. UAW is not running an apprenticeship program for autoworkers. UAW members are not employed as needed on demand by the auto manufacturers. Unions like the UAW exist almost completely as a collective bargaining organization for employment contracts with big automakers.

Is this incorrect?

Unfortunately, I don’t have any insight into the UAW. I hope they add value in some way. Unions should adapt to the needs of the sector they’re in so I do expect it’s fairly different from the trades. There’s skilled labor still involved at some level.

My point was just to highlight that unions can and, in some cases are, beneficial to the employer even in the US. That’s not to say all unions are great. These discussions tend to lack nuance.

How does the employer avoid having to do skill assessment? Do they trust the union?

They trust the certification body. Either you demonstrably know the electrical code or you don’t. And the union requires its members to have their licenses (save for apprentices — but they can wash out).

Imagine how much time we could all save if an impartial body certified developers can do breadth first search or reverse strings. No need for all of those phone screen and first round interview questions.

I suppose that works for cookie-cutters where the union treats people as directly interchangeable. Maybe that applies to the majority of union jobs?

I imagine that wouldn't extrapolate to careers where there's a component of soft skill, or hiring for potential?

I haven’t been involved with hiring with other industries, so I can’t really say. Given the way I’ve seen story points get distributed or people moved around after layoffs or a reorg at tech companies, I suspect many industries treat their employees as interchangeable, cookie-cutter or otherwise. For many skilled industries beyond software development we also rely on certification: Professional Engineers, medical doctors, pilots, etc.

They had to sell of Volvo to Ford and then it got resold to China, so maybe there are cracks in the benefits.

What does that have to do with unions in Sweden?

Unions -> higher costs -> challenging finances for company -> financial trouble -> sale of company.

Volvo Cars was sold to Ford in 1999 when Volvo AB decided to focus on commercial vehicles, there's no financial trouble except the one that Ford went through during the 2008 crisis...

> When the global economic crisis of 2008 threatened the US automakers, Swedish authorities became concerned about the fate of Volvo, should Ford file for bankruptcy. These concerns mounted after repeated mass-layoffs at Volvo. In December 2008, Ford announced that it was considering selling Volvo Cars. Initially, a sale price of US$6 billion was reported.

Your conjecture has no basis in reality, it was not due to unions creating higher costs, it was the mess the USA created for the world in 2008 that prompted the sale of Volvo from Ford to Geely.

I think you're referring to a quote from a union leader. The general thought is that a well-paid, satisfied workforce is better for the company. We're not talking maximizing profits/IPO in the short term.

You are being downvoted but I see you are merely quoting the article and the individual who stated that Swedish unions benefitted both employees and employers. My guess is those downvoting and commenting did not in fact read that paragraph.

Would would they need to benefit the employer? If capital can pool its resources, why not labor?

Before unions, people would drag a bad enough employer into the street and beat them to death.

Provide labor.

Generally there have been quite few major labor conflicts in Sweden because when you have signed a collective bargaining agreement the unions can only strike to enforce it.

Also turns out that an organized instead of vulnerable and exploited workforce is quite productive

The unions protect the owners from the executives to some degree.

In the long term, unions (and pro-society policies in general) benefit the employer by ensuring a cybernetically stable supply of labor.

Most employers obviously aren't thinking that far ahead, though. They would rather cut corners (import cheap labor), and then be surprised when there are systemic failures in their labor supply.

We're gradually seeing that hit in America as the global USD goes under, the well-endowed Boomers retire, and USA is a less appealing immigration destination.

I've not heard that claim before today (though it is in the article), but I guess one benefit to the company is that the general population can more easily afford the products the company makes.

Why do they have to benefit the employer?

If they bankrupt the employer then they would be out of a job. Or the union contract gets renegotiated.

I'm actually curious about how the union would benefit these mechanics. How is their current treatment by Tesla deemed inadequate?

The workers want it. Their laws say they have a right to it.

There's no arguing past that.

Let me ask you a question: why do you deserve any respect ? I'm just curious.

I'm not seriously asking, just showing you how your question is bullshit.

I wasn't asking in an anti-union stance. I'm actually curious.

Of course I understand the general purpose of a labor union. But I also understand that there are many situations where a union is unnecessary and actually detrimental to the labor force.

For example, if I pay all my employees the same wage I make and pay for the same insurance and retirement plan I have, would it be beneficial to my employees to join a union? Sure, this hypothetical is extreme, but it's just to examine the idea.

Is a union a good thing if there are no abuses from which labor needs to be protected? So why do these employees want a union? What are the benefits if there are no abuses? If there are abuses, what are they?

I'd really like to know the specifics. I'm not arguing that there could be no benefit. I'm asking what the benefits are in this specific case. I expect that there are some but I don't want to assume what they are.

I hope that you will understand that my question was not as belligerent as yours seems to me.

> For example, if I pay all my employees the same wage I make and pay for the same insurance and retirement plan I have, would it be beneficial to my employees to join a union?

Two questions:

How would you know that everyone has the same ? Only the boss knows without a union.

Also, if everyone has the same retirement and insurance plan but they are not good plans or the pay isn't good, are they not getting ripped off ?

> Also, if everyone has the same retirement and insurance plan but they are not good plans or the pay isn't good, are they not getting ripped off ?

Um. Not necessarily. If I sell you a car that has no tires and no engine, are you getting ripped off? Not necessarily. So I'd like to know the specifics of this case.

FWIW, I understand that just because my employees have the same compensation as I do, it may still be unfair. If I have no job responsibilities and they have to perform death-defying tasks, they might benefit from a union.

Then again, they might benefit even more from quitting and finding a different job.

You could equally flip your questions: If you only do things that your employees like, then why would you care if they have a union or not? In that case, the only thing a union would do is ensure that this state persists, which definitely is beneficial to employees.

Even a company that's great to work for today is just one leveraged buyout or restructuring away from worker's hell.

In Sweden most of what you would consider basic labor law/protection is left up to negotiated contracts. Almost all sectors all unionized.

How unfortunate. Perhaps they should strike until they get better law-makers.

Sadly, HN isn't a place to ask questions about second-order effects in politics anymore. Unions are basically legal cartels / mafias, and people will honestly think there are no effects on labour markets, prices or employment and everything is pure upside, wealth generated out of thin air.

I mean, if unions are cartels, then so are corporate boards.

Unions span across corporations within business sectors whereas corporate boards do not.

What about Blackrock? Their representatives sit on many boards in a single industry. Same with large VCs. It's not as structured as unions, but each board is not a completely independent entity either.

> What about Blackrock?

This is actually a good point, and is detrimental for similar reasons: concentration of power, reduction of competition and increased fragility of the whole system ("too big to fail").

Actually, BlackRock is incentivized to have the whole system be healthy.

Business associations do however.

Yes, board members are strictly segmented by business sector, by law. I mean, god forbid we could have someone on the board on an aerospace company, a car manufacturer, and an internet behemoth! /s

Well, i have something you might want to hear about. It's called investment funds and weirdly competition between companies started to fall as investment fund rose up. They also are present at a lot of different director board or committees.

I've never felt pressured to join a corporate board against my will.

Have you ever felt pressured to do work for a corporation when you'd prefer not to? (E.g. take a job for the health care/other life needs).

> everything is pure upside, wealth generated out of thin air.

Isn't this also how companies perceive job cuts and wage reduction? Forget about Henry Ford's idea of having a population that can actually afford to buy your products, just keep cutting labor costs.

Edit: Or stock buybacks. Just as long as "the line goes up" for now doesn't matter if you run the whole ship into the ground in the future.

Unions are legal and social constructs the same way as, for example, limited liability corporations are.

The impact of organized labor has been analysed a lot - have a look at the literature, it isn't trivial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com