Majority of workers at Mercedes plant in Alabama sign UAW authorization cards

This is a terrible take, and unions absolutely contribute. Just look at the concessions the UAW won from the "big 3" recently.

Unless workers band together they have no bargaining power. Without bargaining power the owners horde the profits.

You pay to be a part of a union so it must have some kind of value to the customers (the workers) otherwise no one would pay and there wouldn't be high union membership.

If workers felt that a good attitude and honing their skills would get them paid more than being a part of a union they wouldn't join.

> I always saw unions as a bureaucratic/political layer that sits on top of workers, collecting money without contributing.

I think you’ve confused unions with management.

> I always saw unions as

That's possibly a function of the unions you've directly encountered, or some personal bias of your own.

> I also don't think that people should all get the same pay

See, you already have something in common with all the unions I've ever encountered.

If somebody brings something tangibly extra to a job then they deserve a better job title and pay bracket. Unions support this- higher pay for leading hands, for skill levels, for having first aid certification, etc.

> I always saw unions as a bureaucratic/political layer that sits on top of workers, collecting money without contributing.

Their contribution is bargaining. Actors in Hollywood have agents for that, but if you're a worker earning an average salary, you can't afford that. So you pool your resources together for that.

> I also don't think that people should all get the same pay or collectively bargain. Some people work harder, invest more in their skills, bring a better attitude, etc. They should get paid more.

Have you ever worked in an assembly line on a plant?

It's not just about pay. Collective action is the source of basic things you almost certainly take for granted, like 40-hour work weeks, workplaces with exits that aren't locked shut, and being able to protest at all without literally being gunned down by the Pinkertons.

Do you also believe that monopolies are great, by any chance?

> I always saw [____] as a bureaucratic/political layer that sits on top of workers, collecting money without contributing.

Also, middle management.

I see unions as providing a necessary counterbalance to employers, who tend to have vastly more power than employees.

The fairest deals are struck between two parties with equal power.

The ruling class colludes and bargains any and every way they please. Among l other things, it's hypocritical to suggest that labors shouldn't be allowed to do the same.

> I also don't think that people should all get the same pay or collectively bargain. Some people work harder, invest more in their skills, bring a better attitude, etc. They should get paid more.

It would be nice if fair pay magically happened. But the reality is that most employers will pay you as little as they can get away with, regardless of how hard you work, how much you invested in your skills, or how good your attitude.

Most people are much smaller than the company they work for, are not expert negotiators, and don't have agents working on their behalf. They're overwhelmingly likely to get paid closer to what they deserve with a union than without one. Yes, sometimes there will be free riders (and that's part of why e.g. legal closed shop rules are important), but that applies to virtually everything you can do to try and improve your life.

The point of a union is to represent its members. Not all unions are good, but good unions should and do advocate for better working conditions and compensation for their members.

It’s fine to not agree with this but it’s also important to recognize that, in many industries, employees have no leverage to individually bargain for more pay. Corporate policy or a monopoly on a job market means a business won’t have financial incentive to pay any more than the minimum they can to maintain enough of a workforce to remain profitable.

Add to that a general desire for public companies to prioritize short term stock gains over long term growth and we end up with a common operating state that can be pretty harsh for the average participant of the US economy.

Generally, if a manufacturing job is the only available job in town, you take it, move (if you can afford to), or go hungry.

> I always saw unions as a bureaucratic/political layer that sits on top of workers, collecting money without contributing.

I can see how, especially in the USA, this might be what you hear. Are you open to some simple facts on the ground illustrating how this isn't really accurate?

In terms of contributions, the results are real and measurable: https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/ on average 20% increase in wages and 28% increase in total compensation. Typically wages increase across the board, however lower-wage workers see higher percentage increases. That doesn't equate to higher-wage workers getting lower wages in unionized industries, though. There's a concept called "the union wage premium" that holds time and time again, wherein union jobs, no matter the skill level, on average pay 10% more.

Union workers also usually have better pension plans and more vacation time.

> I also don't think that people should all get the same pay or collectively bargain. Some people work harder, invest more in their skills, bring a better attitude, etc. They should get paid more.

Unions aren't communist dictatorships, depending on the union and industry there'll still be pay tiers based on seniority and skill. And, on average, you will simply see higher pay, no matter your skill level. If you truly believe that you're the 1% of stellar worker and are compensated as such, and might make less under the union, first I'd point out that that doesn't really happen, and second I'd point out, there's always a better worker. Seems to me better to err on collective bargaining and seeing your coworkers as allies rather than your bosses, considering incentives.

Not to mention wages aren't the only thing on the table: benefits like time off, health care, whether the company can lay a bunch of people off, etc, are all protections you simply can't bargain for on your own no matter what kind of 100x engineer you are. See: all the stellar engineers that Google laid off (after they axed the contractors, they came top down from their priciest engineers it seems!).

I would challenge you: from whom are you typically hearing anti-union propaganda? In my experience it's from people and entire industries that are clearly and objectively financially motivated to be opposed to unions.

Important to note that there is little differentiation of labor productivity in mechanized labor environments. I can't operate a machine faster than the guy next to me. We can only both competently operate the machine. Enabling safe operation of machinery is critical to workers and may have downward pressure without pushback from employees. An organization of employees is necessary to pushback against the scale of a corporation. Employees form a union protecting standards of pay and safe labor practices for all operators of machines.

For the above, imaging those machine operators are airline pilots.

> I always saw unions as a bureaucratic/political layer that sits on top of workers, collecting money without contributing.

You're thinking of management.

>Some people work harder, invest more in their skills, bring a better attitude, etc. They should get paid more.

And how often in the past 20 years have you seen that backfire and end up with the best employees

1. being stalled for a promotion because they are "too important to promote". Or worse, promoted for no extra pay but extra responsibilities

2. fail to negotiate a small raise and then move to a new company for a big raise... only for the company to hire someone for more than that employee asked for.

3. get kicked out anyway because they were "overpaid", only to have the company fold without their knowledge that kept a million dollar service afloat

4. get passed up for another employee due to nepotism, office poliics, or a variety of other scandals waiting to happen

5. stand up for themselves and their team against legally dubious plans, only to get kicked out and then the company gets sued later.

Companies consistently show they don't care about talent, nor do they encourage retention. If they want to stay a revolving door, why hope that working harder will get you noticed?

who is likely to be more successful in negotiating with a very large corporation like Mercedes? A union representing thousands of workers or, an individual that is replaceable no matter what skills they have?

Not just the Mercedes exec, but a Honda one as well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/02/alabama-car-bo...

It's not necessarily a whim, and maybe is a sunk costs fallacy.

The 600M wouldn't mark down to zero if they decided to shut it down.

IMO the comment is flamebait and the bait was effective, I'm strongly resisting the urge to chuck my hat in the ring.