This reminds me, the artist Gregory Blackstock retired with a union pension at 55 after 25 years' service as a dishwasher[0]. His art provided another source of income, but apparently he was swindled out of his estate.
This sounds quite crazy. What if there are 5 unions like we have in France?
It is how they hold their power. If it was optional, they would whither away over time.
In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected.
If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away.
Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some places like positions in the administration, the famous fonctionnaires where everybody is on the street when the post office is required to be open outside the times "10:30 to 12:30, except on Mondays", for which their ancestors fought :))
We have a love-hate relationship with unions (which of the love or hate depends on whether you need to take a train and you forgot that there are only 126 days in the year when they are not on strike :))
Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.).
I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.
If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well.
The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The correct solution is to break up the monopoly.
See my previous comment about theory breaking down in practice. There are all kinds of asymmetries that make economies not function correctly in a theoretical sense and we (as a society) develop policies to mitigate those dysfunctions.
I don't know that the scales operate in ways that allow for every corporate (pseudo)monopoly to be broken up and still have viable industries. Especially in countries that succumb to regulatory capture. That means there would need to be some countervailing balance to that power, and that's where unions come in.
If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.
Laws change every day. There must be a working process for that.
Otherwise, I think you might be a little optimistic here.
small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(Minneapolis)
1. A comment about how in general there should be a way to do that, but not engaging in the topic, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it, giving none back, and just mildly sneering at anyone foolish enough to join such a basal endeavor as a union.
2. A comment about how we would need to accomplish that goal and that establishing the working process should come before unionizing as it is the proper solution to the problem, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it until we solved the problem that is effectively created by corporations to be unsolveable.
Collective action works, it solves problems, it gives workers space to live and have basic rights, and we don't have to throw up our hands and say "there must be a better way!"
Because of this requirement, some people argue in favor of permitting mandatory union membership, on the basis that without it, individual workers can free-ride, enjoying the superior pay and benefits the union negotiates on their behalf without joining and paying union dues.
Others argue that forcing people to join a union and pay dues is illiberal, and should be outlawed.
This is the crux of the "right-to-work law" debate, where "right-to-work" describes laws that make it illegal to require union membership as a condition of employment.
Personally, I find it odd that federal law requires labor unions to negotiate on behalf of non-members, but I am also not particularly well informed on the topic.
About 10% of the workforce is unionized and only a few percent of the unions funds come from the members. The rest is from companies (mandatory fund), the region, ...
So it's important to remember that European Unions and American Unions are NOT the same thing! Despite having the same name.
In the US the union is directly tied to the job, you can't pick your union. In Europe you can chose your union.
This "little" difference dramatically changes the unions, and is the reason why a majority of Americans hate unions.
It depends on the work. In my high tech company there are I think 5 unions, all more or less equal (one of them is more "blue collar" oriented but still). When there are elections, it is usually a matter of preference of people who are in the union, more than whet they will do.
For instance, in financial industry, there is a certified financial analyst (CFA) designation that some choose to get. Employers normally pay those with a CFA higher wages and people sign up to get this certification and pay dues, all without anyone being forced.
Mandatory unions seem bizarre to me, essentially just rent seeking.
So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action.
It seems like you don't really understand the meaning of "rent seeking". For something to be rent seeking, it must not provide any additional value. Unions do generally provide value, and in fact one of those values is a protection against actual "rent seeking" from employers, such as pay and benefit cuts (one of the easiest ways to earn more money with no extra value produced).
When this becomes the norm, the union stops working for the workers and work only for itself, its usefulness is gone and can be disbanded.
That's a very US centric view. Unions are ample powerful in other countries without requiring mandatory membership. Previous places I've worked in Europe it's not unusual to have multiple unions represented in a company, and even collaborating together on various negotiations. It wasn't unusual for employees to change unions based on what the union was or wasn't doing for them as a member. Monopolies are absolutely awful, and that applies to unions too.
>So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action.
That's a really bizarre quirk of US mindset. So what if someone else gets the benefits of a better working conditions? Great for them, that's a fellow human being who's life now doesn't suck quite so much. That should be celebrated.
If better working conditions is the only value the union provides you, your union sucks.
I've joined unions in the past because of the access to all the other stuff that they can provide, like free legal support, representation in disciplinary situations etc, just as much as working conditions.
It is of course however it can be argued that the US is somewhat of a unique case here.
To quote wikipedia (which itself is citing three other sources in this quote's case)
> According to labor historians, the US has the most violent labor history of any industrialized nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...
So the US has a bit of a unique history here. A less than fun example of this is that the organized labor holiday "May Day" is celebrated in many countries notably excluding the US.
This of course being despite the fact that the date was selected by the AFL (now AFL-CIO, one of the main union federations in the US) to memorialize the general strike in Chicago that ended in the Haymarket Massacre (May 1st 1886 - May 4th 1886).
Because the US already had Labor Day in September, which predates the May 1 celebration.
Labor day didn't become a holiday until after the May Day vs Labor Day debate started. It started as a concept in 1882 but it was not yet celebrated in any significant capacity and most unions pushed to change the day to May day after the Haymarket massacre in 1886. The first state to make it a holiday (Oregon) didn't do so until a year after the debate was already ongoing and it wouldn't become a federal holiday until 1894.
Specifically the federal government pushed for Labor day over May day and chose to commemorate the one and not the other with a federal holiday because of fears that memorialising the Haymarket massacre would further empower the labor movement which was at its peak in the US at the time.
And then in the 1950s the US government would then try to further overwrite May Day with "Loyalty Day" in a McCarthyian attempt to limit May Day's celebration.
> Specifically the federal government pushed for Labor day over May day and chose to commemorate the one and not the other with a federal holiday because of fears that memorialising the Haymarket massacre would further empower the labor movement which was at its peak in the US at the time.
It's absolutely absurd to argue that the labor movement was at its peak in the US in the 1890s. This was the era of the Pullman strike--which the government infamously ended by force--and the Sherman Antitrust Act being used against unions under the theory that they were an illegal monopoly on labor. Labor in the US probably reached its peak after WWII. The 1890s were extremely business friendly.
September Labor day preceded May day in both concept (1882 vs 1886) and legal observance. As you noted, the US made September labor day a public holiday in 1894. If you are aware of any country that made May day a public holiday before that time please tell me; I haven't done an exhaustive search, but here's a sampling of when European countries started observing May 1 as a public holiday:
Austria: 1919
France: 1919
Germany: 1933
Russia: 1917
Spain: 1931
Sweden: 1938
UK: 1978
This wasn't just the era of the Pullman strike. This was during the Pullman strike. The federal government specifically tried to push through a labor day federal holiday as a concession to ease tensions during the Pullman strike. They would not push forward May Day as a federal holiday because they saw memorialising the Haymarket Massacre as inflammatory both in general and at that moment in particular given the volatile situation (even though in practice acknowledging the labor struggle's marred history would have been a better bridge towards peace than a concession and a following violent strike break).
> and the Sherman Antitrust Act being used against unions under the theory that they were an illegal monopoly on labor. Labor in the US probably reached its peak after WWII. The 1890s were extremely business friendly.
Yeah the establishment was extremely anti-union. That's why it was the peak of the labor movement at the time. This is exactly the same reason why the late 50s and the 60s were the peak of the civil rights movement at the time. Things were very bad and it was a painful bloody period where the people were rallying with all their might to try and force progress in the right direction. This is the exact time when everyone was out throwing themselves into the gears to try and make the powers that be listen.
> If you are aware of any country that made May day a public holiday before that time please tell me
I don't know of specific countries however the call for May Day to be made a public holiday in all countries was in 1904 and even before that there were demonstrations on May Day in the US and across Europe in the 1890s (in 1890 in particular).
However that's not the important part. The important part is that in the US, even before legal observance, May Day was being observed by unions and those unions would strike on May Day if they weren't willingly given the day off to observe it. Hell the year that Labor day was made a federal holiday, that May Day (before the Pullman Strike had started) there were the May Day riots of 1894 in Cleveland.
And it's not like I'm claiming that May Day was already established outside the US at that point. It grew outside the US later but it was very much an American labor movement holiday and had at that point replaced labor day as the holiday of the worker. Labor day started as a holiday of the worker but the events of the era quickly shifted that date to May Day and Labor day instead became a minor concession from the government and businesses so as to appease workers without giving them the thing they were actively asking for.
>I've joined unions in the past because of the access to all the other stuff that they can provide, like free legal support, representation in disciplinary situations etc, just as much as working conditions.
Apologies if English isn't your first language, but those things are "working conditions"
It's hilarious in a kind of tragic way, how Americans continually tell me things are impossible or can't possibly work the way that other countries manage to make them work.
No, no, it's everyone else that's wrong.
>In my experience
Really doubt this is significant, meh.
What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees
Eventually situations like this bankrupt a company, sadly due to decisions made decades ago. Just because a company's hands are tied does not mean that current employees need to take sub-market wages. They can, if they are being compensated in some other way (unique experience, growth potential, etc) but normally people see the writing on the wall and walk away. Also, company management needs to negotiate contracts which are fair to all three parties -- owners, current union members, future employees who will bear the burden. It is a tough but important balancing act.
How on Earth can you generalize that? Look at the kids math literacy and obesity in CA. How is this bringing value to the team?
Surely we can be adults enough to discuss this without the partisan edge.
In my union we very much care. What we do now is advocate for a reduction I the number of outsourced positions, and hire directly, so wage and conditions are improved.
It's true unions optimise for certain things too (they also have limited sway and time), as I experienced as an expat. Especially when you know it's temporary, it's unlikely you'll ever see a personal benefit.
OTOH, a union just managed to negotiate 10+% higher wages in my first year in current job, unbeknownst to me, so that's nice.