Hacker News Reader

If you're interested in the topic, Jane McAlevey, a labor organizer, has done a lot of interviews (and written a book I haven't read) detailing her theories of why unions have become less effective and less appealing to workers, as well as what she thinks they can do.

> Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control.

If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem.

A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages. The odds of a negotiation between a candidate and a HR representative benefiting the candidate are fare more favorable to the candidate if he has at his side someone who is informed about the company's hiring practices and salaries and has a vested interest in improving salaries paid by the company to his fellow colleagues. If a job seeker goes into a negotiation room alone then this information asymmetry alone is bound to screw him over during negotiations. The presence of a union representative is very effective at mitigating this problem.

That assumes companies will not try to cut separate deals with unions which are worse for workers.

>If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem.

I think you're oversimplifying again. Many workers who vote "no" and reject union representation believe that unions create problems for workers including the problem of jobs being moved elsewhere.

Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues and the possibility of not having jobs? Many workers don't see the logic in paying more money to make their lives worse. E.g. Why pay my Bakers union rep to play hardball with Nabisco management for high wages of $26/hour so that I end up getting $0/hour? The theoretical "win" of $26/hr becomes a real-world "loss" of no job which pays $0/hour.

There are interesting game theory dynamics of "workers vs unions vs management" that your comment ignores. Each party has different leverage and different ultimatums. A bakers union is in a more precarious economic situation than a teachers union.

>A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages.

Yes, I already stipulated that. Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs.

It seems you're not aware of the reasons for workers to deliberately reject unions.

> I think you're oversimplifying again. Many workers who vote "no" and reject union representation believe that unions create problems for workers including the problem of jobs being moved elsewhere.

You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary.

> Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues

That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself, and it represents only your own imagination.

> Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs.

That's your strawman. You somehow made up this argument that having someone at your side helping you out on your negotiation will somehow force a company to stop hire people to fill the positions they've just opened. Meanwhile, agents are a thing, and having third-party help in your negotiations didn't brought the end to western civilization.

He's using hyperbole, but his arguments are valid in explaining the rationale that some workers feel when considering a union.

Some unions are so hawkish that they impose hiring blacklists on affected employers, making membership mandatory instead of voluntary. Additionally, in the rank and file, there's a common fear of union corruption.

> Some unions are so hawkish that

That hypothetical problem is anecdotal, and assumes that a job seeker has no say in how he is represented.

Meanwhile, the whole world is packed with examples of how unions do in fact work for the interests of their associates. For instance, there are companies in Sweden that inform job seekers right at the start of the job application process that they should contact union representatives to help them during the hiring process. This offer is presented to anyone, whether they pay union quotas or not, and anyone decides if they even want to contact the union or not.

Do you believe this is a draconian measure imposed by unions on unsuspecting job seekers, or that this is remotely against the best interest of any worker?

A union is what you make it out to be. Right now, workers are getting screwed over to the point where HN receives a constant scream of posts on how workers should improve their negotiation skills. Hell, if that's so important then why isn't everyone doing the smart thing to do and delegate that activity to a dedicated third-party representing the worker's best interests and specialized in negotiating job offers and working conditions? It's simply stupid to assume that everyone can pick up an O'Reilly-type book on negotiating job offers and suddenly be able to go head-to-head with a professional negotiator paid to drive down your wage.

> That hypothetical problem is anecdotal

If it's anecdotal - that is, it happened at least once, so there's an anecdote of when it happened - then it's not hypothetical.

And, in fact, it's not hypothetical. It happens. It has happened. Instances have been cited in this thread. It may not be the statistically most likely outcome, but it does happen.

>You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary.

Well, the Seattle union is "closed shop" at Boeing which makes union membership mandatory for employment.

>That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself,

The GM union dues are ~$957.[1] The Ford amount is ~$693. The estimated union dues were ~$800 for Nissan workers who voted "no" to union representation. For all 3 examples, the union dues are not static -- they are expected to increase.

We can use the lower $693 figure if you wish. Can you see that many workers don't agree with you that $693 is "no impact"?

https://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php...

> The GM union dues

Somehow, you've turned a blind eye to the fact that your own source states that the US national average for union dues are $377 per year.

Let that sink in for a minute. The average union within the US receives only $377 per year.

That's about $32 a month.

So, the median wage for workers in the United States is around $3400 per month. And somehow a $32/month fee is made out to be a deal breaker?

Is that what's stopping you from being repeatedly screwed over by employers who spend more on professional services dedicated to screw employees over than adjusting salaries?

>And somehow a $32/month fee is made out to be a deal breaker?

Yes, it is _if_ workers believe it makes their economic situation worse.

I'm stating that workers weigh the balance of both the positives and the negatives of union representation. You are only stating one side: the positives.

Yes, even $377 can be too much money to pay especially if it has the unwanted effect of incentivizing the company to move somewhere else. Since workers are concerned about this bad outcome, you can't just handwave it away as if their fears are just imaginary.

Perception is an issue. I had a non-unionized coworker claim that union dues were high when I suggested unionizing. When I told her what I payed, she was stunned at how low they are. People often miss the point that unions are about more than exerting power. They also much more efficient at representing workers. (Organizations benefit from that as well, but they are far more concerned with the average worker gaining negotiating power.)

I'm probably not adding much to discussion after many commenters, but this one rings for me as non capital-oriented citizen:

>The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens.

Iow, not the one who negotiates wins, but the one who has time on their hands. If workforce "feels" too expensive, average capital can just sit on deposit and wait for new ideas. If worker's salary feels too low, she cannot just sit and wait or requalify for new job quickly. This asymmetry pushes workers down on their wages without a chance to negotiate, because there is nobody to blame. Investments are diversifiable, professions aren't.

While capitalism shown world-wide success, it forces everyone to follow only one life style, otherwise you're wasted. Personally, I'm pretty fine with how I live due to the path chosen from the start and personal interests, but I don't like what all this does to "regular" profession workers. People are almost punished for what they liked to do, or simply for the fact they aren't interested in business, aka someone else's sky-high profit wars.

Otoh, while theoretical basic income program could buy time for workers, it would also demotivate capital builders more. It seems like pretty thin balance there, if it exists at all.

This is entirely accurate. The union has been trying to get workers at Boeing in Charleston to unionize ever since it opened.

The workers don't want to unionize. The reason?

Well, as it turns out...there are jobs there now that weren't there before. Those jobs could have gone somewhere where the union existed...but didn't.

So the people there...pretty happy to have quality jobs from a great company. A company that adds jobs continuously even through a recession...and the union forces a strike every 7 years or so costing the company about $1 billion every time.

Union negotiating power is based almost entirely on it's ability to hold the company hostage. It's the job of executives to look out for the best interest of the company and that, just like infrastructure planning, means redundancy.

It's the same approach as tax policies or raising minimum wage...it only works if the people involved have no other options.

"What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers?"

Well aside from these studies that correlate unions with better wages for the economy as a whole?

Which studies? I'd like to read them.

The key to almost every politically oriented study I've seen isn't what the study includes, but what it leaves out.

Maybe someone in a union can answer this but from an outsider it appears that unions flatten the salary discrepancy between outstanding performers & poor performers.

I see this in education a lot where bad teachers that parents try to avoid end up making the same as the amazing teachers that parents beg to have. The bad teachers don't get removed so new teachers are prevented from getting a job at that school.

that's classical fud against unions.

incompetent employers might be good political actors in the company and make more than good employees just fine without unions.

unions just help the good, and bad, employees don't have to waste too much time every month fighting for raises.

this is a barely comprehensible mess. Please, type properly next time.

And in states with robust worker protection laws the benefits of a union are less valuable.