209
210

Unionization and the effect on equality (imf.org)

burtzev が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]TIGit 63 ポイント64 ポイント  (49子コメント)

I've always been pro- union. But I know many on Reddit have a strange hate of them, so I'm preparing to watch this get down voted to hell.

[–]TheEndgame[🍰] 57 ポイント58 ポイント  (42子コメント)

As someone from Europe i can understand the hate people in America have for unions. In the U.S it seems like unions lead to ridiculous worker benefits. It's like the unions are just trying to get as much benefits as they can without caring for the employer.

In Europe both the employer and employees are unionized. They both understand eachothers demands. So when the economy is bad, they don't push for more benefits. In short i get the impression that European unions are much more pragmatic.

[–]fringeffect 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I work at a gigantic union institution in NYC. It has been my experience that about 30% of the people should be fired because they are not proficient at their job. They act as obstacles to productivity and detract from the customer experience. In this case, the union makes it near impossible to fire anyone and stymies innovation.

In my opinion, unions have a place and time. They saved this country at one period in time, but act as an anchor if they are perpetual. Unions in other countries such as China and India may one day work in our favor.

[–]Alvaromad 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not in Spain. In Spain the unions act like a mafia that doesn´t allow the unemployed to get any jobs by forcing ridiculous worker´s rights on the already employed. We have more than 20% unemployment.

[–]gliph 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's like the unions are just trying to get as much benefits as they can without caring for the employer.

This is EXACTLY what corporations do to employees. Both sides need bargaining power.

[–]sfurbo 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Both sane corporations and sane workers realize that they are dependent on each other. Their interests doesn't always line up, but in the day-to-day business, they do.

[–]doc_rotten 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Assume more owners, mangers and workers are sane. Then who looses out regarding unionization? Unions, as you point out, want to continue to work with the business.

So, those who are hurt, are those who are not at the table, the people who were not hired. Non-member workers bear the economic loses resulting from unionized gain, not the bosses, not the owners.

[–]gliph [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

I have no idea what your point is.

[–]gliph [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

That is way too idealistic. Maybe it works with some cultures but it would not work in the US.

Unions are necessary.

[–]draekia 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (28子コメント)

What you're seeing is the reddit version of unions.

Some are that bad, but most are not. Most simply give ridiculous demands as a way of negotiating what they really want, just like the businesses are doing.

Maintaining some benefits (that non unionized employees don't get because they have very little bargaining power) is unpopular on here because reddit has a lot of temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Not that I agree with our condone the bad behavior of some unions, but the same short term thinking is prevalent in many private businesses here, as well.

[–]swxrice 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (9子コメント)

A significant issue with discussing unions in America is the polarization of politics. The first-past-the-post two-party system turns unionization into a yes/no (Democrat/Republican) question, not a "is there a mutually beneficial way to implement this idea" question.

[–]waveswan 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (8子コメント)

As somebody watching from the outside so to speak, it seems to me that presently American politics has even polarised the idea of whether compromise is desirable or not. Thus you get the Democrats suggesting moderate policies, which if not always the right ones are at least plausible, while the GOP seems to have gone full potatohead and wants everything done according to some self-contradicting conservative ideology no matter the consequences.

It is not that our politicians don't have their "no-compromise" issues. Most parties have some ideological positions that they will not budge from, but in the US it seems that the Republicans are intent on making EVERY issue a battleground over ideology.

I'd say that this is about much more than just the voting system. Such behaviour would not be successful if there were not other issues at play, and it seems that the primary issue is outright bigotry and fundamentalism amongst many right-wing voters. Issues like racism, homophobia, contraceptives and sex-ed are directly tied to authoritarian-conservative ideology, and the people who oppose changes know full and well that this is a war they are about to lose. From this point of view politics is a war of survival for conservatives, and then the ends justify the means, even if it means a war of attrition.

[–]some_a_hole 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. It's incredibly difficult to get these points across to many people in America, because our media keeps us in a bubble, so most people here have no frame of reference.

[–]duckduckbeer [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

This is a partisan post devoid of real facts. Those "moderate" Democrats are working on expanding the entitlement state that the nonpartisan CBO points out is already expanding at an utterly unsustainable under current policy. This alone shows that they are a radical party regarding the country's economy and fiscal policies.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45471

[–]cjet79 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

As someone watching from the inside, let me clear up one notion:

The democrats are just as bad. Ideology tends to create blinders, so you probably don't hear this opinion as much if you just talk to US democrats. Both mainstream parties have to encompass large groups of people, so they both have their die hard ideologues, their pragmatic compromisers, and they definitely both have their share of corrupt politicians.

[–]mariox19 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I remember reading about a study that was done some years ago, the aim of which was to determine how accurately liberals and conservatives were able to identify the positions generally held on political issues by the other. Two questionnaires were made up. Each described a series of political issues, followed by multiple choice questions. The correct answer, in the questionnaire given to liberals, described the position generally held by those who identified themselves as conservatives; the one given to conservatives had the liberal position as the correct answer.

By and large, conservatives were far more likely to accurately identify the correct answer: that is to say, the position generally held by those identifying as liberals. The liberals on the other hand didn't fare so well. Their tendency was to choose not simply the wrong answer but the more outrageous and extremist positions presented.

In other words, according to the study, it seems like liberals in the United States are given to thinking the worst of their conservative countrymen. What I find ironic is that American liberals seem to consider themselves high-minded, informed, and just. It seems like they have room for improvement. To wit:

Thus you get the Democrats suggesting moderate policies [...] while the GOP seems to have gone full potatohead.

I realize that the author of this comment is "watching from the outside," but I would say this sentiment is fully shared by a good number of (liberal) people on the inside.

[–]AlexanderNigma 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

In other words, according to the study, it seems like liberals in the United States are given to thinking the worst of the conservative countrymen. What I find ironic is that American liberals seem to consider themselves high-minded, informed, and just. It seems like they have room for improvement. To wit:

To be fair, the theatrics of a guy throwing a snowball to prove "Climate Change isn't real" as a sitting elected official makes it hard to remember there are reasonable members of that party :p

[–]mariox19 [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Politics has always had its share of theatrics, but I wonder if the 24-hour cable news channels haven't encouraged these follies to proliferate. My guess is that they have.

[–]cjet79 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And you have democrats writing subisidies for alternative medicine like homeopathy into federal law via the ACA. ranty right slanted article that I found on short notice

Both parties have their anti-science stances when it lines up with what their base believes in. And when the quackery of the left gets consistently ignored, its hard to see their criticisms of the right's quackery as anything other than a political tactic.

[–]AlexanderNigma 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Both parties have their anti-science stances when it lines up with what their base believes in. And when the quackery of the left gets consistently ignored, its hard to see their criticisms of the right's quackery as anything other than a political tactic.

I never said it wasn't.

And you have democrats writing subisidies for alternative medicine like homeopathy into federal law via the ACA.

The problem here is you don't seem to realize the Republicans also do so.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364757/qi-bono-kevin-d-williamson

Educational accreditation leads to licensing, and licensing leads to eligibility for money under Obamacare. Senator Harkin’s provision forbids “discriminating” against practitioners recognized in the states, and, unfortunately, we have some pretty fruity states: California, Connecticut, Vermont, Utah, and a dozen others recognize naturopathic medicine, in spite of its mystical claims and utter lack of scientific support. Recognition of chiropractic has become well nigh universal.

Last time I checked, Utah is a pretty Red state.

Senator Hatch attempted to insert a provision into the law that would have put prayer therapy on the same footing as conventional medicine, with the support of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

The problem with the anti-Science Democrat stuff is I honestly can't remember an example where it wasn't Republican supported as well. So it tends to mentally blur when recalling things into "I remember egregious example X, example Y doesn't register as a difference because both parties did it."

People really only remember the differences between groups when they contrast them. My point was it is hard to remember that the Democrats do the same thing because of how the Republicans play it up while the Democrats only do it in some of the same places as Republicans.

I think most people don't realize I loathe both parties when reading my posts.

[–]TheEndgame[🍰] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm basing this on what i've read in the news and on the internet in general. For example the strike in LA harbour where employees have salaries of over 200k a year. It just seems like a waste of time.

I live in Norway where i'd say we have a good way of doing things in regards to labour. Here non-union workers get the same benefits as those who are non-unionized because it's so easy to join a union that it's not worth it for the employer.

This doesn't mean that the unions abuse their power. A good example is the current negotiations. Since the oil price have gone down the unions demands are much lower. In general the non-oil export businesses are getting higher wage increases since they are are benefiting from a weaker currency. Low skilled employees like retail employees and so on are also getting a larger raise than the population in general. The oil sector is not doing so well so here we are expecting a very low general wage growth.

All in all benefits and wage increases are only demanded in the sectors that can actually support it. It's in both the employee and employers interest that the business in question can support the benefits and wages that are negotiated.

I'm not saying we haven't got stupid unions, but those are generally in sectors that large bargaining power. For example air traffic controllers.

[–]TIGit 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Those stories of over $200k a year are inflated. For one, they consider the "package" and then do some creative math to make it into a nice big yearly or hourly number for shock factor (this was done at our local during contract time too, the local paper ran about us being greedy and getting paid $60/hr even though our top pay is $32.21/hr). They'll add in things like bereavement as "pay" and such to inflate it to the point where the average public can no longer identify with us and thus makes unions "outsiders" and "other".

It's also important to note that the cost of living in that area is ridiculously expensive. So if you need a skilled crane operator as a longshoreman who won't drop your expensive cargo or kill the ship crew you have to pay enough for him to live in the area.

Here in America companies have paid for laws to make it difficult to establish or join a union, and they penalize and fire employees who discuss forming a union. It isn't like Norway, you can still be beaten bloody in a back room for union talk here. Because it is worth it to employers to keep unions out, to make them seem awful and bloated and greedy, it's in companies favor to pay for media that turns people away from unions.

And we usually only ask for increases when the sector can support it. For instance in 2008 we voluntarily took a pay cut across the union force to help the company, a multi-billion dollar global metal corporation. In 2014 when this same company wq having record profits and dividend pay outs we asked for a raise, and they threatened an illegal lock out. They didn't want to give back what we had given, they didn't want to raise our pay for the hard work we had done, didn't want us to get any share of the highest profit year on our books. See? It isn't "unions demand too much all the time" it's often "they have to make demands because if they don't they'll never get anything ever".

[–]flamehead2k1 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Corporations aren't the only ones that pay for laws in their favor. Unions are some of the largest political contributors in the country.

Edit:

For one, they consider the "package" and then do some creative math to make it into a nice big yearly or hourly number for shock facto

Don't the unions and media do the same when analyzing executive compensation?

Also I'm going to need a citation for the following

you can still be beaten bloody in a back room for union talk here.

And I want something indicating that this is in any way systemic since of course you can find anecdotal evidence of almost anything in a country of 300 million people

[–]grande_hohner -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just a thought, that "package" is a part of reimbursement. If your employer outright gives you a 20k health benefits plan, puts 15k in your retirement, and gives you 10 paid sick days - those should absolutely be figured into what your reimbursement is.

People would leave a job that paid $35/hr for your $32.21 in a heartbeat if they didn't get those types of benefits. Most people I know pay 2-4k/yr for their health insurance premiums with the employer picking up an even larger portion. If my company decided to pay my premiums outright it would 100% be the same as giving me a $2/hr raise.

As to bereavement pay, it is no different than any other paid time off. If I get paid for not being at work, it certainly is part of my benefits plan and should be reimbursed. If they take the number of days given in bereavement among the workforce over a period of time and come up with an average amount spent on this - and divide it up into an hourly number per employee, why would you not consider this to be part of your reimbursement?

You do know that if the employer says you are getting $60/hr - you probably are getting $60/hr, but you just don't know it. Perhaps you don't get it, but there is somebody with 8 kids who is getting a crapton of money in insurance premiums, somebody who keeps having people die and getting bereavement pay, or whatever else is happening. As to a voluntary pay cut, I'm sure the union voluntarily came forward and offered that to the company out of the kindness of their hearts. I'd be interested to see the real story behind that - more likely to be something about hundreds of jobs getting cut, but the union offered to take a decrease across the board to avoid layoffs. That wouldn't constitute voluntarily taking a pay cut to help a company out, you know - feel free to post a news article about how that all really went down - I'd be interested to see it.

You do know that you are quite likely "an outsider" and an "other" compared to the vast majority of people working in the US right now. If you make $30+/hr and have an even modest benefit package - you are three legs up on the majority of Americans.

[–]draekia 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm fairly certain the >200k/yr salaries you are mentioned are very much outliers and not common amongst such employees or the field would likely be busy filtering through a huge influx of applications.

Or there is some other mitigating factor that keeps the wages that high, you know, economics.

[–]845968513 [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

That's definitely happening. In order to get into their union you have to spend time as a non-union dock worker called a "casual." The job sucks, the pay is low, and you never know if you're getting to get any work when you show up in the morning.

The last time they hired casuals there were almost 400k(approximately 10 times the number union works) applications for the 16k non-union spots.

[–]roodammy44 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's exactly the sort of stories that corporate-owned media would publish. It wouldn't surprise me if it were inaccurate either. After the war there used to be union owned media, but that was killed off a long time ago.

[–]AlexanderNigma 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I live in Norway where i'd say we have a good way of doing things in regards to labour.

Just realize, we have healthcare and other benefits you take as "normal" in Norway rolled into that salary.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-12/catastrophic-shutdown-americas-supply-chain-begins-stunning-photos-west-coast-port-c

Just so readers have a sense of what is at stake, this is what the average dockworker makes: $147,000 a year in salary, plus $35,000 a year in employer-paid health care and an annual pension of $80,000 (according to an association press release). It is the overtime compensation to the total shown here, which grosses to over a quarter of a million dollars, that dockworkers are negotiating to raise or else the key US supply-chains gets it.

$35,000 in healthcare is how their "math" works.

So of that $200k, almost 20% is being called Healthcare compensation. I think you pay something like $2k?

The rest of the numbers are similarly BS'd to claim they are "overly compensated".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/11/ports-lockout-response-to-slowdown/23264011/

Less biased sources:

It says an experienced longshore worker earns $83,000 a year.

What happens is people like ZeroHedge take the average full compensation package ($147k) then add on the healthcare, etc. on top of it. And rely on ambiguous statements like this:

It contends current average full-time wages are $147,000 per year.

Ha, see they make $147k + Benefits! USToday says so!

When if you read the article its pretty clear its $83,000 + benefits = $147k. ;)

They do very strange math to get those $200k numbers.

[–]Terkala 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (6子コメント)

My only anecdotal exposure to unions is the following:

  1. Unions with mandatory employee membership, which my mother tried (and was unable) to quit from. Which garnished her wages with union dues, and provided no real services whatsoever. And the union management was largely in collusion with the business, and still managed to have less-than-inflation raises through the 15 year period of working there.

  2. Philly unions at my college. Where the unions required all on-campus events to go through union certification and union resources. We organized a gaming event on campus, which required that we pay $400 for a union electrician to verify that the outlets in the room we were having it in could support computers. A room which already had "exactly" the same number of computers that were being brought in for the event. Also, a $300 charge for them to set up a single table. Which they did not do until 2 hours after the event had started. And then they required us to stop the gaming event so they could set up their table because the contract required them to set it up. We literally shut down a lanparty so the union could set up a table.

  3. Unions at my aunt's business. Which staged blockades of her business during a strike and tried to physically assault her (to the point where she had to hire bodyguards). Notable is that the strike wasn't over working conditions, simply wage/benefits, and they were still angry enough to attack her.

So I'm personally very negative on most unions. But historically they did serve a purpose.

[–]shanked_it 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with many unions is they get to the point where they're there just to exist, and not much more. Organized labor did wonders for workers rights in the early 20th century. But your anecdotal exposure is far too common and people are somehow shocked when companies move to right-to-work states. It's not about being "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" like the fellow above so originally posted, it's just contemporary organized labor acts with petulance and if you criticize unions you're somehow bad. Oh well.

[–]draekia 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

While I emphasize with all of those experiences, I can easily see there potentially being sound reasoning behind the first two (minus late as shit setup, which sounds like bad management).

Assault, though? Those people are assholes and it only takes a couple.

I'm sorry your aunt had to go through that (seriously, WTF is wrong with people?!), but applying that logic elsewhere I could use my own experience with anti-abortion protesters to give reasons (beyond the issue) to think those people should not be allowed/be anti-protestors in general.

[–]flamehead2k1 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Extorting people into paying an electrician to look at an outlet that the school is responsible to maintain in the first place is absurd. Sure, you can play the "safety" card but so does the government when explaining why they tap our phones.

You should also read into the Philly unions if you are so surprised about assault or vandalism. The carpenters are accused of sabotaging a convention as recent as last month.

[–]wumbotarian -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Unions are known for being violent. Maybe that doesn't happen in other countries but it does in America.

[–]jielingBureau Member 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And employers weren't? Pinkerton et al.? That statement is pretty ridiculous. Unions in general are not violent and neither are employers.

[–]draekia 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unions are known for being violent. Maybe that doesn't happen in other countries but it does in America.

Let's rephrase that and see if it makes the same sense:

Gun owners are known for being murderers . Maybe that doesn't happen in other countries but it does in America.

Or:

Men are known for being rapists . Maybe that doesn't happen in other countries but it does in America.

Doesn't exactly work out that we'll when I swap in other broad, but not untruthful, generalizations, now does it?

[–]proppycopter -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're right that most unions aren't like that, unfortunately the biggest and most prominent ones are. Just like Walmart gives retailers a bad rap.

[–]some_a_hole 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Idk about that. Only some outliers of retail employers, like Costco, seem to be giving quality employment. I mean, how many retailers would we have a chance to earn $20 an hour working at?

[–]way2lazy2care 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Walmart isn't even that terrible. They're just big. Small retail stores are much much worse than Walmart in general from an employee standpoint.

[–]TaxExempt 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is seems more like you come from The Onion than Europe.

"Employees bully corporation, it complains they don't care about its needs."

[–]kinako- 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Idk. My dad worked in Human Resources for the European division of his company for years, and he said that a lot of the union demanded benefits could be so stifling in countries like France it led to them maintaining as small a presence there as possible.

[–]TheEndgame[🍰] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess the best unions are the ones you find in Northern Europe. I know some of the ones further south aren't as pragmatic.

[–]Joeblowme123 [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

The unions in America found out in the 50--70's that they often could get pay increases but they could get benefits for retirement. They fought hard to get the highest pensions and insurance and every other benefit they could.

Now there are schools that pay more to retired teachers then they do current teachers. The unions are now bleeding the country for everything they possibly can.

[–]PinballBob 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It depends on the union. But for example in the UK some of the unions are terribly overbearing. We frequently have tube strikes over ridiculous things.

[–]Onatel -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In addition to what /u/draekia said, what you're seeing is the fruit of decades upon decades of union demonization by conservative politicians and business leaders.

[–]bowhunter_fta 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's a recent example of why I don't like unions.

I am in the process of opening a new business and setting up office space.

We are negotiating with the landlord for a build-out of the empty space (new walls, doors, flooring, etc.).

I have my own people who do construction work for us. They got the specs from the architects on the build out and came up with a price.

The union has their claws in the landlord and the landlord will not allow my people to do the work because they're not union.

The union price to get the same work done?

More than double. And double the price is a very significant sum.

They're overpriced bullies.

[–]wantsbeforeneeds 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I consider Unions a necessary evil. Mgmt are a bunch of bastards who would run their companies like fedual kingdoms if they could. On the other hand Unions protect incompetent and lazy workers who are a blight on the work place bwcause they drag down everyone

[–]burtzev[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It seems to be trending upwards.

[–]TotesMessenger [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

Please follow the rules of reddit and avoid voting or comment in linked threads. (Info | Contact)

[–]guydudeman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Lots of Libertarians and Conservatives here now. I was expecting you to be downvoted too.

[–]wumbotarian 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't have to be a conservative or libertarian to think unions have bad consequences. Alan Blinder and James Tobin both thought unions lead to bad outcomes.