this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
1306 points (94.3% liked)

Technology

34894 readers
970 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That wasn't quite the point. What would be a good reason for a well meaning, rocking employer to not encourage unionization?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lots of reasons:

  • union dues
  • bureaucracy - need to go through the union
  • unwanted strikes - if your union goes on strike, you are not allowed to work
  • special treatment - unions try to equalize, so higher performers may not be fairly compensated

An awesome employer shouldn't discourage unionization, and ideally they'd encourage attempts to unionize, but they wouldn't recommend unionization, assuming the employer intended to maintain control and monitor managers throughout the chain. If the employer can provide all of the benefits employees would get through unionization, unionizing merely adds extra BS that employees and employers need to deal with.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Alright, so let's take a look.

  • union dues

No escaping this one.

  • bureaucracy - need to go through the union

What does the employer have to go through the union for?

  • unwanted strikes - if your union goes on strike, you are not allowed to work

If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?

  • special treatment - unions try to equalize, so higher performers may not be fairly compensated

This doesn't feel right but I can't quite put my finger on why so I'll reserve judgement for now. 😄

I can see the extra layer of overhead in the case when everything is perfect, but given the incentives in traditional for-profit corporations I can't see that case ever being realistic. In addition, even if a company is perfect today, the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change especially if there's no worker-controlled counterbalance to such change. So just on the basis of that, if I'm an awesome, perfect employer, and I presumably want this to go on, because that really is part of being awesome, I should want to create this counterbalance against change for the worse. Assuming a for-profit, not-a-co-op corporation that is. It looks to me like this overhead is the price of preserving this perfect environment over the long term. Doesn't that make sense?

What does the employer have to go through the union for?

Benefits, and depending on the union's rules, salary adjustments. Some unions also require informing them of schedule changes.

The reverse is also true, employees may need to go through the union depending on the union's rules.

If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?

Idk, perhaps communication issues w/ management? Over-zealous union leadership?

The point is, the employee isn't empowered here, they're subject to whatever the union agrees to do.

My uncle went through multiple strikes, few (if any) he actually agreed with, but had to deal with being out of work. He wished he wasn't union so he could just continue working.

the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change

Sure, which is why it absolutely depends on the type of organization. Something owner-operated has a much lower risk of unexpected awful changes than something publicly traded.

A lot of owner-operated businesses don't intend to sell to someone else, the owner will just shut it down when they're done operating it. So "long term" in this sense is until the owner retires. And if they do intend to sell, they could at that point encourage the employees to make any employment adjustments needed.