I accept that unions have had a valuable place in society, and they're definitely still good for some things, but I don't believe their poor reputation today is "corporate propaganda". They seem to be one of those types of organizations that have outlived their original purpose, mostly, and now exist to propagate themselves.

Ultimately, it's just another power structure. The structure is neither good nor bad. What matters is the people. ("The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.") Like every organization, over time they tend to collect the type of people who take advantage of that power structure.

There's a fantastic This American Life that I've recommended here before: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015

It's on the NUMMI plant. GM's worst plant was shut down; Toyota took it over as part of a joint venture to show GM how to make cars in the Toyota way. The story of the workers and how they change as they work for an employer that treats them with respect is amazing.

It definitely made me believe that unions indeed could be shitty. But also, that it's not a one-sided thing, and that other relationships are not just possible, but necessary if we're going to make things that are more useful and reliable than a '79 Chevette.

This is a very interesting take and I'm exactly the same way. In fact, I just gave notice last week at my current position so that I could pursue a position with a company that was leaner and where more of my time would be spent on relevant work versus meta work. Fortunately, the complete compensation packages, benefits, insurance, et al. at both places came out to about a wash. My current employer is more secure from an employment perspective but I'm willing to give that up in exchange for "staying in the game" technically and for seeing the fruits of my labor have a more direct impact in the marketplace.

You really really can work at a better place.

I think it's both. My best friend makes $31 / hour installing plastic car door clips on an assembly line. That's a ridiculous wage for what he does (literally anyone could do his job.)

I'm happy for him and his family, but there's also a negative aspect to labor costing 3-4x what would be competitive in an open market.

Id consider such arguments if they applied to CEO's or similarly were reducing corporate expenses on things of questionable value. I find most of the companies that aay they can't pay workers overpay upper management and have a lot of frivilous spending.

A friend recently rented out an apartment in central London to people working for a nonprofit org at £10k per month and this is only scratching the surface of ludicrous corporate expense culture. Meanwhile these upper management say they can't pay their staff a living wage...

I really don't buy the argument that normal workers deserve to be paid crap because of "free market", but for some reason executive compensation needs to be amazingly outlandish.

No argument from me; I think it's absurd at both ends. If I had to keep one I would absolutely keep paying my friend ~60k / year.

How do I know what is the case? The fact that anyone with functioning limbs could do his job? That comes from him and the job description he gave me.

> And it's pretty clear the company is making enough money to cover it

Yeah I think you forgot about those factories which don't reside in the US.

There are lots of jobs like that where people are paid lots of money. I'm not buying your argument. Hell, most CEOs do a completely awful job, and still get to command much, much higher salaries. If you want to complain about people being overpaid, start with the executives.

$60k is way beyond the minimum in most of the US. It’s a good living even in major cities like Atlanta. Also, paying $60k to all 125 million full time workers would basically eat up all US wage income. The income range would have to be $60-70k.

In the sake of full disclosure, what year did you graduate college?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/05/01/this-is-the-no-1-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/lost-jobs-houses-s...

I make around that and without health insurance my chronic illness would be a disaster financially. Fortunately with decent insurance it’s just a disaster physically and emotionally.

What a generalization. Nevermind the thousands of small businesses operating on razor thin margins. They wouldn't be negatively affected by $60k minimum wage in the least bit.

My friend lives in Loves Park IL, near where I (we) grew up. You're delierious if you think it costs even 60k (120k since most families have two earners) to live there. Go experience the rest of the country some time.

i know a couple people selling 'legalshield', and a few people that have bought it. having the ability to contact an attorney for 'now and then' questions, to clear stuff up, or write letters.... $30/month or something like that. Seems similar, and potentially valuable, to have that in a corporate setting, depending on how much $ it would actually run you.

Other ways separates the money from the labor. There will always be strife in that organization. Having a worker owned co-op also means that the profits don't go elsewhere - they go back to the people doing the labor.

> Windings Inc. is headquartered in New Ulm, Minnesota, with domestic and international production facilities and capabilities. Windings maintains the highest standards in manufacturing, engineering, material management and concept development while achieving a global presence in the industry.

> Our company was founded in 1965. The majority of our business is made up of the Industrial, Aerospace, and Defense markets.

...

> In 1998, Windings Inc. formed an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) for a planned purchase and transition of Company stock to the employees of Windings. The higher sense of responsibility that comes with employee ownership has made Windings even more responsive to customer needs and encourages innovation to bring greater value to its customers. In 2008, the company became 100% employee-owned.

I don't read Italian, but there are a set of unemployment laws in Italy that roughly state - if there are 10 unemployed people who have an idea for a company, they can request all their unemployment insurance collectively and form a worker cooperative. Right now, there's more than 8000 such cooperatives in Italy.

In Norway, Kantega is another such example. They're considered in the top 100 best workplaces in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantega

Suma, a food collective, is another such example. Again, note the humane treatment of workers. Again, this is democracy in the workplace - the workers collectively decide how they are to be treated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative)

Prof. Wolff had a dissertation he gave, which is on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s

https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html

> LinkedIn failed to record, account and pay for all hours worked in a workweek, investigators found ... "Off the clock' hours are all too common for the American worker. This practice harms workers, denies them the wages they have rightfully earned and takes away time with families," said Susana Blanco, district director for the division in San Francisco. "We urge all employers, large and small, to review their pay practices to ensure employees know their basic workplace rights and that the commitment to compliance works through all levels of the organization. The department is committed to protecting the rights of workers and leveling the playing field for all law-abiding employers."

Collective bargaining is a life sentence of mediocrity for both a company and individuals. However, for 19th and 20th style assembly line type work where workers are literally interchangeable, then I can understand the appeal of collective bargaining. Some guy turning the same screw all day on an assembly line — there is not much room for “excelling” — you either turn the screw when the next part gets to you, or you don’t. Screw-turning doesn’t really have much opportunity for innovation or extra-mile at the individual level. But for a restaurant worker who might be extra nice to a customer or stay a few minutes late to help make the place extra clean or the kitchen worker who reduces food waste by being more efficient — even those “low” level jobs would be harmed by collective bargaining. Jobs that benefit from collective bargaining are ones with extremely minimal autonomy or require an extremely low skill set: just turn a screw. For jobs that actually require intelligence (emotional or intellectual,) collective bargaining is an insult. Unless of course you are poorly motivated in which case it’s a gift.

It may even describe what is an inevitable outcome, but, absent compelling evidence, even that is merely conjecture.

Otherwise, there's nothing inherent to collective bargaining that requires any of the features you mentioned. Even "collective" doesn't have to mean collectivism in the socialism/communism sense.

> assembly line type work where workers are literally interchangeable

Anecdotally, I've read the observation (perhaps even complaint) here on HN that employers still have a tendency to prefer their workers be more interchangeable than intelligent or individually productive.

Even if this attitude is minority, but a large minority, it creates an environment where unions seem desireable.

How do you reconcile this opinion with the high-levels of pay and celebrity in the entertainment industry and professional sports? They're all unionized and their bosses make money hand over fist as well.

But add a chronic health issue or having to take care of a dependant and you'll quickly find out why that job security + decent instead of maximum wage is not such a bad idea.