>Generally we need to move those solutions into less partial laws and courts, instead of creating another unchecked center of power over workers.
Those most in need of the labor rights and respect unions traditionally afford are often those who have almost no access to the legal system. Fundamental problems like that are very difficult to fix, so in the meantime unions are the best way to accomplish that goal.
This seems like a powerful concern in theory but the facts make me more optimistic. I haven't found, say, OSHA to be toothless in practice, the DOL routinely brings aggressive overtime violations cases, and enforcement of the civil rights act against particularly southern hotels and gas stations by federal courts are all powerful counterexamples.
They are not comprehensively solved problems, but clearly demonstrate that organs of state power can and have been used in defense of marginalized groups. I'd say especially Federal courts, but several agencies have done impressive work too.
OSHA is toothless in practice. For large companies the fines are negligible.
https://www.ishn.com/articles/108358-osha-issues-tiny-penalt...
"OSHA has fined Tower King II Inc. $12,934 for the death of three workers who were attempting to install a new antenna on a communications tower in Miami. This is the maximum fine for one serious citation. "
"U.S. Rarely Seeks Charges For Deaths in Workplace"
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/us/us-rarely-seeks-charge...
Also, under Trump
It's not exactly like children losing arms to looms and being locked inside enflamed textile mills.
The fact there's still some work left to do doesn't imply we've made no progress.
It does show that unions haven't been able to comprehensively fix these issues either, though.
someone standing up for your rights and asking for compensation to do it is a lot more than any kind of ridiculous disruption mode you can imagine.
so much of the next generation is being told coding is the only job skill they'll need, what do you think will happen when they've flooded the market? we live in a plutocracy waging a war on workers rights, we are gonna need unions and we're gonna need them immediately.
They sure would be awfully fine institutions if that's how they actually worked.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17218381
Sorry it's a wall of text. I suck at brevity.
In my defense it's a complex topic and I'm trying to credit some good points on both sides.
And ok, I was too flip in my last comment, frustrated that its parent seemed to completely ignore my main point. At their best, maybe some unions do still work that way.
Many don't though. Most blue collar guys I know found the teamsters especially abusive.
Separately, investigations into construction in New York invariably find its unions rife with mafia-ties and racketeering.
But there are some good cases out there too, I'm sure. I just think the best of both worlds is to incorporate fair practices into our legal structures, rather than create new centers of power.
The thing is, in the absence of corrupt union power, you got nothing and there's only corrupt corporate/employer power.
If you can solve for that, it'll be great. And I agree it's tragic and awful when the corrupt corporate power is only balanced by corrupt union power, none of it giving a damn for ordinary people. But that's power for ya.
waves tiny anarchist flag, or something
"Eventually, however, it was corruption that led Scrivano to leave the industry, after one of his studio’s investors stole the majority of the company’s funds and disappeared without trace."
Clearly, the person who made off with the money would not benefit from a union.
How would a union have stopped corporate insider theft?
e.g. how about decentralization into smaller, independent, labor organizations focused on local issues, which build on open-source legal artifacts for governance, negotiations, threats and defenses?
But beyond that, it’s about values. You can’t start with a business culture that rewards competitive greed and narcissism over empathy and cooperation and expect it to suddenly start acting against its own core ethics.
But I agree with you that values are central. I'd back more investigations to uncover corporations with internal cultures more like Enron and root out bad actors in such places earlier, if we could do that fairly.
> Those most in need of the labor rights and respect unions traditionally afford are often those who have almost no access to the legal system.
This seems like a powerful concern in theory but the facts make me optimistic. I haven't found, say, OSHA to be toothless in practice, the DOL routinely brings aggressive overtime violations cases, and enforcement of the civil rights act against particularly southern hotels and gas stations by federal courts are all powerful counterexamples.
They are not comprehensively solved problems, but clearly demonstrate that organs of state power can and have been used in defense of marginalized groups. I'd say especially Federal courts, but several agencies have done impressive work too.
The laws are controlled by politicians whose campaign money comes from people whose interest is to exploit workers.
But those making that argument never bring up a workable alternative for accomplishing that goal, other than everyone should quit their jobs.
"I'm glad we had unions, but they also have a dark side, where they can function more like a corrupt cartel over time."
I cannot take this argument seriously when the management side of things is acting in the exact same manner, and no one seems to bat an eye.
Because it isn't the case. Short of actual slavery, management does not hold a monopoly on an individual's employment. If someone's employer is crap, they can move to another job. If they don't like their industry, they can try going into a different one. At least here in the US, labour is in relatively short supply.
Yes it is.
"Short of actual slavery, management does not hold a monopoly on an individual's employment."
If they decide to fire you, you've now lost your ability to feed and house your family.
"If they don't like their industry, they can try going into a different one."
So don't try to improve anything, just give up.
Despite this blatant extortion, I really have nothing else against the union. Their cut is quite small and they provide services and subsidies you can get your money back through (not that I've ever taken advantage of because everything's in Icelandic, but still...)
But on the other hand, I was almost forced to stop working and subsist on the peanuts the union pays because of a strike that had nothing at all to do with my own working conditions or even those of my co-workers or even people in the same industry (one of the side effects of unionizing in such a small population is the union sphere of influence is quite broad).
So from my experience, I think you've hit it on the nose.
Why would you think that? There's a reason that secondary strikes have been made illegal in the US, and that reason is not "they don't work".
The cornerstone of the case against unions isn't that we should stop respecting people, it's that unions are often no longer the best way to accomplish that goal.
Not to detract from early labor movements, the fights for basic workplace safety and overtime in the twentieth century and those people standing up to violence and harassment for basic human rights were heroic.
I'm glad we had unions, but they also have a dark side, where they can function more like a corrupt cartel over time.
Even without Hoffa-style criminality, they can become unintentionally, institutionally abusive. I've worked blue collar jobs in the rural US and had coworkers rant about their family getting eaten alive by the system. They'd explain how the unions would abuse their new probationary employees by making them work triple shifts in order to drive them away from the profession. I've known career extras desperate for a SAG card basically excluded from doing what they love because the slots are capped, and they're aging out of their passion while they wait their turn. Paying your dues can have a few meanings for people in those jobs. That's even setting aside how it creates steep power differentials that become a magnet for predatory gatekeepers like Weinstein.
I don't feel like typical pro or anti union positions do justice to the complexity here.
I think you have to acknowledge that unions have put a spotlight on massive social failings. But I think we also need to recognize their pathologies as well. Generally we need to move those solutions into less partial laws and courts, instead of creating another unchecked center of power over workers.