> This is why unions get trounced in votes by real workers, things like Prop 22 pass with easy margins, etc.

I think it also has to do with the massive discrepancy in resources pro and anti-union advocates are able to put towards those races. Uber and Lyft invested massively in defeating prop 22, even advertising in their app directly.

While I don't like the economic resource discrepancy in that case, there was mutually dirty fighting.. the ballot language on Prop 22 by the AG was what I would consider literal propaganda. What they lack in economic resources, they make up for in political power via bureaucratic control.

I don't know how anyone could seriously hold the position that labor and corporate interests are on equal footing in any way. The history of the last 40 years in US labor relations has been a very consistent trend towards the consolidation of corporate power, alongside the erosion of labor's power.

So 2 things:

1) I do not believe they are in equal footing generally and never stated that - I was pointing out the nuances with respect to Prop 22. Gig cos. didn't win just because they had more money - they won because AB5 is a despised policy.

2) Unions != Labor. Workers == Labor. This is the key point I'm trying to make.

> What they lack in economic resources, they make up for in political power via bureaucratic control.

This would seem to imply equal footing, wouldn't it?

> Unions != Labor. Workers == Labor. This is the key point I'm trying to make.

So I'm not sure how this is relevant to the prop 22 discussion - did the legislation have anything to do with unionization? As far as I know it was only about extending existing labor protections to gig workers.

And there's a distinction there, to be sure, albeit a pedantic one. Outside of organized labour, how exactly do these "workers" exert any power in the work place or politics?

On point 1 - I think unions have dramatic political power in America. Corporations have both political power and economic resources. I generally think unions don't lose to corporations because of lack of power. I don't think that corporations vs. workers is currently a fair fight. To your point, my phrasing doesn't make that clear.

Prop 22 is strongly linked with AB5 - the entire push was by union leaders and the leaders of both AB5 and No on 22 (e.g. Lorena Gonzalez) regularly tweet things like "#AB5IntoAUnion."

I actually think there is no currently effective system. I believe in collective bargaining, but I just think that unions as a tool have become increasingly concerned with political representation and political power rather than worker representation. Using AB5 as a case study, there are virtually n=0 freelancers in California (incl. myself) that are happy with the law. It's a universally despised policy by workers and businesses alike, loved by unions...

> the ballot language on Prop 22 by the AG was what I would consider literal propaganda.

What does this mean and why aren't you being specific about what you're saying was dirty fighting? You're omitting your argument and just leaving the FUD.

I'm beginning to think working conditions will have to get worse, if possible, in order for the average worker to accept unions?

I find it sad.

Every job I didn't despise secretly had union affiliation.

Uber did buy prop 22. They used simple psychological ployes to pass their prop. (Yes--I know prop 22 was just about Independant Contrators. They will use similar tactics if we ever see an uptick in unions.)

More start-ups/companys will use it in the future.

Uber knew they could get desperate guys to go out and buy a late model 4 door car, pay all expenses, and be at the mercy of Uber.

America The Great is not so great anymore. An idiot became president exploiting the obvious. Yes--he went to race, but it's of his flock only went to working conditions.

We have a lot of lousy jobs.

Calling it a Side Hussle, or your ouwn boss, was just a beautiful ploy. I hope the fresh faced immoral corporate MBA stooge who brought that up in the meeting was well compensated.

I don't know very many people (Americans) who don't believe they will make it someday. They liked the little bit of autonomy Uber provided, even if that meant working for under minimum wage, after computing the car, insurance, maintance, and gas.

Driving for Uber was just going to be temporary.

The psychology is I'm an entrepreneur, and this Uber gig is just a stepping stone until I get a better gig. (Rap music playing in the backround)

The truth is most will never get a better gig, or worse--might go bankrupt, be fired over email, or just become Judgement proof after they ruin their credit.

Uber played into this mind puck beautifully.

They actually got those desperate guys fearful they would not be successful if they were just employees.

+1.The fact that most current tech unions are more about $POLITICAL_ISSUE_OF_THE_DAY (e.g. forcing the company to stop working with organization X) instead of just workers' rights and compensation is what turns me off of them. I believe they would be more successful if they split into goal-specific unions: most workers would have no issues joining the "real" union, and those who have specific opinions on political issues could join unions for related issues.

> I find that most propaganda comes from unions as they increasingly seek a political relationship with workers rather than the economic relationship that workers want.

This is probably the purest, and most direct example of the insane propaganda trying to separate economics and politics as if they weren’t inherently and inseparably tied together.

“Oh, I’m so sorry that we can’t spend money on health care, or pay a living wage, or provide elder care, unfortunately, due to ECONOMICS.

Ah, you need some corporate pork, and a bailout..? Of course! Let’s shower private enterprise with tax payer money, it’s the best course of action due to ECONOMICS”

None of this shit is apolitical, and the suggestion that it is, is deeply political, no matter how much people try to define themselves out of reality.

The fact that you have already have been convinced that unions are the big problem, while corporations are stealing tax payer-money (while utilizing “tax avoidance” to not even contribute in the US), says it all doesn’t it?

No.

No, you!

How do you disentangle politics and economics here? Or, are you just claiming that unions are focusing on the wrong side of the equation?

I think the disentanglement is fairly simple.

If you want to improve conditions for workers, just say that you want to improve pay / $hr, increase break time by x min, and define xyz working conditions and have a detailed plan to support that. I've personally seen 0 unions pursue this approach... but have seen plenty advocate support for completely unrelated, purely political topics (e.g. voicing support for Palestine)

How are unions not inherently political? I also don't consider that a bad thing. If labour laws are going to be improved (in favor of the worker) you need to organise and negotiate and vote together and unions are an excellent way to do that. What exactly would a strictly "economic relationship" look like?

Messaging and planning that focuses more on pay / hr., PTO / break time, better working conditions rather than voicing support for an ambiguous notion of "solidarity" and purely political things like support for Palestine

As a German I don't understand what you mean? Unions are always political, and leftist/socialist by nature. You can't separate politics and economics. And of course they are about solidarity, what else would give them the strength to strike for better working conditions?