i use to like r/antiwork on Reddit but dumped it over a year ago. It isnt about "antiwork" but "union drives". The answer to almost any workplace issue seems to be "join a union" but what about the major Union failures?
Here (Canada) we had an issues with a meat processing plant in Alberta. It didnt take long for the striking workers to lash out at their union as well for lack of support. The union felt there were not enough people for them to get involved. while they were content to take their union dues, they were reluctant to get involved in costly legal battles?
Unions are also a business as well, subject to the exact same "corruption" charges as any other organization, so it is ironic that r/Antiwork advocates them?
Look at the recent news from the head of the very powerful auto workers union (which also includes clergy?) here and his mystery $25,00. Naturally his excuse is his "prescription medication and alcohol abuse made me do it".
People complain about the "CEO" pay, but how much do union leaders earn?
Unions were very good in the past and did a lot for the country, but people would be far better off changing laws instead of joining unions.
This is what really kills me about r/anitwork. Not everyone can join a union, but legal changes apply to everyone. I actually had someone tell me once "why should my union fight to help ohters"?
The union often turns into another bureaucracy which has forgotten its original mission, and now exists just to feed itself. Your meat processing plant example is a good one -- the union leaders apparently just want to keep their cushy life and avoid trouble.
Nonetheless, as I said, if you're an Amazon warehouse worker and the company doesn't give a shit about you, then yeah, a union could look like the least-bad alternative.
The idea of "forgotten its missing" really rings true here.
Every election they create some sort of "working family coalition" or such and spend millions on attack-ads. They have their guy in government and want them to win?
Why exactly are unions involved in politics? Why is this even allowed? Is this something the dues-paying members support, having millions of their dollars used on attack-ads?
Finally the party the unions seem dislike won a majority and passed laws to prevent this in the future: https://www.blakes.com/insights/bulletins/2021/ontario-passe...
The law was struck down as "unconstitutional" so the leading party used the "notwithstanding" clause to make it pass.
Look who was fighting it - "Working Families Ontario " This is not families, but unions. I dont know why they dont simply say "Ontario unions" instead of "working families"?
One takeaway from my time in the US is they really need to address its "lobbying" rules. We have a bit of a lobbying problem here, but no where near the level we see to the south.
When you do crazy things like rule that corporations are "natural people" when clearly they are not..
I have no clue how to fix this, but Lobbying is really bad which is why it is tightly controlled in most other countries.
s/HOA/Union/ and this statement is still true
My union is fighting to raise my stake in the business I work for. Even if that means there are a couple new rules from the union it's still a hugely net positive.
I’m sure there are some bad unions but that doesn’t mean we should give up on the concept any more than bad moves by companies means we should give up on the concept of private business.
That’s also what goes wrong in an HOA. If the majority want you to paint your fence then that’s it to have to paint it.
Some agency gained is better than no agency at all.
Sure! But often only by seniority.
So the guy who has been around the longest, but doesn't do a great (because the union will protect him) gets the best hours and best bonuses. Can you do a better job? Sure! But it doesn't matter, you don't have seniority.
Take that same scenario and apply it across a bunch of other issues you might have with coworkers and you'll get a sense how unions can go wrong.
Unions basically mean you give up individual autonomy in your job in exchange for group protection.
In some cases that's an improvement, in some cases it's not.
CEO = homeowner
Union = HOA
Employees = Grass on your lawn???
Like if you like long grass, the HOA can dictate you can’t do that. Or if you like pay by performance but the majority of the union wants pay by seniority they can dictate that to you.
And while it sounds good in theory... in practice many people hate HOAs. They hate not being able to decide what to do themselves and they hate the pettiness and politics of it.
Once the board members gave themselves the ability to write rules without a vote, they started going after everyone for petty violations, like parking a car in your driveway for too many days or having the wrong colored door mat. And they have the legal power to foreclose on your house if you don’t play along.
And if you're in the majority in the union then you're also ok.
The problem is when you're in a minority for some reason.
Yeah, this is a terrible analogy.
There was probably a time when unions made more sense. When much of the work is exactly the same and people are just cogs in a big machine, well, I think the idea of collective bargaining makes sense. But while Amazon warehouse workers and delivery teams are doing pretty similar work, there are still differences. Some people just do more work and I don't see anything wrong with rewarding them.
Now all of that being said, I can see a better argument for breaking up Amazon to ensure more competition. I feel like an open labor market is the best way for workers to earn good treatment. When the market was tight, Amazon responded with higher pay and more benefits-- without the need of a union to get in the way and collect dues.