Which means it becomes a political game where the union is going to help you only if you help them.

Essentially adding a third-party that lives on the monster.

And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know personally the people who represent the union, etc.

And you end up with a negotiator that will negotiates his own best interests.

Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few) benefits and rights that workers have in the States are thanks to unions.

This is very slanted view of how labor developed in the US to simply give unions 100% of the credit, it is very revisionist history and not completely factual.

Unions can claim some credit, but to say they are solely responsible for "benefits and rights that workers have" is false.

Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price controls during WWII than they are to unions. as employers had to get creative with compensation to attract workers as they could not simply raise raw wages

I'd say the system of vacations and health insurance in the US is so shitty precisely because unions were gutted after WWII.

Workers routinely reveal their preference for higher wages over more time off. Given the option both in unions and in non-unions most workers will trade away increases in vacation time for high wage increases or starting wages.

One of the most unpopular changes my employer ever did was taking away the ability to Cash out vacation time. Many workers preferred just to cash out that time instead of taking it off.

Have you asked those workers? Do those workers even know that anything other than the status quo exists (e.g. in other countries)?

> Given the option both in unions and in non-unions most workers will trade away increases in vacation time for high wage increases or starting wages.

Again, that is a very American thing, too. Of course you'd take increased wages instead of anything just because there are little to no saftey net anywhere to guarantee that your vacation time won't end up in a horrible unrecoverable disaster of some sort.

you clearly did not understand my statement. I would specifically not get the accurate results by "asking the workers" as my claim is about revealed preferences, not stated preferences [1]. There are alots of things people claim to value when you ask them, but releval they really dont when to enter the marketplace. For example "Made in America".. people often claim they would happily pay considerable amounts more for a product if ti was "made in America" but then when presented with options they mostly choose the cheaper product regardless of where it is made revealing they do not place that much value in the nation of origin.

Similarly people often claim they want more time off, however their reveled preference by looking at their actions tell a much different story.

>Again, that is a very American thing, too

yes, it is and given we are talking about an American Company, American Unions, and American Retail stores I think talking about American work culture is relevant. People from Europe have never, and likely will never understand it, and people from American have never and will never understand Europe work culture. Personally though I am tried of Europeans being arrogant enough to claim their way is the correct, proper and only way, and that Americans are all being taken advantage of, abused, etc because we do not get 150 days off a year and do not allow our government to control our health........

>>Of course you'd take increased wages instead of anything just because there are little to no saftey net anywhere to guarantee that your vacation time won't end up in a horrible unrecoverable disaster of some sort.

While that may be true for some people, allow me to give my privileged position as an example. I created my own Safety net. I am more or less debt free, I own my home, I have enough in liquid assets to cover my expenses for a year, I have enough in less than liquid assets to cover me for a few years... I still will take increases in pay over more time off, I am just not interested in time off. I probably will continue to work well past the time I am able to financially retire.. I am not unique in America

As to more general safety nets... It is untrue that America lacks any safety nets for people. One of the most often cited negative about America by Europeans is actually one of those safety nets. Bankruptcy, which contrary to both international and domestic stigma is does not leave one destitute, homeless or anything of the sort and has LOTS of protections for people built into the system.

Then there are TON of government programs for Poor people.

In reality is the working lower middle class that have it the worst, people above the 25th percentile of income, and below the 75th percentile of income. Those are the struggling Americans.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp

Ah. The American arrogance shines through. "Government controlling health" and "these lazy Europeans with their 150 days of vacation".

> allow me to give my privileged position as an example. I created my own Safety net.

So, double arrogance.

> It is untrue that America lacks any safety nets for people. One of the most often cited negative about America by Europeans is actually one of those safety nets. Bankruptcy

This is not a safety net. It's the last resort. And yes, Europe has laws around bankruptcy, too.

> Then there are TON of government programs for Poor people.

I don't want to become poor before safety nets kick in. I don't want to be beholden to my employer for my medical insurance. I don't want to have only 10-14 days on average to spend time with my family or with my kids. Etc.

Oh, sorry, that's my European arrogance talking.

> In reality is the working lower middle class that have it the worst, people above the 25th percentile of income, and below the 75th percentile of income.

According to various models, it's anywhere from 30% to 45% of people, with actual numbers probably being worse: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/download...

Factual statements are not arrogance.

>>This is not a safety net. It's the last resort.

My point is it should not be considered the "last resort", in fact I think people wait far far far too long to file for bankruptcy.

>>Europe has laws around bankruptcy

While true, The US is normally cited as creator of personal bankruptcy law, and it used as the benchmark. Changes in the laws in the EU has expanded personal bankruptcy but in many parts of the EU the bankruptcy laws are not as favorable to personal debtors than in the US.

>>I don't want to become poor before safety nets kick in.

Then it is no longer a safety net... It is just a universal income scheme or outright socialism.

>>I don't want to be beholden to my employer for my medical insurance.

Nor do I, which is why I support deregulation of the industry, returning to free market principles, and allowing tax exemptions for personally acquired plans instead of only when it is part of an employer plan (and a range of other reforms) instead of just believing the government should provide....

>I don't want to have only 10-14 days on average to spend time with my family or with my kids. Etc.

Great, negotiate that with your employer. People that do not have those same priorities should also be free to negotiate what they want which may include less time off. That is what a free society allows for. What you want however is to mandate your preference, believing that is what is best for "everyone"

>According to various models, it's anywhere from 30% to 45% of people, with actual numbers probably being worse

One of the reasons for that is the "safety net" system which largely punishes people for their success. If the poor attempt to climb out of poverty that system takes away benefits faster then the income is replacing those benefits, literally paying people to stay poor.

A better system then this network of misaligned "safety net" programs where the government is providing services or payments to fix specific perceived problems (housing, food, etc) would be a more generalized graduated negative income tax system that phases out as the person makes increasing income. This would have to replace all "safety net" programs, and make people individually responsible which is a negative concept in the modern world.

In the US unions are required to assist even non-members who are in jobs represented by the union. It's called the "free rider" problem.

> And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know personally the people who represent the union, etc.

This has historically been a problem in non-worker-run unions, and may still be. In worker-run unions workers directly elect their representatives from the membership. If you think your current leadership is too tight with management then you can run against them, or vote for someone who does.

Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no understanding of the business, which never works out for anyone either the workers or the business.

Workers could get screwed with out knowing it, or the demands are soo outside what the business can support the business would never agree.

Contract negotiations typically always start this way, from both sides of the bargaining table. That's why it's called contract bargaining. After a few rounds of back and forth you're supposed to hit something that's acceptable to both sides.

The elected person is still a worker at the business. Still talks with other workers at the business, as well as management. And still has access to the non-elected employees of the union whose job it is to catalog and remember institutional knowledge.

Spunds like damned if you do, damned of you don't

Is there any way for a worker to stand up for himself that sits right with you?

You can negotiate alone, but you have much less bargaining power that way. There's a reason the big tech companies all work together on their side of this negotiation (colluding with other employers to lower salaries, all doing layoffs at the same time, etc.): it works.

In states without Right-to-work laws, once the union is in place, employees are NOT able to freely pool with other employees, they're restricted to pooling with ALL of the union members in that shop, or even multiple shops.

Certain union policies, such as the non-compete agreements within the AFL-CIO, can limit employees' options when considering joining another union.

For instance, a worker cannot join another AFL-CIO union for at least a year after leaving their previous union, which seriously restrict their choices.

`no AFL-CIO union can take on a member of another AFL-CIO union for at least a year after the worker leaves their previous union. This rule may significantly reduce the number of other unions you can join.`

Also, now someone else is going to decide for you, and you must adhere to collective agreements, and then, if you don't like something, you are stuck with a Union, then good luck negotiating anything directly yourself, unless you can get 30% of the company to follow you.

No way the boss is going to listen to you now that Unions are in place (as it becomes the primary and official way of discussion)

There is also significant potential for corruption.

Unions are good when you are working in a factory or in a mine, where workers have a physical work that is highly measurable and standardised.

This way you make sure that you get a fair and equitable treatment, and protect the employees.

In contrast, for roles where performance measurement is more complex and project-dependent, such as programmers or project managers, forced union membership with large unions may pose more risks than benefits due to the nature of their work (not easy to differentiate a project manager that is lazy and playing poker, vs planning tasks).

Now if this lazy PM is your union representative. It's really not good news, and he is now protected.

The problem with Unions are not US specific, it's in many countries. In France, some Unions are openly corrupted, because the employees' representatives are practically impossible to fire, and they have bargaining power / secrets that could affect the bosses legal responsibility.

Freely pooling together...like a union? Your argument seems to hang on the notion that once people do pool together, they lose all control and the union they created turns on its own members. That's like saying corporations shouldn't have any management because the managers will just enrich themselves at the expense of the owners.

It's particularly odd to read this since the person you replied told you that they're literally on the bargaining committee. So you're warning them about...themselves?

Yes I'm sure that OP already knows that sitting at the negotiating table is a good position for him but all the other members of the Union don't have that privilege.

All bargaining sessions are open to observation by all unit members, and have been since day one. Ten percent of the unit was elected by single transferrable vote (Meek Rule) to speak at the bargaining table. But that is just to keep the bargaining orderly; union proposals are drafted by any interested members. We keep them all in a Google Drive so anyone can check in on the state of bargaining. We also take extensive notes for members who could not observe in real time to catch up the state of bargaining.

Once the bargaining committee reaches a tentative agreement with the employer, the whole membership will have to ratify it by secret ballot before it goes into effect.

Where is the "privilege" in this system, exactly?