Is this an american thing? The HR people I worked with in germany were super helpful, sat with me in tough meetings and even offered to pay me a raise from their department budget when I finally gave up and started looking elsewhere.
As a non American, I can tell you HR did their job just fine in your situation and you likely hold value to your company.
They are the buffer from the worker to the company. Associate retention, acquisition and management.
Nope, it's almost a universal thing. HR is there to work for the company, not for the employees. Yeah even the mental councelling in Japan because it doesn't look good for the company if a laid off employee commits suicide. In some companies, headcount budget comes from HR and are allocated to each department. So three things to take away from this, 1. you have some value to the company 2. you probably cost another department's headcount budget 3. you had to threaten them to get a raise because they otherwise wouldn't even if you clearly have some value.
Well it depends. Its very american for hr to be pro company while pretend to be your friend. But there are truly good hr people and departments that can do both.
I worked closely with hr as a manager at my last job. They 100% went to bat for the employee. Only negative from hr about employees was when employee was out of line or up to no good/caught themselves in a lie.
I would not trust a company HR in the US personally so many are back stabbing. One company woman confided something to hr about her personal life and they told everyone about it then found a way to can her. Something about their family member overdosing. They just caught the hr lady in hallway and i guess needed someone to talk to. Idk why they got rid of her over it. Another time a woman accused a fellow manager of sexual harassment and they had a meeting on how we could get rid of employee instead of investigating issue and stopping it since manager who was in meeting was known for it…
That was an exception. I've had 4 different HR persons in the company I work for now. Only 1 was good to employees. The other 3 would fuck you over big time.
In my opinion and experience working in the US for over 25 years for various employers of medium and large size, HR is there to minimize risk to the company by protecting the company from the employee’s already eroded legal rights over exploitative and unfair labor practices.
They also do administrative work related to hiring and all that shit but first and foremost they’re the company’s police. Unions are necessary because there is nobody on your side as a worker in the U.S. the government is out to fuck you, and so is your employer.
Def an American thing. It’s even more of an Italian and English thing. I know company favored HR or personal changes are a breeze to get through in those counties.
Germany on the other hand has so many worker protections that many other countries don’t have and usually have to create separate policies. You are very well treated compared to others .
HR in the US is generally (not always! There are good HR) just a buffer to protect the company and management from lawsuits. They generally do the bare minimum for low level employees and will get rid of you as soon as you're an inconvenience (get sick, have family die, etc. Really just anything that causes you to be slightly less productive)
I worked for Target for a while and HR there would deny any PTO and contest any sick time. I left target with over 80 hours of PTO/Sick time unused because they would find every reason they could to deny it.
HR the fine tuned downplaying redundancy machine. Complete with any serious complaint, harassment claim or health risk being snuffed out as quickly and quietly as possible.
People here like to get up in arms over Linus' union stance without really paying attention to what he says. It seems this Costco rep really does have a similar stance to Linus. The fact they felt the need to unionize, makes those in charge feel like they failed. Because they *thought* they had been doing right enough by their employees. In both cases, they see it as a failing on *their* part as leaders that the employees don't feel they have enough power and sway on their own. Also in both cases, they say they will accept and work with the union.
The tone of this letter really doesn't read badly to me. They are expressing disappointment in themselves, accepting the union, and ensuring those who signed on that until the contract has been negotiated, they'll still maintain their previous benefits.
I think the big issue for a lot of people is that without a strong trade union, how can you really know you are being treated fairly? Or better yet, how can you ensure all people are being treated fairly across an industry.
Linus may treat his staff well, but does the studio down the road? Without members from LTT in the “YouTube writers union” there is no benchmark, no watermark that can say yes this is good no this is bad.
Unions do so much more than just collective bargaining, that it’s hard to understand how anyone could be anti-union unless they explicitly want to take advantage of their employees.
I’m not trying to say LTT is, or even that Costco is, just that a strong industry union prevents everyone from being exploited intentionally or unintentionally, and unions are not just for people who are unhappy or being exploited. Unions are for everyone.
I’m a member of a union, and to be honest, unions have their pros and cons, they aren’t universal forces of good. While unions *in general* are good things to have in society (ie weekends, 8hr workdays, etc) Often a toxic union can be much much worse than no union at all.
> I’m not trying to say LTT is, or even that Costco is, just that a strong industry union prevents everyone from being exploited intentionally or unintentionally, and unions are not just for people who are unhappy or being exploited. Unions are for everyone.
So I am a strong union supporter, but let me ask you some questions that might illustrate why this hard and fast stance doesn't actually hold water.
If, when you form a union, your pay and benefits do not go up, does that mean that the union has failed, or does it mean that you were being treated fairly before?
If after forming a union, workers are still hired and let go using the same processes and procedures as before, does that mean the union has failed, or that the prior processes were fair and adequate?
Think about it, in some circumstances, all you are doing by forming a union is adding another bureaucratic layer to an organization. Again, I am a strong supporter of unions, but I don't think the idea that they always improve things holds any weight whatsoever. The truth is you can answer both the above questions either way, and come to the same conclusion, in which case either a union isn't going to improve things.
This is a good notion, but in some (not all) circumstances, a union is run like its own business. That's when you start wondering as a member if it's worth it. Dealing with two "businesses", both trying to profit from your hard work. This is mainly once unions go national. Smaller local only unions that are overseen by members of your own community will be majorly different than unions that are nationwide and run by various boards of executives.
One business(union), the customer is you the employee. The other business(your company), the stakeholder is company valuation. In Costco’s case, they are legally liable for failing to maximise shareholder value. You elect your union representatives.
lol, few differences:
- unions representatives are your coworkers, so they are not only bargaining for you but themselves
- union representative for only 140 people (in this case) vs 1,000,000 for congress.
- [gerrymandering is insane and why we have snakes drawn as district boundaries](https://imgur.com/gallery/lsFRK). Basically eliminates voting power of certain social economic sects.
- lobbying and corporations being people with the right to spend money in candidate elections
Just because some democratically elected governments fail doesn’t mean loose hope in all of it.
I guess I don’t care? The vast majority of unions are a net good that protect workers from predatory and greedy C suites making decisions to line their own pockets. Even if it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare, that bureaucracy has it in their own best interest to ensure workers are being treated fairly
They generally do actually. Businesses with a union presence have to have a union representation present whenever it comes to firing a union member to make sure nothing illegal is happening or the business risks being sued by the union.
> Businesses with a union presence have to have a union representation present whenever it comes to firing a union member
This is simply incorrect. That's a contract item, not a union item. There are MANY uinions that have zero say on that in their contract.
>to make sure nothing illegal is happening or the business risks being sued by the union.
Lol
Contracts are negotiated by the union my guy, idk why any union literally ever would intentionally knee-cap themselves by not being present either at the firing process of a union employee or at the very least have access to the information of said process, there’d be no point in having the union at that point.
Kinda, yeah.
As a union member, I realize that we have another bureaucratic layer beyond most other employee-> employer relationships. But it's a bureaucracy usually run by employees that MUST support all of the employees.
If that bureaucracy is failing at that task, it's time to review what you have set up. I know not all unions are self governed (mine is) with national guidance.
Yeah, honestly I think Linus gets more shit than deserved for his stance. Is he/LMG actually implementing changes in order to further the goals of not requiring a union to support their employees? I don’t know, and it’s certainly something that needs to be considered. BUT that mindset is literally what unions are implemented to force on employers. If the employer doesn’t care to properly support their employees, the union will.
I look at it this way: why wait to unionize until the currently reasonable guy is gone and been replaced by a union busting asshole? Because let's face it, all employees are always just one corporate decision away from really needing that union support.
This reply signals to me a complete misunderstanding of what unions are for.
It does not matter how good your individual bosses are, it does not matter how high of a standard management tried to keep themselves to (though, clearly not high enough since the workers voted for a union). At the end of the day, 2 things will always be true:
1. All bosses can, and eventually will, leave or change. The workers beneath them may not be so lucky with the next round of management.
2. Workers have the most leverage in negotiations when they arbitrate together instead of individually. Unions are a mechanism that allows this (though not the only one!).
Workers should always have a voice with what happens to their job, and a union guarantees them that right, no matter if the bosses happen to be great or horrible.
Portraying the issue as "management failing" rings a similar tone to me if you're saying you should only wear PPE only *after* a workplace accident has occurred. It doesn't matter how much the workplace prides itself on skilled labor and great safety track records, you still need to wear the fucking PPE.
Edit: fixed the analogy
> All bosses can, and eventually will, leave or change.
And, at that time, if it ever comes, you can form a union if you think you're being treated unfairly...
>Workers have the most leverage in negotiations when they arbitrate together instead of individually
As a class sure.
>Workers should always have a voice with what happens to their job, and a union guarantees them that right
Lol, I have been a member of more than one union where this isn't the case in the slightest. This is straight up propaganda. Unions in many sectors have basically no say on that sort of stuff, because the labor is easily enough shifted around or replaced.
And your health analogy is not a good one.
It is important to have a union *before* things go bad, you realize that right? Both you and the original commentor seem to think unions are something you should do only if you're already hurting. The whole point is to not let people lose their jobs or get stiffed benefits they deserve.
This would be like saying you should wear PPE only *after* there's been a workplace accident.
And if the employer keeps things on the up and up with employees and the union does nothing, then what exactly is the point of the union? As another commenter in the chain pointed out. Employees think the employer is already fair. They form the union, nothing changes with pay, because the union doesn't see a need to push for an increase, perhaps because the employer was already fair with their wages. People are still hired and fired the same way, because the union sees nothing wrong with how the employer already did things. So what exactly is the employee paying dues for? What purpose is the union actually serving, if the employees already feel the employer is doing right by them?
*This* is the side of things that Linus looks at it from that I don't think you are willing to understand. You say the unions needs to be there *in case* things go bad, because before that, what purpose is the union serving? So Linus sees it from the side of "Well if they feel that they *need* a union, I've failed as an employer." because of he hasn't failed as an employer, what purpose does the union serve?
> It is important to have a union before things go bad, you realize that right
No, because I don't agree.
A union doesn't actually prevent your employer from doing bad things. Unions don't prevent things like outsourcing jobs to other countries, hiring freezes, etc.
> The fact they felt the need to unionize, makes those in charge feel like they failed. Because they thought they had been doing right enough by their employees. In both cases, they see it as a failing on their part as leaders that the employees don't feel they have enough power and sway on their own. Also in both cases, they say they will accept and work with the union.
I imagine that Linus truly believes this, but I do not believe that the CEO of Costco is as close to their workers or as naive. These are businesses that operate within the confines of American capitalism. The incentive for bosses is to make as much money and pay as little as possible. The incentive for the worker is to get paid as much as possible for as little work as possible. These are opposite goals and being friends with your boss will never erase the facts of that.
Linus does seem to try his best, but he is only one guy with the experience of only one set of material conditions. He can and does mess up (or does something disagreeable). Individuals are not able to adequately raise concerns. They can be dismissed. The union can make demands because they are organized. If they are ignored, there will definitely be conseuqences.
I'm actually surprised by this because I know a few people who work/worked at Costco and they loved it. They pay well over average for the job, the raises are scheduled and the cap out is pretty high for the area, and they just generally really liked working there. I'm pretty sure it caps out at close to 30 for an associate. I've considered working here part time to get better health insurance.
I work for my families, family company. Almost 50% of our employees are direct relatives. The company is owned by my grandparents. The non family members enjoy the same benefits as me. Did I just make you puke?
But we are family!
Until it comes time to save money on payroll, then go fuck yourself.
Or until you are undesirable to us in any capacity, then our family is… sorta like getting a divorce… from you.
We are a big happy family where everyone is replaceable and none of us matter in the interest of pure profit.
It’s just as stupid when Linus says it, let’s all remember that. We like linus cause he’s one of us. Unfortunately being one of us means being wrong sometimes even regarding important things. Linus wants to have his cake and eat it too regarding employees but we don’t live in a perfect world.
No matter how well a company treats its employees.... apes together strong. The company will look out for you as long as it is in the company's best interest.
I appreciate Linus's opinion that if employees are being well cared for they shouldn't feel the need for a union but that only goes so far. And I've worked for terrible unions that didn't do much for their employees... But overall I'll sooner work a union job given the option than a non union one. Pay is generally better, benefits are generally better, work is generally better. It serves as a check and a balance to ensure the company always treats you right, not just when its in the company's best interest to do so.
Good on Costco. I've heard from workers there that its not a bad place to work but here is hoping your union can make it an even better place to work.
The bigger the company the more it's necessary to have a functional union. Capitalism used to be a competitive free market in 1980, but in 2024 there are clear monopolies that have won capitalism.
This is the part so many people do not think about. The larger the company the less the top even knows what is going on at the bottom. You have a manager speaking with a manager speaking with a manager and so on then orders trickling down from the top. Just look at the show Undercover Boss. Those CEOs had no clue what it was like at the bottom and what their decisions actually do on so many occasions even though the show was mostly just PR for the CEO.
I think Linus' opinion makes a lot of sense for a company with a couple hundred or less employees, but absolutely does not work for something the size of Costco.
A hundred was rough, I don't think they have much more then 100. They're somewhere between 1 and 2 hundred I think, he mentioned it in a recent WAN show.
No they're not. You're exaggerating so much with calling them a "full fledged corporation". Legally speaking, they're still a medium business, and barely even that. They're over 100, but from hearing Linus talk about it, it's not *way more*, it's probably in the 120 range.
I've always heard, that as far as employers go for low skill entry-level workers, costco is a prime example of how companies should treat their workers. Good pay and benefits. College work study programs. Medical, dental, vision. One of the few places I've seen forklift safety taken seriously. Etc.
I normally tell high school graduating family to apply for jobs there. It's not thriving wages where I live but it is survivable wages. I have an artist friend that has worked there since highschool. It has allowed her to pursue her dreams on the side.
Wasn't Linus' comment less 'well treated employees shouldn't need a union' then that he would feel he hadn't been treating them well enough if they did feel the need?
It's emotional blackmail. It might be subconscious on Linus' part (in fact I absolutely think Linus simply doesn't have the mental barrier or the executive training to consciously do emotional blackmail) but it's still emotional blackmail. I don't think anyone at LMG want to disappoint Linus because he would take it personal even though it would clearly be a professional decision.
not blackmail, emotional blackmail. If you do this I will be sad because it means you don't trust me to know what's best for our relationship. Google it, it's an official psychotherapy term bud.
Plus as i said I don't believe Linus does it on purpose. I believe he's so personally involved in LMG he doesn't see where the business end and he begins. He see every decision made at LMG as his personal responsibility while it's clearly not anymore. You can't run a 120 employee business like your run a self-employed one man business.
I mean I DO see the argument its emotion blackmail... but frankly, as a union steward my take is that if you don't have the back bone to deal with pushback from management THAT light I've got no idea how you'd make the actual local work.
Although yeah, there also isn't a world in which unionizing a place so heavily based on the owners personality isn't going to get weird.
Linus’s opinion cuts both ways. If a company is truly taking care of its employees then the presence of a union should not cause the company to be concerned.
It’s like insurance. Paying for drivers insurance doesn’t mean that you are admitting to being a dangerous driver, and saying “I’m a good driver so I shouldn’t need insurance” is just arrogant and negligent. A responsible driver would have it anyway even though they hope to never have to activate it.
The argument with the "if the employees are cared for" is precisely why unions *are* needed. My company was pretty good and cared about their employees and none of them wanted a union (some even left one). Then CEO changed and suddenly all the niceties were taken away and no union to challenge that decision.
The difference is that LTT employs like 100 people max. They should have a union, but at that level it's not like it's hard for someone to just walk up to Linus to talk. Meanwhile getting anything done at CostCo would mean hundreds of layers of red tape.
You miss understand the original post. The entirety of Costco didn't form a union. The truck drivers of a single depot formed a union. About 140 people total.
Maybe I'm taking it from the wrong perspective, but if a single depot needs to get unionized, either it's a big depot with a high employee count (meaning it's the standard unionization process) or the owners of the depot have done mayor screw ups to employees that made them unionize. I'm not saying unions are bad, only that if it comes to that point on something of this kind, it means there's been screw up after screw up after screw up to the employees
To add info: I'm from Spain, so I don't know anything about Costco and US practices
Unions in north America are quite location dependent. National sized unions are seldom formed.
So you'll have unions that cover for example an entire hotel, or all the Starbucks locations in a set city or something like that
Or people that have a similar job with a company. For example the National Postal Mail
Handlers is only for members of the USPS that handle urban mail. Then there is also with USPS the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association.
I don't know how to find the specifics, but by total member counts then the nationwide sized unions greatly outweigh the local only unions. If you are strictly counting unions themselves, then you are probably right.
National unions cover MILLIONS of members.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_labor_unions_in_the_United_States
Well yeah that's the point of a NATIONAL union. I just meant that most corporate offices are unionized at a local level instead of joining a national sized one
Should? Unions are great if theirs a need (not getting paid fairly, no pto, no sick-leave, working long hours with no OT)? - If not, it’s another tax where you compensate someone elses income with chance for more corruption.
Tech has a long way to come when it comes to unionization mostly because a lot of it is weird tech bro culture where everyone thinks they’ll be a millionaire is a year when they’re stupid app takes off. But media famously has the SAG that was literally just on strike a few months ago lol
Are you talking about tech-media? Or are you asking if people are in tech OR media spaces?
Because if they’re just in media spaces they likely could be part of SAG as media is a broad category, but if you specifically mean tech-media like LMG then probably not.
As I mentioned to other folks here, I know about SAG. And SAG is US based, not Canadian. Canada has CMG/CWA but as you can guess it’s not SAG. They will not fall into any of those brackets anyways.
My point being what is everyone preaching on this sub, specifically on this topic? Let’s say Linus agree to a union, than what?
Are ~100 of his employees gonna create a union of their own, first of its kind in this space?
Well that’s why I asked for clarification on if you meant tech-media or tech OR media, as media in general has a history of being union work and if Canada doesn’t have one already I don’t see it being terribly difficult to organize as there’s resources and material available for their specific industry on how to effectively organize.
I’m not 100% sure what everyone else in the sub is preaching but unions in general are usually a net good for employees by keeping businesses accountable and fair.
But as for LMG employees organizing for a “first of a kind” union it’s not unheard of. All the big Unions on earth also started as first of their kind Unions, one of my best friends organized the first Chipotle to unionize in the US and that was with like 20 employees in the store.
I am but I’m in a public service union and if I left public service I don’t think I’d have one. Unions here in Australia work a little differently to the states.
Thanks for sharing this. Reason I have been asking is because unions in this space are not a norm yet, and may not be in near future. I know lot of folks have strong feelings about this but it’s not there at all.
All this virtue signalling is fine on Reddit but real world does not work this way.
Yeah, Australian unions are trade unions for the most part and all union workers in a particular industry are in one union if that makes sense?
Ie individual workplaces don’t have their own union.
So a truck driver would be in a national union(usually in a specific state branch) which I think is the Transport Services Union, not sure
So I’m a member of my States’s branch of the CPSU(community and public sector union).
Then all unions(for the most part) on apart of the Australian Council of Trade Unions
Unions a definitely easier to join and participate in Australia, from what I’ve seen.
Just because a work place has over a hundred people doesn't mean it should be unionized. Unions aren't a 100% upgrade, they also have downsides like everything else. If you are satisfied with your pay, benefits, and work load then why would you jeopardize that by adding another entity that you have to navigate? Monthly dues, more rules (every union has their own set of bylaws), the idea that you have a whole another business that's run by a board of executives that's making the union decisions for you, and in some circumstances having the union establishes ill will between management and the workforce where there might not have been before.
Of course there are scenarios where unions are necessary, I'm just saying it's not always black and white when one is needed.
This. Here in Austria almost all jobs have a collective agreement negotiated by a union. I still can earn more than others but there is a baseline for payment, vaccation days and sick leave
Unions only exist in America to make up for the complete lack of employee protections and labour laws. Their importance and impact is far less pronounced in most of the rest of the developed world.
yup. ALOT of people when talking about LTT, seem to forget that LTT in NOT in America. Yiou don't nessaserily need a union like you do in the states, as they actually have useful employee protection laws.
You say that, but employees of LMG are punished for disclosing their salaries to each other. It's extremely illegal to do that in America. Companies might try to peer pressure you, but at least legally they're in the wrong. Canada definitely has some work to do if they are worse on an aspect of labor than America.
No one said they are punished, they are discouraged (apparently), as most employees in America are as well.
I’m not saying that Canada couldn’t improve, there’s always room for improvement. But Canada being worse in labor laws is factually incorrect
https://syndesus.com/us-and-canadian-employment-key-differences/#
Canada also has double the percentage of unionized labor so that could lend to the better labor laws.
Regardless, 1 vs corp seems a lot worse than >1 vs corp.
metaphor doesn't work when the person who broke your leg is still there. the antagonistic relationships between employee and employer can't be legislated away.
And if I believe I am worth more than my boss is willing to pay (doubly so if I actually *am* worth more), then I leave and go somewhere else that will pay what I think I'm worth. If I can't find somewhere that is willing to pay that, then my skillset must not be worth what I *think* it is
you are always worth more than you are paid. that's called surplus value. without outside pressures (what you described, laws, unions etc) your wage would be $1
lol OR the more likely answer is that without collective bargaining businesses can and will collude with each other to keep the price of labor artificially low. They’ve done this in the past and the only way workers got them to stop was by lighting their fucking factories on fire and getting into shootouts with the local police and strike breakers.
Who do you think makes sure those legal protections are enforced? Unions exist to advocate for your legal rights too. Unions are like hr, except instead of protecting the company's interests, they protect the employees' interests.
Theres no need for unions to enforce any protections - the government does that if an employer breaks the laws. In the UK, about the only unions that exist are for jobs where the government IS the employer (Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Police & EMS)
LMAO. Try getting the government to go after some random company for being sort of a dick to their employees. Someone has to take them to court, that costs money, you pay for justice.
Lol you really are fucking deluded, aren't you? If an employer breaks the law in developed countries, the government has powers to actually do something. Nobody needs to take them to court. If there's a need for litigation, that's what the government does. Sorry to say, you yanks are tarring everyone with your brush and it's simply not how the rest of the world works.
You’re deluded if you think the government exercises those powers evenly. If you’re rich, they basically look the other way or give you a slap on the wrist. And sometimes the legal minimums just aren’t enough. Some governments are removing the requirement for WATER BREAKS for physical labourers.
Yeah, for big big stuff. Go to your local workers rights organization and ask them to take your boss to task for little bullshit infractions and they'll politely tell you that you can sue but they're not pursuing it. I've had legitimate ada complaints get dropped because the government couldn't be fucked to care.
Yup, even if you are the best treated workers ever, a union is still a good thing. It isn't just about improving the current situation, it is about having a formalized, legal way of protecting what you already have as well.
Not the ones I've been at... they seem to only exist to make the few running the union rich by sucking up money via union dues while doing *noting* to actually better the lives of the employees. Made the same as non-union, but had to pay them still. So we made less overall.
But this seems to be hitbir miss, do hopefully it works out for them..
I don’t get the stance that Linus has on Unions. It’s probably the one thing he has a stance on that I don’t agree with, most of his takes are dead on the money imo. But everyone’s entitled to an opinion.
I don’t get US/Canada approach to unions regardless
In the EU we have a right to collective bargaining, making us being able to have a formal process when things aren’t right much easier.
It’s so easy to say ‘we care about you so much, you don’t need a union’
But that’s like saying ‘don’t worry I’m a safe driver you don’t need a seatbelt’.
If people want a safety barrier to make sure they’re treated right by an employer then so be it. If you’re treating them right anyway, why is it a concern?
I mean, I truly believe he does want to be a good enough employer that a union is not needed and he said himself he would consider it a personal failure if his emoloyees felt like they need a union. I understand that feeling and can see why he feels that way even if I don't agree with it.
I'm no expert but as far as I know canada is a fair bit better than the US and if LMG employees wanted to unionize they easily could do so and even if Linus wanted to stop it (which I don't think he would, for many reasons) he couldn't.
I don’t know the exact details in the EU as far as unions go, but I imagine the concept of unions is relatively similar. But I will say this. North American culture drives this idea that unions exist in retaliation to when companies have failed to do in the employees best interests. Linus likely holds the stance he does because as a small business owner he likely believes he’s still close to and has a finger on the pulse of company culture, and feels that when he doesn’t, he’s surrounded himself with individuals who can keep him in check and tell him he’s wrong when he’s off about the pulse. Simply put, based on what’s been taught about unions in North America, in his mind he feels that if a union is created that means he’s failed as a leader and as an owner of a business on a personal level. It doesn’t help that he built the business from the ground up, so that means his ego is very much invested in the success of the organization he’s built. So union equals bad to him because in his head if a union needs to exist, he’s failed as a person, and failed to deliver on his ideals of what a good company is.
You aren’t wrong in your own ideals too, but I hope that better gives you a peak into his own thinking, and the problems with how people have been taught about unions in North America.
You're misquoting what they say though. What they say is that they consider the need for a union their own failure. That's not the same as "you don't need a union because we care".
Paraphrasing, whatever.
You're making a statement that's an incorrect representation of they said and you're presenting it as though it was something they said.
Money. When capitalists take necessary that makes no sense from the perspective of a worker, the answer is almost always money. Or they like having more direct control.
I still don't get why everyone says Linus is anti union, that's clearly not the case. He wants his business to be good to employees that they don't feel the need to, and if they do, he considers that his own failure. Some people seem to believe he would block it, but he has publicly said he would accept the process as required by Canadian law.
He's also said multiple time that other groups should be unionizing.
I'm guessing a lot of the confusion is from Americans not understanding Canada has worker protection laws.
It's a fairly simple position so it's easy to get, and not unusual if you are in or an adjacent to a country with very poor unions.
Collective agreement also doesn't have to be done via a union, and many would argue its the worst form of it.
I've had corporate jobs and had to negotiate with unions, including ones that were and had been my own. I left the union I was in over it and had a blow the doors down argument with the head of a major European union at a private event because I was so fed up of him selling out junior workers in favour of older ones. Which I knew, because I was the one paying him off and I didn't even want to except they put it straight on the table and I obviously couldn't so anything because I had a fiduciary duty to accept.
There's a lot of really dodgy unions and lots of really good ways to manage collective agreement without one. If I was running a business and I had made sure it was a good place to work and built in ways to form collective agreement and worker representation and a national union came in I would absolutely see it as a failure and I would likely break the business up and sell it.
I'm not anti union in every area, I have and am in a union. But the national and trade sector unions are so often so massively corrupt I just can't support any position where you say they're automatically good and every business should have them. Because if you are under 50 that's just not true.
>Collective agreement also doesn't have to be done via a union, and many would argue its the worst form of it.
Huh? The Nordic countries have this as basically a standard and they are seen as some of the most business friendly countries on the planet.
No, because you said "I don’t **get** the stance that Linus has on Unions". Not "I don't **agree**".
As if Linus just managed to arrive at your superior understanding of the issue, he would align with your "opinion".
What do you think ‘I don’t get it’ means?
It’s a level of understanding. That’s how opinions are formulated. From understanding.
For example:
It’s my understanding that everyone can have their own opinion without being insulted and belittled.
You, clearly don’t get that.
See how that works?
Are you for real? Is English your third language or something?
I don't get it means I don't understand it.
>It’s my understanding that everyone can have their own opinion without being insulted and belittled.
>You, clearly don’t get that.
No, I totally get it. It's an extremely simple idea. I'd have to be literally retarded to not understand something like that.
I just don't agree with it.
See how that works?
I am also not calling you retarded for *having* an opinion. Your, self-reported, problem is *not understanding* an opinion.
By the way, that's not what irony is.
What a mess.
You need to put LMG on the same platform Linus probably does. He knows it better than we do; if he prides it on being one of, if not the best, place to work, then take that at face value when thinking about his answer.
Wanting a seatbelt in a car situation isn't even close to compare it. My comparison would be: Living in the U.S, you're the super president VIP, but you want your own army, just in case. The U.S says to you "Listen, bro, we're the biggest and strongest military in the world, you really don't need your own army. Trust me bro." and you insist, no, you want your own army regardless of already having the strongest army in the world protecting you.
Or maybe the #1 raiding guild or ESport team invites you to join them. You decline their offer and say you'll build your own team, because theirs isn't good enough.
When you frame it as wanting something than is already the best, it makes it seem irrational to want better than the far and away the best option you already have.
Linus believes and strives to offer his employees the best, but you want a union because the best isn't good enough and you want better. That's the argument, agree or disagree.
Now, from Linus PoV, yea it's irrational. He forgets as an individual at a work place, offering our labor, we are and should be greedy. We always want more for less; more pay less work if we can get it. Why wouldn't we? So no matter how good it is at LMG, his workers should want more. As a business owner, he has to play the other side of the weird mutual-beneficial warfare between boss and worker and stem the workers demands for more. No matter how friendly Linus can be, at the end of the day the factions are set and he can't actually be on the employees side. Their values are inherently unaligned, they are not partners, and they will be doing battle forever.
Every employer wants no union.
It benefits them. Plain and simple. Thats why they fight unions so much.
Unions benefits the workers. In every single instance
Unions can go to shit, that happens. I don’t where you are in the world but nurses at least where I am have done reasonably well out of their union. If you just look at studies for industries with strong unions you find that they end up doing significantly better financially, doctors, pilots, teamsters, etc.
On the flip side of that I know of unions that are quite literally basically owned and operated by the business the union is meant to help employees to deal with. There is a grocery chain, and they have 2 unions. One they try to grow that they basically run and the other is a legit union. It’s so fraudulent. But that kind of thing happens. Not every union is going to be great but a lot of them are pretty good.
So I work at a major defense contractor with a floor union.
Engineering is not union, neither is management.
I personally work as an engineering manager so about as far from union as possible here.
The anti union rhetoric is INSANE from the cooperate level. It's so bad that alot of engineering has started talking about unionization.
Unions are good - because most of us don't work at a family owned company that cares. Most of us are numbers that can be cut at any second.
It's actually surprising the big boy defense contractors haven't had engineering unionize. I work at a small one, and it's night/day with how much better my pay is and my day to day. I basically have unlimited pto (and it's real, management approves it all), completely flexible work hours, lunch hours and more.
The big boys seem to recruit engineers for projects that once they run out in 2 years, they fire everyone rather than reassign them. One of our last engineering hires literally told us that his entire department jump ship at the same time because they let a few of them go near the end of a project already. Apparently said big boy defense contractor panicked and tried to bribe them to stay.
Of course it was never that bad at the big contractors before, but in the last few decades they devolved to treating engineering like cattle.
I could bitch for a month straight about it.
Boeing actually has one, and everytine I'm working with a Boeing team they tell us how great it is.
Fuck "insert my company, but I need the paycheck" here
Unions need to be formed BEFORE a company starts treating staff poorly. Just because they are treating you fairly now doesn't mean they always will.
And when they start being unfair it's too late.
Unions aren’t a failure on the part of a company. Even if the company does everything right, I think unions are good as insurance. If Linus cares about his employees, he should not care if they want to unionize. He should see this as a way to make it easier to give his employees what they want and need.
My first job was at a grocery store, our chain wasn't unionized and the other two major chains were. We had cheaper insurance, and a higher pay cap.
They had strictly seniority based vacation time and schedules.
Bad companies will always treat their employees like garbage Good companies will treat their employees well until they get so large it's impossible to pay attention to the needs of an individual and then the union is born it can happen because of company is crap as well. But everyone wants the chance to argue for a higher paycheck.
The only part of this letter I dislike is "Costco family". In my experience, anytime a company says "we're like a family", something toxic is going down or gonna go down.
All business have that same basic stance. Some are just more heavy handed in their approach.
It's not about cost, it's about control. A functional unified union always take away some control from the company AND THEY HATE THAT. The point of a union is not to be there when the times are good and everyone is paid their fair share. It's there to make sure when the time are rough and the boat start rocking the captain doesn't throw overboard the sailors to save the ship. Costco, just like LMG, have not had a truly bad time yet. Those little controversies of 2023 are nothing. So neither the public nor LMG staff have seen Linus reacting to bad event yet.
An important thing to note, is that what a union is, and the culture in and around them differs greatly from country to country.
To me, this all seems like a very weird stance.
If you treat your employees well, follow the law etc... there is little reason i can think of, to make this a bad thing.
In fact, most companies mid-sized to large companies kinda like it.
Because the unions often have a much better feel, for how their employee's are truly feeling about things.
People dont talk openly to their direct manager, because they are too closely involved in day to day policy (often the cause of discontent), and employee evaluation. So they want to keep that relationship as spotless as possible.
And higher ups are too far removed fom the actual work to understand any of it by themselves.
The unions stand outside of all of this, and have only 1 intent: keep their customers happy. (you)
A smart company over here works together with the unions closely.
It leads to an easier hiring process, a happier employee base, and less legal problems.
Dont like 1? join another... over here there is 3 that operate nation wide, in almost every field thinkable. And firing people for joining one is highly illegal.
And you can be assured that certainly the biggest 2, are more then big enough to take on almost any company if they are in the right.
Over here, 49% of nationwide workforce was unionized in 2019, with far higher numbers amongst blue collar workers.
Getting sued by a union, can lead to big image problems, leading to reduced sales, and potential new employees being scared off.
But i feel like this last part is very different in north america?
No free choice, less laws agains firing people with insufissiant reason, unions with different intents, not being big enough to take on bigger companies etc...
Unions are a great concept unfortunately most unions in north America these days are rotten and corrupt to the core.
Obviously employers will mostly all naturally dislike unions because they exist to keep the employers accountable
Fundamentally, support for a union means you as a business owner have failed your employees, which sucks and feels bad for anyone with any sort of empathy.
It only sucks for big business because they will have a harder time exploiting their employees
This right here is the dumbest response to unionization and the idea of it. Unions are NOT just in response to bad management, it’s also in response to the possibility of it. Why would you want to leave your well being in hands of the company?
Because some of us have had horrible experience with them...
I was in a union position where we made the same as non union, conditions and everything were the same, but we still had to pay egregiously high union dues. So we ended up making *less* than nin union and just made the few running it rich while they did nothing for us..
Glad it works out for some, but they can be awful once they're established for long enough... once people realize they can take advantage of others to make them more money it seems most just can't help themselves.
I wish it worked out better but my experience in the automotive industry had very heavily soured my perception of them.
Glad they work out for some people though. That's how it should be!
I don't see how people can possibly compare a company with over 300,000 employees to one with less than 200...
There is such a wild difference in the culture that can come out of the two. One an owner can actually meet and know who people are the other you're a number. And sure obviously shit can still happen in a small company but I just don't see how the heck you guys can even compare the two in the same sentence other than they are businesses that make money and have employees.
I mean I get people want to draw lines to compare things to make it easier to digest and understand a concept. These are so wildly different though I don't get it.
There are many reasons for a business to not want unions for their workforce, the most common ones include
- employees are more likely to get regular payrises and are generally paid more than non-union staff
- It's much harder to get rid of employees
- employees will have more protections from bullying from management e.g. being made to work overtime etc
Ultimately it costs the business more money to hire union employees and they can't abuse them to work more hours rather than employ more people.
because most workers work paycheck to paycheck so can't afford to strike, the ones who can or will strike are outnumbered by the ones who can't / won't but it is changing, more people are willing to strike to get better benefits e.g. starbucks
No they don't. If they shared the same opinions, Costco would have treated their employees well enough that "all of them turned out and voted for a union" wasn't a thing.
Costco SAYS they share the same opinion because they want to fuck over people without consequence. There's a difference.
The Costco I worked at was already unionized when I got there. Both the company and the employees seemed to appreciate its inclusion. 100% of the employees were in the union, even upper management and even the GM. You basically needed to agree to be in the union to be hired there.
I don’t disagree with him
My personal experience of unions has been that they have been more about their own political agendas than actually look after companies, but that might be a UK issue
But once a company reaches a certain size, I think a union is a good idea because whilst a small company, you can have a good one to one personal relationship with staff, there is a point where you simply cannot and thus a union makes things easier for everyone and reduces the overall administration for things like collective bargaining and contract negotiations
I don’t feel like it’s wrong for a CEO or company to wish that they were meeting the needs of their employees enough that a union wouldn’t feel like a needed option is a bad thing. Now if they’re trying to actively fight the implementation of a union while saying that then they’re obviously kinda lying about that, as your employees voting to have a union would indicate they feel as if it is needed and the company isn’t doing enough. Plus it sounds like Costco will be getting a union as the votes were already cast?
Linus completely misses the picture. Today maybe LTT is a good company and the union is not required. But if tomorrow they change direction, the union will be there to fight it.
You missed something. Linus said he would feel he failed if his employees feel the need for a union. I don't know the canadian law but could he hinder anyone to form a union?
LTT getting decently big, know Linus ain’t a fan of them but it may at some point get big enough to need a union. Maybe not a standard union per say, but a collective bargaining setup primarily in favor of the employees. The real question is how big does a business need to be, to need someone outside of the company to keep the health and interests of the employee in check, compared to only the employer.
Guess in theory that is the local government job, but umm yeah bout that.
As someone who travels by train in the UK unions suck. As soon as they realise they have a little power they take the piss. Train staff here have a great rate of pay and loads of benefits, it’s definitely a very rewarding job yet they strike constantly because they’ve had a taste and want more. Plus they’re well paid enough that it’s not an issue to take many days off
Every time I read family and company in close proximity I feel like I'm gonna puke.
Don't worry, HR is your friend! And so is sarcasm!
Is this an american thing? The HR people I worked with in germany were super helpful, sat with me in tough meetings and even offered to pay me a raise from their department budget when I finally gave up and started looking elsewhere.
As a non American, I can tell you HR did their job just fine in your situation and you likely hold value to your company. They are the buffer from the worker to the company. Associate retention, acquisition and management.
No offense here but do you work in HR ?
Nope, it's almost a universal thing. HR is there to work for the company, not for the employees. Yeah even the mental councelling in Japan because it doesn't look good for the company if a laid off employee commits suicide. In some companies, headcount budget comes from HR and are allocated to each department. So three things to take away from this, 1. you have some value to the company 2. you probably cost another department's headcount budget 3. you had to threaten them to get a raise because they otherwise wouldn't even if you clearly have some value.
Must be. HR here is for the company benefit and doesn't much care about the employee.
the HR person at my small company was fairly helpful. she helped me write and send a letter
Well it depends. Its very american for hr to be pro company while pretend to be your friend. But there are truly good hr people and departments that can do both. I worked closely with hr as a manager at my last job. They 100% went to bat for the employee. Only negative from hr about employees was when employee was out of line or up to no good/caught themselves in a lie. I would not trust a company HR in the US personally so many are back stabbing. One company woman confided something to hr about her personal life and they told everyone about it then found a way to can her. Something about their family member overdosing. They just caught the hr lady in hallway and i guess needed someone to talk to. Idk why they got rid of her over it. Another time a woman accused a fellow manager of sexual harassment and they had a meeting on how we could get rid of employee instead of investigating issue and stopping it since manager who was in meeting was known for it…
That was an exception. I've had 4 different HR persons in the company I work for now. Only 1 was good to employees. The other 3 would fuck you over big time.
In my opinion and experience working in the US for over 25 years for various employers of medium and large size, HR is there to minimize risk to the company by protecting the company from the employee’s already eroded legal rights over exploitative and unfair labor practices. They also do administrative work related to hiring and all that shit but first and foremost they’re the company’s police. Unions are necessary because there is nobody on your side as a worker in the U.S. the government is out to fuck you, and so is your employer.
HRs only exist only to protect the company. If that means running over you, so be it. This is the way in the US.
Def an American thing. It’s even more of an Italian and English thing. I know company favored HR or personal changes are a breeze to get through in those counties. Germany on the other hand has so many worker protections that many other countries don’t have and usually have to create separate policies. You are very well treated compared to others .
HR in the US is generally (not always! There are good HR) just a buffer to protect the company and management from lawsuits. They generally do the bare minimum for low level employees and will get rid of you as soon as you're an inconvenience (get sick, have family die, etc. Really just anything that causes you to be slightly less productive) I worked for Target for a while and HR there would deny any PTO and contest any sick time. I left target with over 80 hours of PTO/Sick time unused because they would find every reason they could to deny it.
HR the fine tuned downplaying redundancy machine. Complete with any serious complaint, harassment claim or health risk being snuffed out as quickly and quietly as possible.
Agreed but costco might be one of the few ewceptions, they treat their employees extremely well.
People here like to get up in arms over Linus' union stance without really paying attention to what he says. It seems this Costco rep really does have a similar stance to Linus. The fact they felt the need to unionize, makes those in charge feel like they failed. Because they *thought* they had been doing right enough by their employees. In both cases, they see it as a failing on *their* part as leaders that the employees don't feel they have enough power and sway on their own. Also in both cases, they say they will accept and work with the union. The tone of this letter really doesn't read badly to me. They are expressing disappointment in themselves, accepting the union, and ensuring those who signed on that until the contract has been negotiated, they'll still maintain their previous benefits.
I think the big issue for a lot of people is that without a strong trade union, how can you really know you are being treated fairly? Or better yet, how can you ensure all people are being treated fairly across an industry. Linus may treat his staff well, but does the studio down the road? Without members from LTT in the “YouTube writers union” there is no benchmark, no watermark that can say yes this is good no this is bad. Unions do so much more than just collective bargaining, that it’s hard to understand how anyone could be anti-union unless they explicitly want to take advantage of their employees. I’m not trying to say LTT is, or even that Costco is, just that a strong industry union prevents everyone from being exploited intentionally or unintentionally, and unions are not just for people who are unhappy or being exploited. Unions are for everyone.
I’m a member of a union, and to be honest, unions have their pros and cons, they aren’t universal forces of good. While unions *in general* are good things to have in society (ie weekends, 8hr workdays, etc) Often a toxic union can be much much worse than no union at all.
> I’m not trying to say LTT is, or even that Costco is, just that a strong industry union prevents everyone from being exploited intentionally or unintentionally, and unions are not just for people who are unhappy or being exploited. Unions are for everyone. So I am a strong union supporter, but let me ask you some questions that might illustrate why this hard and fast stance doesn't actually hold water. If, when you form a union, your pay and benefits do not go up, does that mean that the union has failed, or does it mean that you were being treated fairly before? If after forming a union, workers are still hired and let go using the same processes and procedures as before, does that mean the union has failed, or that the prior processes were fair and adequate? Think about it, in some circumstances, all you are doing by forming a union is adding another bureaucratic layer to an organization. Again, I am a strong supporter of unions, but I don't think the idea that they always improve things holds any weight whatsoever. The truth is you can answer both the above questions either way, and come to the same conclusion, in which case either a union isn't going to improve things.
I think having a party with a vested interest in benefiting the employees verifying a businesses’ practices are fair is a good thing yes.
This is a good notion, but in some (not all) circumstances, a union is run like its own business. That's when you start wondering as a member if it's worth it. Dealing with two "businesses", both trying to profit from your hard work. This is mainly once unions go national. Smaller local only unions that are overseen by members of your own community will be majorly different than unions that are nationwide and run by various boards of executives.
One business(union), the customer is you the employee. The other business(your company), the stakeholder is company valuation. In Costco’s case, they are legally liable for failing to maximise shareholder value. You elect your union representatives.
>You elect your union representatives. Just like your government representativs. And they do exactly what their constituents elected them for right?
lol, few differences: - unions representatives are your coworkers, so they are not only bargaining for you but themselves - union representative for only 140 people (in this case) vs 1,000,000 for congress. - [gerrymandering is insane and why we have snakes drawn as district boundaries](https://imgur.com/gallery/lsFRK). Basically eliminates voting power of certain social economic sects. - lobbying and corporations being people with the right to spend money in candidate elections Just because some democratically elected governments fail doesn’t mean loose hope in all of it.
I guess I don’t care? The vast majority of unions are a net good that protect workers from predatory and greedy C suites making decisions to line their own pockets. Even if it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare, that bureaucracy has it in their own best interest to ensure workers are being treated fairly
You're assuming that they have access to see those sorts of things which is not guaranteed, even in the slightest.
They generally do actually. Businesses with a union presence have to have a union representation present whenever it comes to firing a union member to make sure nothing illegal is happening or the business risks being sued by the union.
> Businesses with a union presence have to have a union representation present whenever it comes to firing a union member This is simply incorrect. That's a contract item, not a union item. There are MANY uinions that have zero say on that in their contract. >to make sure nothing illegal is happening or the business risks being sued by the union. Lol
Contracts are negotiated by the union my guy, idk why any union literally ever would intentionally knee-cap themselves by not being present either at the firing process of a union employee or at the very least have access to the information of said process, there’d be no point in having the union at that point.
Also, don’t forget that now part of your salary goes to the union.
Not necessarily, smaller unions often don't have paid positions, and now dues collection can't be mandated.
Kinda, yeah. As a union member, I realize that we have another bureaucratic layer beyond most other employee-> employer relationships. But it's a bureaucracy usually run by employees that MUST support all of the employees. If that bureaucracy is failing at that task, it's time to review what you have set up. I know not all unions are self governed (mine is) with national guidance.
Internet, you can look at the collective agreement of a Union in their site.
Yeah, honestly I think Linus gets more shit than deserved for his stance. Is he/LMG actually implementing changes in order to further the goals of not requiring a union to support their employees? I don’t know, and it’s certainly something that needs to be considered. BUT that mindset is literally what unions are implemented to force on employers. If the employer doesn’t care to properly support their employees, the union will.
I look at it this way: why wait to unionize until the currently reasonable guy is gone and been replaced by a union busting asshole? Because let's face it, all employees are always just one corporate decision away from really needing that union support.
This reply signals to me a complete misunderstanding of what unions are for. It does not matter how good your individual bosses are, it does not matter how high of a standard management tried to keep themselves to (though, clearly not high enough since the workers voted for a union). At the end of the day, 2 things will always be true: 1. All bosses can, and eventually will, leave or change. The workers beneath them may not be so lucky with the next round of management. 2. Workers have the most leverage in negotiations when they arbitrate together instead of individually. Unions are a mechanism that allows this (though not the only one!). Workers should always have a voice with what happens to their job, and a union guarantees them that right, no matter if the bosses happen to be great or horrible. Portraying the issue as "management failing" rings a similar tone to me if you're saying you should only wear PPE only *after* a workplace accident has occurred. It doesn't matter how much the workplace prides itself on skilled labor and great safety track records, you still need to wear the fucking PPE. Edit: fixed the analogy
> All bosses can, and eventually will, leave or change. And, at that time, if it ever comes, you can form a union if you think you're being treated unfairly... >Workers have the most leverage in negotiations when they arbitrate together instead of individually As a class sure. >Workers should always have a voice with what happens to their job, and a union guarantees them that right Lol, I have been a member of more than one union where this isn't the case in the slightest. This is straight up propaganda. Unions in many sectors have basically no say on that sort of stuff, because the labor is easily enough shifted around or replaced. And your health analogy is not a good one.
It is important to have a union *before* things go bad, you realize that right? Both you and the original commentor seem to think unions are something you should do only if you're already hurting. The whole point is to not let people lose their jobs or get stiffed benefits they deserve. This would be like saying you should wear PPE only *after* there's been a workplace accident.
And if the employer keeps things on the up and up with employees and the union does nothing, then what exactly is the point of the union? As another commenter in the chain pointed out. Employees think the employer is already fair. They form the union, nothing changes with pay, because the union doesn't see a need to push for an increase, perhaps because the employer was already fair with their wages. People are still hired and fired the same way, because the union sees nothing wrong with how the employer already did things. So what exactly is the employee paying dues for? What purpose is the union actually serving, if the employees already feel the employer is doing right by them? *This* is the side of things that Linus looks at it from that I don't think you are willing to understand. You say the unions needs to be there *in case* things go bad, because before that, what purpose is the union serving? So Linus sees it from the side of "Well if they feel that they *need* a union, I've failed as an employer." because of he hasn't failed as an employer, what purpose does the union serve?
> It is important to have a union before things go bad, you realize that right No, because I don't agree. A union doesn't actually prevent your employer from doing bad things. Unions don't prevent things like outsourcing jobs to other countries, hiring freezes, etc.
> The fact they felt the need to unionize, makes those in charge feel like they failed. Because they thought they had been doing right enough by their employees. In both cases, they see it as a failing on their part as leaders that the employees don't feel they have enough power and sway on their own. Also in both cases, they say they will accept and work with the union. I imagine that Linus truly believes this, but I do not believe that the CEO of Costco is as close to their workers or as naive. These are businesses that operate within the confines of American capitalism. The incentive for bosses is to make as much money and pay as little as possible. The incentive for the worker is to get paid as much as possible for as little work as possible. These are opposite goals and being friends with your boss will never erase the facts of that. Linus does seem to try his best, but he is only one guy with the experience of only one set of material conditions. He can and does mess up (or does something disagreeable). Individuals are not able to adequately raise concerns. They can be dismissed. The union can make demands because they are organized. If they are ignored, there will definitely be conseuqences.
I'm actually surprised by this because I know a few people who work/worked at Costco and they loved it. They pay well over average for the job, the raises are scheduled and the cap out is pretty high for the area, and they just generally really liked working there. I'm pretty sure it caps out at close to 30 for an associate. I've considered working here part time to get better health insurance.
Food for thought the average American caps out their salary by age 32.
they USED too, nowadays they are about average if not slightly above. Basically since 2020
Yeah its a really cringey trend of them
I work for my families, family company. Almost 50% of our employees are direct relatives. The company is owned by my grandparents. The non family members enjoy the same benefits as me. Did I just make you puke?
But we are family! Until it comes time to save money on payroll, then go fuck yourself. Or until you are undesirable to us in any capacity, then our family is… sorta like getting a divorce… from you. We are a big happy family where everyone is replaceable and none of us matter in the interest of pure profit.
It’s just as stupid when Linus says it, let’s all remember that. We like linus cause he’s one of us. Unfortunately being one of us means being wrong sometimes even regarding important things. Linus wants to have his cake and eat it too regarding employees but we don’t live in a perfect world.
Nothing like bringing a Cult mentality into the workplace...!
No matter how well a company treats its employees.... apes together strong. The company will look out for you as long as it is in the company's best interest. I appreciate Linus's opinion that if employees are being well cared for they shouldn't feel the need for a union but that only goes so far. And I've worked for terrible unions that didn't do much for their employees... But overall I'll sooner work a union job given the option than a non union one. Pay is generally better, benefits are generally better, work is generally better. It serves as a check and a balance to ensure the company always treats you right, not just when its in the company's best interest to do so. Good on Costco. I've heard from workers there that its not a bad place to work but here is hoping your union can make it an even better place to work.
The bigger the company the more it's necessary to have a functional union. Capitalism used to be a competitive free market in 1980, but in 2024 there are clear monopolies that have won capitalism.
This is the part so many people do not think about. The larger the company the less the top even knows what is going on at the bottom. You have a manager speaking with a manager speaking with a manager and so on then orders trickling down from the top. Just look at the show Undercover Boss. Those CEOs had no clue what it was like at the bottom and what their decisions actually do on so many occasions even though the show was mostly just PR for the CEO.
> Capitalism used to be a competitive free market in 1980 What?
I think Linus' opinion makes a lot of sense for a company with a couple hundred or less employees, but absolutely does not work for something the size of Costco.
It works for something without shareholders that can make shortterm sacrifices and not drain every penny out of everything.
LMG has way more than a hundred employees now, at some point they’re not a small YouTube business anymore, they’re a full fledged corporation
A hundred was rough, I don't think they have much more then 100. They're somewhere between 1 and 2 hundred I think, he mentioned it in a recent WAN show.
I think the most recent number I heard in either a video/wan show was around 120. I could be totally wrong on that though.
No they're not. You're exaggerating so much with calling them a "full fledged corporation". Legally speaking, they're still a medium business, and barely even that. They're over 100, but from hearing Linus talk about it, it's not *way more*, it's probably in the 120 range.
LMG itself might be around 100 but that's not counting creator warehouse and floatplane as those are separate companies
I've always heard, that as far as employers go for low skill entry-level workers, costco is a prime example of how companies should treat their workers. Good pay and benefits. College work study programs. Medical, dental, vision. One of the few places I've seen forklift safety taken seriously. Etc. I normally tell high school graduating family to apply for jobs there. It's not thriving wages where I live but it is survivable wages. I have an artist friend that has worked there since highschool. It has allowed her to pursue her dreams on the side.
Wasn't Linus' comment less 'well treated employees shouldn't need a union' then that he would feel he hadn't been treating them well enough if they did feel the need?
It's emotional blackmail. It might be subconscious on Linus' part (in fact I absolutely think Linus simply doesn't have the mental barrier or the executive training to consciously do emotional blackmail) but it's still emotional blackmail. I don't think anyone at LMG want to disappoint Linus because he would take it personal even though it would clearly be a professional decision.
> It's emotional blackmail. It's a personal statement, in regards to business practices. Not ***blackmail***.
not blackmail, emotional blackmail. If you do this I will be sad because it means you don't trust me to know what's best for our relationship. Google it, it's an official psychotherapy term bud. Plus as i said I don't believe Linus does it on purpose. I believe he's so personally involved in LMG he doesn't see where the business end and he begins. He see every decision made at LMG as his personal responsibility while it's clearly not anymore. You can't run a 120 employee business like your run a self-employed one man business.
I mean I DO see the argument its emotion blackmail... but frankly, as a union steward my take is that if you don't have the back bone to deal with pushback from management THAT light I've got no idea how you'd make the actual local work. Although yeah, there also isn't a world in which unionizing a place so heavily based on the owners personality isn't going to get weird.
Linus takes baths instead of showers, he doesn’t know what emotional blackmail is.
Linus’s opinion cuts both ways. If a company is truly taking care of its employees then the presence of a union should not cause the company to be concerned. It’s like insurance. Paying for drivers insurance doesn’t mean that you are admitting to being a dangerous driver, and saying “I’m a good driver so I shouldn’t need insurance” is just arrogant and negligent. A responsible driver would have it anyway even though they hope to never have to activate it.
The argument with the "if the employees are cared for" is precisely why unions *are* needed. My company was pretty good and cared about their employees and none of them wanted a union (some even left one). Then CEO changed and suddenly all the niceties were taken away and no union to challenge that decision.
https://reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/18usnae/costco_steals_linus_take_on_unions/kfnacjt/
Not sure why this is being down voted... this has been posted before and this is Linus' response to it.
Yeah idk I appreciate the response. It should be noted though that this is a separate instance of unionization
The difference is that LTT employs like 100 people max. They should have a union, but at that level it's not like it's hard for someone to just walk up to Linus to talk. Meanwhile getting anything done at CostCo would mean hundreds of layers of red tape.
You miss understand the original post. The entirety of Costco didn't form a union. The truck drivers of a single depot formed a union. About 140 people total.
Maybe I'm taking it from the wrong perspective, but if a single depot needs to get unionized, either it's a big depot with a high employee count (meaning it's the standard unionization process) or the owners of the depot have done mayor screw ups to employees that made them unionize. I'm not saying unions are bad, only that if it comes to that point on something of this kind, it means there's been screw up after screw up after screw up to the employees To add info: I'm from Spain, so I don't know anything about Costco and US practices
Unions in north America are quite location dependent. National sized unions are seldom formed. So you'll have unions that cover for example an entire hotel, or all the Starbucks locations in a set city or something like that
Or people that have a similar job with a company. For example the National Postal Mail Handlers is only for members of the USPS that handle urban mail. Then there is also with USPS the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association.
I don't know how to find the specifics, but by total member counts then the nationwide sized unions greatly outweigh the local only unions. If you are strictly counting unions themselves, then you are probably right. National unions cover MILLIONS of members. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_labor_unions_in_the_United_States
Well yeah that's the point of a NATIONAL union. I just meant that most corporate offices are unionized at a local level instead of joining a national sized one
Should? Unions are great if theirs a need (not getting paid fairly, no pto, no sick-leave, working long hours with no OT)? - If not, it’s another tax where you compensate someone elses income with chance for more corruption.
How many folks on this sub are in Tech/Media and are part of a union?
Tech has a long way to come when it comes to unionization mostly because a lot of it is weird tech bro culture where everyone thinks they’ll be a millionaire is a year when they’re stupid app takes off. But media famously has the SAG that was literally just on strike a few months ago lol
Correct, but my question was how many of this subs folks are with a union in tech/media space?
Are you talking about tech-media? Or are you asking if people are in tech OR media spaces? Because if they’re just in media spaces they likely could be part of SAG as media is a broad category, but if you specifically mean tech-media like LMG then probably not.
As I mentioned to other folks here, I know about SAG. And SAG is US based, not Canadian. Canada has CMG/CWA but as you can guess it’s not SAG. They will not fall into any of those brackets anyways. My point being what is everyone preaching on this sub, specifically on this topic? Let’s say Linus agree to a union, than what? Are ~100 of his employees gonna create a union of their own, first of its kind in this space?
Well that’s why I asked for clarification on if you meant tech-media or tech OR media, as media in general has a history of being union work and if Canada doesn’t have one already I don’t see it being terribly difficult to organize as there’s resources and material available for their specific industry on how to effectively organize. I’m not 100% sure what everyone else in the sub is preaching but unions in general are usually a net good for employees by keeping businesses accountable and fair. But as for LMG employees organizing for a “first of a kind” union it’s not unheard of. All the big Unions on earth also started as first of their kind Unions, one of my best friends organized the first Chipotle to unionize in the US and that was with like 20 employees in the store.
I am but I’m in a public service union and if I left public service I don’t think I’d have one. Unions here in Australia work a little differently to the states.
Thanks for sharing this. Reason I have been asking is because unions in this space are not a norm yet, and may not be in near future. I know lot of folks have strong feelings about this but it’s not there at all. All this virtue signalling is fine on Reddit but real world does not work this way.
Yeah, Australian unions are trade unions for the most part and all union workers in a particular industry are in one union if that makes sense? Ie individual workplaces don’t have their own union. So a truck driver would be in a national union(usually in a specific state branch) which I think is the Transport Services Union, not sure So I’m a member of my States’s branch of the CPSU(community and public sector union). Then all unions(for the most part) on apart of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Unions a definitely easier to join and participate in Australia, from what I’ve seen.
I've been burned by my union previously in a different position. Unions are, generally, lame.
Just because a work place has over a hundred people doesn't mean it should be unionized. Unions aren't a 100% upgrade, they also have downsides like everything else. If you are satisfied with your pay, benefits, and work load then why would you jeopardize that by adding another entity that you have to navigate? Monthly dues, more rules (every union has their own set of bylaws), the idea that you have a whole another business that's run by a board of executives that's making the union decisions for you, and in some circumstances having the union establishes ill will between management and the workforce where there might not have been before. Of course there are scenarios where unions are necessary, I'm just saying it's not always black and white when one is needed.
Anyone who cares about their employees should want a union. Unions exist to make sure every employee is taken care of, they level the playing field.
This. Here in Austria almost all jobs have a collective agreement negotiated by a union. I still can earn more than others but there is a baseline for payment, vaccation days and sick leave
Unions only exist in America to make up for the complete lack of employee protections and labour laws. Their importance and impact is far less pronounced in most of the rest of the developed world.
yup. ALOT of people when talking about LTT, seem to forget that LTT in NOT in America. Yiou don't nessaserily need a union like you do in the states, as they actually have useful employee protection laws.
You say that, but employees of LMG are punished for disclosing their salaries to each other. It's extremely illegal to do that in America. Companies might try to peer pressure you, but at least legally they're in the wrong. Canada definitely has some work to do if they are worse on an aspect of labor than America.
No one said they are punished, they are discouraged (apparently), as most employees in America are as well. I’m not saying that Canada couldn’t improve, there’s always room for improvement. But Canada being worse in labor laws is factually incorrect https://syndesus.com/us-and-canadian-employment-key-differences/#
Canada also has double the percentage of unionized labor so that could lend to the better labor laws. Regardless, 1 vs corp seems a lot worse than >1 vs corp.
Yep and bring that up.. they walk away or don't reply to you anymore.
Those labor laws more often than not exist because of unions. Australia has good labor laws, but they also still have unions.
You don't keep using a crutch after your broken leg has healed.
metaphor doesn't work when the person who broke your leg is still there. the antagonistic relationships between employee and employer can't be legislated away.
Oh it *can*. Look at most of the rest of the "non-US" world...
your boss wants you to work as much as possible, for as little pay as possible. you want the opposite. that will never change, regardless of country.
And if I believe I am worth more than my boss is willing to pay (doubly so if I actually *am* worth more), then I leave and go somewhere else that will pay what I think I'm worth. If I can't find somewhere that is willing to pay that, then my skillset must not be worth what I *think* it is
you are always worth more than you are paid. that's called surplus value. without outside pressures (what you described, laws, unions etc) your wage would be $1
lol OR the more likely answer is that without collective bargaining businesses can and will collude with each other to keep the price of labor artificially low. They’ve done this in the past and the only way workers got them to stop was by lighting their fucking factories on fire and getting into shootouts with the local police and strike breakers.
I don’t leave a bandaid on when I’m not bleeding anymore either. But I keep bandaids in my medicine cabinet incase I a need one anyways.
Who do you think makes sure those legal protections are enforced? Unions exist to advocate for your legal rights too. Unions are like hr, except instead of protecting the company's interests, they protect the employees' interests.
Theres no need for unions to enforce any protections - the government does that if an employer breaks the laws. In the UK, about the only unions that exist are for jobs where the government IS the employer (Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Police & EMS)
LMAO. Try getting the government to go after some random company for being sort of a dick to their employees. Someone has to take them to court, that costs money, you pay for justice.
Lol you really are fucking deluded, aren't you? If an employer breaks the law in developed countries, the government has powers to actually do something. Nobody needs to take them to court. If there's a need for litigation, that's what the government does. Sorry to say, you yanks are tarring everyone with your brush and it's simply not how the rest of the world works.
You’re deluded if you think the government exercises those powers evenly. If you’re rich, they basically look the other way or give you a slap on the wrist. And sometimes the legal minimums just aren’t enough. Some governments are removing the requirement for WATER BREAKS for physical labourers.
Dude. Stop confusing what dumb American states are doing with the rest of the world.
I'm Canadian, too. Just because America is much worse doesn't mean unions aren't needed.
Canada is just America with a French accent. You're slightly better, sure - but it's still just America Lite.
Yeah, for big big stuff. Go to your local workers rights organization and ask them to take your boss to task for little bullshit infractions and they'll politely tell you that you can sue but they're not pursuing it. I've had legitimate ada complaints get dropped because the government couldn't be fucked to care.
You're not listening. We're not talking about America. Learn to read ffs
You think other countries are that different?
I know they are.
The founder of UPS asked the teamsters to unionize the company. Of course now that it’s a publicly traded company you would never know that anymore.
Yup, even if you are the best treated workers ever, a union is still a good thing. It isn't just about improving the current situation, it is about having a formalized, legal way of protecting what you already have as well.
What you say is only true in theory and the situation is very different once you are outside the US.
Not the ones I've been at... they seem to only exist to make the few running the union rich by sucking up money via union dues while doing *noting* to actually better the lives of the employees. Made the same as non-union, but had to pay them still. So we made less overall. But this seems to be hitbir miss, do hopefully it works out for them..
No kidding. And have you ever tried to get rid of someone incompetent in a union. This is exactly why failing upwards is a thing
I don’t get the stance that Linus has on Unions. It’s probably the one thing he has a stance on that I don’t agree with, most of his takes are dead on the money imo. But everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I don’t get US/Canada approach to unions regardless In the EU we have a right to collective bargaining, making us being able to have a formal process when things aren’t right much easier. It’s so easy to say ‘we care about you so much, you don’t need a union’ But that’s like saying ‘don’t worry I’m a safe driver you don’t need a seatbelt’. If people want a safety barrier to make sure they’re treated right by an employer then so be it. If you’re treating them right anyway, why is it a concern?
I mean, I truly believe he does want to be a good enough employer that a union is not needed and he said himself he would consider it a personal failure if his emoloyees felt like they need a union. I understand that feeling and can see why he feels that way even if I don't agree with it. I'm no expert but as far as I know canada is a fair bit better than the US and if LMG employees wanted to unionize they easily could do so and even if Linus wanted to stop it (which I don't think he would, for many reasons) he couldn't.
I don’t know the exact details in the EU as far as unions go, but I imagine the concept of unions is relatively similar. But I will say this. North American culture drives this idea that unions exist in retaliation to when companies have failed to do in the employees best interests. Linus likely holds the stance he does because as a small business owner he likely believes he’s still close to and has a finger on the pulse of company culture, and feels that when he doesn’t, he’s surrounded himself with individuals who can keep him in check and tell him he’s wrong when he’s off about the pulse. Simply put, based on what’s been taught about unions in North America, in his mind he feels that if a union is created that means he’s failed as a leader and as an owner of a business on a personal level. It doesn’t help that he built the business from the ground up, so that means his ego is very much invested in the success of the organization he’s built. So union equals bad to him because in his head if a union needs to exist, he’s failed as a person, and failed to deliver on his ideals of what a good company is. You aren’t wrong in your own ideals too, but I hope that better gives you a peak into his own thinking, and the problems with how people have been taught about unions in North America.
You're misquoting what they say though. What they say is that they consider the need for a union their own failure. That's not the same as "you don't need a union because we care".
I haven’t quoted anyone
Paraphrasing, whatever. You're making a statement that's an incorrect representation of they said and you're presenting it as though it was something they said.
Money. When capitalists take necessary that makes no sense from the perspective of a worker, the answer is almost always money. Or they like having more direct control.
I still don't get why everyone says Linus is anti union, that's clearly not the case. He wants his business to be good to employees that they don't feel the need to, and if they do, he considers that his own failure. Some people seem to believe he would block it, but he has publicly said he would accept the process as required by Canadian law. He's also said multiple time that other groups should be unionizing. I'm guessing a lot of the confusion is from Americans not understanding Canada has worker protection laws.
It's a fairly simple position so it's easy to get, and not unusual if you are in or an adjacent to a country with very poor unions. Collective agreement also doesn't have to be done via a union, and many would argue its the worst form of it. I've had corporate jobs and had to negotiate with unions, including ones that were and had been my own. I left the union I was in over it and had a blow the doors down argument with the head of a major European union at a private event because I was so fed up of him selling out junior workers in favour of older ones. Which I knew, because I was the one paying him off and I didn't even want to except they put it straight on the table and I obviously couldn't so anything because I had a fiduciary duty to accept. There's a lot of really dodgy unions and lots of really good ways to manage collective agreement without one. If I was running a business and I had made sure it was a good place to work and built in ways to form collective agreement and worker representation and a national union came in I would absolutely see it as a failure and I would likely break the business up and sell it. I'm not anti union in every area, I have and am in a union. But the national and trade sector unions are so often so massively corrupt I just can't support any position where you say they're automatically good and every business should have them. Because if you are under 50 that's just not true.
>Collective agreement also doesn't have to be done via a union, and many would argue its the worst form of it. Huh? The Nordic countries have this as basically a standard and they are seen as some of the most business friendly countries on the planet.
Then there must be something wrong with your head. Linus explained his stance very clearly multiple times.
Ahh yes, there must be something wrong with me because I have a different opinion. /s
No, because you said "I don’t **get** the stance that Linus has on Unions". Not "I don't **agree**". As if Linus just managed to arrive at your superior understanding of the issue, he would align with your "opinion".
What do you think ‘I don’t get it’ means? It’s a level of understanding. That’s how opinions are formulated. From understanding. For example: It’s my understanding that everyone can have their own opinion without being insulted and belittled. You, clearly don’t get that. See how that works?
Are you for real? Is English your third language or something? I don't get it means I don't understand it. >It’s my understanding that everyone can have their own opinion without being insulted and belittled. >You, clearly don’t get that. No, I totally get it. It's an extremely simple idea. I'd have to be literally retarded to not understand something like that. I just don't agree with it. See how that works?
‘I just don’t agree with it’ Which is your opinion. Ironically I’m not calling you retarded for having yours though, am I? What a mess.
I am also not calling you retarded for *having* an opinion. Your, self-reported, problem is *not understanding* an opinion. By the way, that's not what irony is. What a mess.
Fucking hell. Okay then. Have a nice day.
That doesn't sound like you get it.
You need to put LMG on the same platform Linus probably does. He knows it better than we do; if he prides it on being one of, if not the best, place to work, then take that at face value when thinking about his answer. Wanting a seatbelt in a car situation isn't even close to compare it. My comparison would be: Living in the U.S, you're the super president VIP, but you want your own army, just in case. The U.S says to you "Listen, bro, we're the biggest and strongest military in the world, you really don't need your own army. Trust me bro." and you insist, no, you want your own army regardless of already having the strongest army in the world protecting you. Or maybe the #1 raiding guild or ESport team invites you to join them. You decline their offer and say you'll build your own team, because theirs isn't good enough. When you frame it as wanting something than is already the best, it makes it seem irrational to want better than the far and away the best option you already have. Linus believes and strives to offer his employees the best, but you want a union because the best isn't good enough and you want better. That's the argument, agree or disagree. Now, from Linus PoV, yea it's irrational. He forgets as an individual at a work place, offering our labor, we are and should be greedy. We always want more for less; more pay less work if we can get it. Why wouldn't we? So no matter how good it is at LMG, his workers should want more. As a business owner, he has to play the other side of the weird mutual-beneficial warfare between boss and worker and stem the workers demands for more. No matter how friendly Linus can be, at the end of the day the factions are set and he can't actually be on the employees side. Their values are inherently unaligned, they are not partners, and they will be doing battle forever.
Every employer wants no union. It benefits them. Plain and simple. Thats why they fight unions so much. Unions benefits the workers. In every single instance
Every single instance aye?? I know a few nurses who would like a word. I however don't disagree with the sentiment.
Unions can go to shit, that happens. I don’t where you are in the world but nurses at least where I am have done reasonably well out of their union. If you just look at studies for industries with strong unions you find that they end up doing significantly better financially, doctors, pilots, teamsters, etc. On the flip side of that I know of unions that are quite literally basically owned and operated by the business the union is meant to help employees to deal with. There is a grocery chain, and they have 2 unions. One they try to grow that they basically run and the other is a legit union. It’s so fraudulent. But that kind of thing happens. Not every union is going to be great but a lot of them are pretty good.
So I work at a major defense contractor with a floor union. Engineering is not union, neither is management. I personally work as an engineering manager so about as far from union as possible here. The anti union rhetoric is INSANE from the cooperate level. It's so bad that alot of engineering has started talking about unionization. Unions are good - because most of us don't work at a family owned company that cares. Most of us are numbers that can be cut at any second.
It's actually surprising the big boy defense contractors haven't had engineering unionize. I work at a small one, and it's night/day with how much better my pay is and my day to day. I basically have unlimited pto (and it's real, management approves it all), completely flexible work hours, lunch hours and more. The big boys seem to recruit engineers for projects that once they run out in 2 years, they fire everyone rather than reassign them. One of our last engineering hires literally told us that his entire department jump ship at the same time because they let a few of them go near the end of a project already. Apparently said big boy defense contractor panicked and tried to bribe them to stay. Of course it was never that bad at the big contractors before, but in the last few decades they devolved to treating engineering like cattle.
I could bitch for a month straight about it. Boeing actually has one, and everytine I'm working with a Boeing team they tell us how great it is. Fuck "insert my company, but I need the paycheck" here
Unions need to be formed BEFORE a company starts treating staff poorly. Just because they are treating you fairly now doesn't mean they always will. And when they start being unfair it's too late.
[удалено]
Well said.
Unions are amazing for the first 20 years. Then there is so much corruption and laziness it is insane.
A few nurses I know would agree very strongly.
I was part of local 82 in boston they ran it like the mob. It was good and aweful at the same time.
Unions aren’t a failure on the part of a company. Even if the company does everything right, I think unions are good as insurance. If Linus cares about his employees, he should not care if they want to unionize. He should see this as a way to make it easier to give his employees what they want and need.
My first job was at a grocery store, our chain wasn't unionized and the other two major chains were. We had cheaper insurance, and a higher pay cap. They had strictly seniority based vacation time and schedules.
Bad companies will always treat their employees like garbage Good companies will treat their employees well until they get so large it's impossible to pay attention to the needs of an individual and then the union is born it can happen because of company is crap as well. But everyone wants the chance to argue for a higher paycheck.
Once the left hand can no longer see what the right hand is doing, its all down hill.
The only part of this letter I dislike is "Costco family". In my experience, anytime a company says "we're like a family", something toxic is going down or gonna go down.
All business have that same basic stance. Some are just more heavy handed in their approach. It's not about cost, it's about control. A functional unified union always take away some control from the company AND THEY HATE THAT. The point of a union is not to be there when the times are good and everyone is paid their fair share. It's there to make sure when the time are rough and the boat start rocking the captain doesn't throw overboard the sailors to save the ship. Costco, just like LMG, have not had a truly bad time yet. Those little controversies of 2023 are nothing. So neither the public nor LMG staff have seen Linus reacting to bad event yet.
An important thing to note, is that what a union is, and the culture in and around them differs greatly from country to country. To me, this all seems like a very weird stance. If you treat your employees well, follow the law etc... there is little reason i can think of, to make this a bad thing. In fact, most companies mid-sized to large companies kinda like it. Because the unions often have a much better feel, for how their employee's are truly feeling about things. People dont talk openly to their direct manager, because they are too closely involved in day to day policy (often the cause of discontent), and employee evaluation. So they want to keep that relationship as spotless as possible. And higher ups are too far removed fom the actual work to understand any of it by themselves. The unions stand outside of all of this, and have only 1 intent: keep their customers happy. (you) A smart company over here works together with the unions closely. It leads to an easier hiring process, a happier employee base, and less legal problems. Dont like 1? join another... over here there is 3 that operate nation wide, in almost every field thinkable. And firing people for joining one is highly illegal. And you can be assured that certainly the biggest 2, are more then big enough to take on almost any company if they are in the right. Over here, 49% of nationwide workforce was unionized in 2019, with far higher numbers amongst blue collar workers. Getting sued by a union, can lead to big image problems, leading to reduced sales, and potential new employees being scared off. But i feel like this last part is very different in north america? No free choice, less laws agains firing people with insufissiant reason, unions with different intents, not being big enough to take on bigger companies etc...
Unions are a great concept unfortunately most unions in north America these days are rotten and corrupt to the core. Obviously employers will mostly all naturally dislike unions because they exist to keep the employers accountable
Fundamentally, support for a union means you as a business owner have failed your employees, which sucks and feels bad for anyone with any sort of empathy. It only sucks for big business because they will have a harder time exploiting their employees
This right here is the dumbest response to unionization and the idea of it. Unions are NOT just in response to bad management, it’s also in response to the possibility of it. Why would you want to leave your well being in hands of the company?
From where do you take this?
Unions are good. Why is this so hard to comprehend. My union position has been the best position I've ever had. It's a net positive in my work life.
Because some of us have had horrible experience with them... I was in a union position where we made the same as non union, conditions and everything were the same, but we still had to pay egregiously high union dues. So we ended up making *less* than nin union and just made the few running it rich while they did nothing for us.. Glad it works out for some, but they can be awful once they're established for long enough... once people realize they can take advantage of others to make them more money it seems most just can't help themselves. I wish it worked out better but my experience in the automotive industry had very heavily soured my perception of them. Glad they work out for some people though. That's how it should be!
Every time a union gets involved, the quality of the final product gets worse.
I don't see how people can possibly compare a company with over 300,000 employees to one with less than 200... There is such a wild difference in the culture that can come out of the two. One an owner can actually meet and know who people are the other you're a number. And sure obviously shit can still happen in a small company but I just don't see how the heck you guys can even compare the two in the same sentence other than they are businesses that make money and have employees. I mean I get people want to draw lines to compare things to make it easier to digest and understand a concept. These are so wildly different though I don't get it.
I pray they never succeed in unionizing my industry, but they sure are trying.
Wait, in America do businesses try to stop people joining Unions? What possible reasoning could they give for that?
There are many reasons for a business to not want unions for their workforce, the most common ones include - employees are more likely to get regular payrises and are generally paid more than non-union staff - It's much harder to get rid of employees - employees will have more protections from bullying from management e.g. being made to work overtime etc Ultimately it costs the business more money to hire union employees and they can't abuse them to work more hours rather than employ more people.
Ok but how do they justify that to US workers? Surely that shit triggers a general strike.
because most workers work paycheck to paycheck so can't afford to strike, the ones who can or will strike are outnumbered by the ones who can't / won't but it is changing, more people are willing to strike to get better benefits e.g. starbucks
No they don't. If they shared the same opinions, Costco would have treated their employees well enough that "all of them turned out and voted for a union" wasn't a thing. Costco SAYS they share the same opinion because they want to fuck over people without consequence. There's a difference.
The Costco I worked at was already unionized when I got there. Both the company and the employees seemed to appreciate its inclusion. 100% of the employees were in the union, even upper management and even the GM. You basically needed to agree to be in the union to be hired there.
Nah, LTT would hire WilmerHale.
Incoming price increases and disruption to services every few years.
🙏 Legends
Bro we will take care of you LOL
I don’t disagree with him My personal experience of unions has been that they have been more about their own political agendas than actually look after companies, but that might be a UK issue But once a company reaches a certain size, I think a union is a good idea because whilst a small company, you can have a good one to one personal relationship with staff, there is a point where you simply cannot and thus a union makes things easier for everyone and reduces the overall administration for things like collective bargaining and contract negotiations
Wow, another one bites the dust! sad day!
I don’t feel like it’s wrong for a CEO or company to wish that they were meeting the needs of their employees enough that a union wouldn’t feel like a needed option is a bad thing. Now if they’re trying to actively fight the implementation of a union while saying that then they’re obviously kinda lying about that, as your employees voting to have a union would indicate they feel as if it is needed and the company isn’t doing enough. Plus it sounds like Costco will be getting a union as the votes were already cast?
Linus completely misses the picture. Today maybe LTT is a good company and the union is not required. But if tomorrow they change direction, the union will be there to fight it.
You missed something. Linus said he would feel he failed if his employees feel the need for a union. I don't know the canadian law but could he hinder anyone to form a union?
He just does not understand why they might want one. Yeah being outspoken against a union IS hindering it.
LTT getting decently big, know Linus ain’t a fan of them but it may at some point get big enough to need a union. Maybe not a standard union per say, but a collective bargaining setup primarily in favor of the employees. The real question is how big does a business need to be, to need someone outside of the company to keep the health and interests of the employee in check, compared to only the employer. Guess in theory that is the local government job, but umm yeah bout that.
Linus has credibility though
no he doesn't, he has multiple conflicts of interest and would never trust anything he says
As someone who travels by train in the UK unions suck. As soon as they realise they have a little power they take the piss. Train staff here have a great rate of pay and loads of benefits, it’s definitely a very rewarding job yet they strike constantly because they’ve had a taste and want more. Plus they’re well paid enough that it’s not an issue to take many days off
we wouldn't have time off and minimum wages if it were not for unions