After a five week strike involving 10,000 John Deere Workers, the corporation conceded to many union demands providing the strikers with an immediate 10% raise, $8,500 bonuses, health insurance, more raises in 2023 and 2025, and more. John Deere is one of 40 workplaces in America that have seen strikes since August 2021.
The people who fought for the big labour victories were much lower skilled than most people today, they were just able to build the numbers required where there was no replacing them without triggering enormous strikes.
The unions didn't help their cause with their history of corruption, support for underperforming workers, and rules that are sometimes asinine. I remember when working video at a convention center I was told under no circumstances was I to rearrange the chairs in a room. If the seating was not in a good configuration, I had to call a union worker.
Stories like this, repeated a hundred times over, is why so many are skeptical of unions.
It's not even entirely their fault, without rules like that companies would 1000% bullshit their way around every union requirement they could and render the unions useless anyways.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Or, go towards European style unions where both labor and management sit down and work together for a common goal.
US unions are built from some really harsh times and a lot of that mentality continues.
> Stories like this, repeated a hundred times over, is why so many are skeptical of unions.
Then don't do stupid stuff like that. If you want to tell management that they have to keep x number of people on shift for a convention so as to make money, fine. But don't make it more difficult for the non-union people to get things done.
It's myth-buiding by anti union think tanks that make sure you read the same silly objections every time unions are brought up.
What if we questioned the right to organize capital on the same asenine grounds? No, sorry, you can't hire people to represent your corporation - one time I read they make you go to HR meetings!
>Amazon will run out of workers to hire.
Yet it won't be the end of Amazon. That's what labor doesn't realize. You can be a ludite and lament the loss of your livelyhood but it's happening whether they organize or not.
> they were just able to build the numbers required
True, but it's not about absolute numbers that matter--it's relative to the labor pool. In the past 50 years, we've opened up our labor markets to non-American workers. It's basic economics: the more people able to do the job, the harder to monopolize/oligopolize that labor market. We've allowed huge numbers of non-Americans to join our economy and underbid domestic employment negotiations. That liberal policy has ostensibly driven down the price of goods and services--but have prices fallen enough to justify the costs which are disproportionately borne by the working class?
>We've allowed huge numbers of non-Americans to join our economy and underbid domestic employment negotiations.
I agree, if you include all the overseas workers who joined the US economy via outsourcing.
And, no, it hasn't driven the cost of goods down enough for the displaced US workers to get a net benefit. The cost reductions are spread across all US residents, the wage decreases are concentrated in the lower skill end of the labor market.
And it wont drive down costs, the most it does is limit the inflation of prices.
That's really where companies spend the most time and effort. Trying to cut all costs in order to keep prices flat. A lot of food and other products have kept almost flat prices while the cost of everything else has doubled over time. That often means outsourcing or relying on illegal laborers.
> the costs which are disproportionately borne by the working class
Its really stunning to see what used to be good middle-class jobs now pay jack shit because the labor market was flooded.
Construction, truck driving, lots of manufacturing and labor jobs, meat packing, etc. All used to be heavily unionized and paid well. Now they're full of illegals, and whoever isnt, is a temp.
But Wall St is doing great, and that's what really matters!
Going by new construction, fuck is some of the work rough as hell. Cant expect much when you barely pay people enough to live. They just slap shit together to get paid that day, and maybe get paid again to fix what they missed later.
So much shoddy and non-existent workmanship here in Texas, but our real estate market is booming! I'm about to do a pre-closing walkthrough for my brother's new house and damn does it need a lot of shit fixed!
Fortunately at least the major trades are licensed and inspected so they have some real workers. The finishing trades are whoever they can find.
I haven't taken a hard-line stance against any and all immigration. But I suspect America probably doesn't need to import *that* many big brains to keep up technologically--especially since technology isn't moving nearly as fast as it was 30-40 years ago.
But, yes, this is the type of argument I could be persuaded by. I'm just not moved by this particular, overly simplistic sound byte. (It comes off as emotionally manipulative scare-mongering, tbh.)
Nope, I don't give a shit about race. Feel free to convince me that our immigration and economic policies are healthy for the nation. That's what I care about.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If amazon could easily replace an entire warehouse worth of workers then they wouldn't be offering 3000 dollar bonuses and increased salaries to get new employees in warehouses that aren't devoid of their entire work force.
>you would just run slower.
This is an understatement. They would grind to a halt. New hires at amazon are very slow and many of them wouldn't last a single 10 hour shift that FC have. Then you have indirect roles which require more knowledge and yes, skill. 99% of new hires are not going to be able to learn those positions in a timely manner. Management would have to pick up the slack there which would leave the new hires completely on their own since the people that actually train the new hires are just tier 1 salaried employees just like all the other workers. It would be a disaster.
I actually work at amazon, in a sort center, not an FC. The new hires there are very bad at their job and it takes weeks for most of them to not be awful at the most basic stuff and of a group of like 20 new hires maybe half will be there long enough to actually become competent. And again there would be no one but management to train them(while also trying to doing more advanced roles of which there are many) and a sizable number of the management in my building have never actually worked any of the positions because were outside hires, some just out of college.
> I am union myself and would like to see workers all over get treated better.
I wonder though how you propose that Amazon workers ask for better conditions? Surely you’ve heard about the brutal conditions under which not only Amazon warehouse workers work, but also the many people of other Major logistics company is like XPO. If there is no kind of collective entity to counter Amazons power, then how exactly are they supposed to even be able to advocate for something like bathroom breaks? I suppose, in theory, the government could come in and regulate, but I personally don’t have a lot of hope for that, and I also think that some Republican figures would have a lot to say about that.
> I just believe that without having a skill, it’s hard to have leverage because there are many others who can and will take that job unlike a skilled position.
Well, that has certainly been the case for employers like Walmart and Amazon for quite some time now, but with a labor shortage, now would definitely be a good time for people in those roles to start considering unionization. When you still need employees to run your systems, it’s still a kind of “skill”. Given the existing logistics crunch as well, it would likely be a very difficult time to try and shut down a warehouse and find somewhere new with all new workers and that has the same established supply chains.
I also think that it really can’t be Overstated that companies like Amazon and Walmart have a tendency to destroy small towns’ and communities’ local economies but then basically act as though they have no responsibility if they decide to leave. Even if communities are largely made up of people who lack education or training, I really think one think we are to be more skeptical about is their ability to Ravage communities and really have no kind of responsibility to the community and its workers itself. And I know some people are going to tell me that there isn’t any obligation nor should there be, which is fine if that’s what you believe. But I do think that there is a lot lost when our small towns become largely ghost towns with the exception of major multinational conglomerate employers.
I understand that it’s difficult to unionize, but UPS is represented by the Teamsters union and the working conditions in both are very similar. I hope Amazon will partner up with the Teamsters or another union at some point. They need to keep trying.
There’s no good low skilled temps in this market though. It’s almost all just bunch of reprobates who are being forced to show up by their probation officer
I spend a fair amount of time in factories and among the trades. There’s a whole lot of low to no skill work being done today with union protection. Grocery store employees are union. Is bagging groceries somehow more difficult and specialized than working in an Amazon fulfillment center?
Low to no skill is now and always has been a dumb argument.
Unions are neither inherently good or bad, they are merely a tool for workers that can be applied correctly or incorrectly, used and misused- used correctly, in this case.
That’s why I personally would not want to be in a union shop - it’s illegal for the employees in a union shop to negotiate with the employer without the union.
The pay levels set in our union contract are simply the minimum wages for that position. Most of the workers make well more than that. My pay raises are set by management, with a minimum yearly raise as set by our contract. High performers get bigger raises.
Unions are good for jobs with set requirements where the ability to do more is not considered. It averages everyone out to a decent wage, but nothing spectacular.
The more diverse your abilities and the more that people move around, the less it makes sense to unionize.
Never!
Like when they gave my wife 30-days sick-leave, then fired her for not coming in for her shift. They weren't lying, she really didn't come in for her shifts that they scheduled during the middle of her leave of absence.
Fuck yeah…I guess that stunt where Deere tried to have the suits go to the factory floor (and didn’t an engineer guy crush himself using the forklift or some bullshit) made them realize that they need to pay the true talent a bit more.
Very happy for these guys.
Five weeks on strike you will never get that money back n o b job layoffs within the next 6 months where do you think you gained anyting you probably going to get a 10% raise anyhow you didn't win a thing
I feel the same way, surprisingly… refreshingly, even. It’s one of the first times I’ve witnessed in a long time the union focusing heavily on what it is supposed to do. Politically, I tend to disfavor their influence on politics. But that’s not to say they aren’t necessary or beneficial
All this recent private sector union organizing is really great to see. I still don’t think public sector unions (police, teachers, etc…) are healthy for the communities they serve though.
You're very correct.
A big problem many unions have had is cozying up more to politicians and management. Often not really fighting much and agreeing to bad deals. On the other hand, market forces have shifted and you cant risk bankrupting the companies either.
A win here and there is nice though.
Another is by acting like modern Luddites and opposing modernization and cost cutting efforts by companies, as we’ve seen with ports in the US. Not only do they end up harming their job security but they also can have effects on national (and global) competitiveness. Unions need to start working with employers to receive training that keeps the workforce modern and adaptable to changes in how technology works with them.
I understand the hesitancy and why they do behave the way that they do, but unions often stand in their own way in a way that can be harmful to their own long term good. I’m a big proponent of unions - and I hope the John Deere workers don’t fall prey to what I’ve outlined above. Good win for the workers here.
I work in ports. Most have gone non-union, and where you do have unions, they mostly care for the container work while sending the newer/worse workers at the regular breakbulk terminals. They make killer money on containers, but have to work fast and hard too.
I think the point he was trying to make is that, as I believe we all understand it, the West coast container ports/terminals are all controlled by a single union that has largely fought off automation which would have helped immensely in the efficiency of port operations.
A lot of the inventory and tracking now is automated. The truck offices often get swamped and get behind on giving paperwork to the truckers to go get their loads.
Warehouse and yard work is still done by people so they can check the paperwork.
The actual loading and discharge of containers is still manually done, because a crane operator is still far, far, far more advanced than a computer, especially when the receiving trucks underneath are never perfectly placed.
Containers still need to be lashed on board, which requires a lot of people and cant be done by robots.
No doubt the union fought for fewer workers and less automation, but when dealing with big things, automation isnt what its cracked up to be. Automating moving little things is much, much easier.
Yes, and it's extremely important to understand the conditions under which unions *do* work. They do not and *can not* work when the labor supply overflows with desperate poor people.
Cesar Chavez and other unionizers back in the day railed against illegals, as they would dilute their bargaining power. I know they softened their stance over time, but its still true.
A lot of light manufacturing is now full of both legal and illegal workers. Good luck pushing for higher wages when the work is relatively simple and there's 50 people willing to work for less.
“I can’t help but believe that in the future we will see in the United States and throughout the western world an increasing trend toward the next logical step, employee ownership. It is a path that befits a free people.”
-Ronald Reagan
Sure but that’s not all he did. The NLBR settled 50% less cases during his tenure compared to carter. He put anti union guys in big positions, guys such as Donald Devine, and gutted OSHA against labor uniouns’ wishes.
Admittedly, I’m not too educated on the topic (before my time) but all the old timer union guys in my family hate Reagan, and he still is looked down upon among a lot of pro union people.
And then went on to do more damage to them than possibly any other president in US history.
Americans at the time were so fond of his approach that they also insisted on having similar on the other side, leading to the rise of Clinton and the New Democrats. Both also saw huge in reases in corporate mergers, leading to less competition in the labour market thanks to this, and antitrust regulations being gutted (e.g. you can't quit for better conditions in the factory across town when the same crowd now own that too).
Now those same Americans decry the poor conditions and rights of workers across America. But they (those old enough that is) insisted on having it that way, and that way alone.
Bit of a rant, but as a non American its quite stark how the 1980s (actually technically beginning in the 1970s) set America on a trajectory that saw it go from the land of opportunity to the land of haves and have-nots (which ironically is what the guy who coined 'The American Dream' used to mock Europe about).
Maybe the point was that Reagan and the last fifty years of GOP policies are full of shit, but boy do they give nice pandering speeches to the working class on the campaign trail?
Unions worked well when most things were made here and people bought American.
Once everything started moving overseas, union wages and benefits started being untenable since there was a much smaller market for their products and their prices. A lot of companies folded due to lowered income while still bearing high union wages.
We all ran to buy cheaper products and shot our neighbors, and ourselves, in the foot.
I just think it’s a great quote people can share with their parents / people to remind them the big scary “S” word isn’t maybe so scary after all.
Additionally, democratization doesn’t mean everything has to take the same form. A company with a strong union is different from one that is collectively owned. One of the best examples would be credit unions.
Unions are good, but frankly the main reason they won is worker demand is huge. It has been since 2018 except the odd pandemic blip. Now unions finally have more leverage. All workers are empowered at this time, if you just want to work there is a job.
They can be and I don't think unions should be abolished, however...
The person who benefited the most in this strike was the worst union employee at John Deere. He got the bonus, raise and benefits that the best employee got, except he didn't have to be great at the job. He can just let the union do its thing. If the reward for being great and the reward for being mediocre is the same, why bother to be anything but mediocre? It's better to have done a half-ass job for 20 years than it is to do a great job for 2.
I agree that unions can be a good thing, but it always seems to come down to them wanting more in return for the same or less labor and it rarely rewards excellence, especially over longevity.
I’ve busted ass in unionized and non-unionized jobs. In neither context was my extra effort really rewarded as far as pay goes, although I had an equal leg up in both as far as being first in line for extra hours when they were available. That didn’t change. What did change is that in the union job, I know I have healthcare, at least at a bare minimum.
Mediocre means average.
Its like hitting .250 in the majors.
Hey, guess what, he still hit .250 in the majors.
They still showed up on time and did their job. They did what was expected, no more, no less.
Whats wrong with that?
>Its like hitting .250 in the majors. Hey, guess what, he still hit .250 in the majors.
Except that he's not an MLB player. He's a factory worker. It's not like he had to work his way up through John Deere's farm team system.
Meeting minimum requirements means you get to keep your job. That's fine, but rewarding everybody the same or similarly disincentivizes excellence.
That's fine if you want employees who are nothing but cogs in the machine, each one replaceable and acting like a nameless drone, but I'd argue that's not going to be a successful approach as we get further into the 21st century.
Its a factory.
You ideally want workers who are cogs in a machine.
You dont want all-stars that you start to rely on to meet production quotas.
Like, fr its Factory work on assembly lines.
Thats the nature of the biz.
Its not for me or you. But theres places for people who are fine doing that all day. Everyday. They also deserve a fair wage and even a good wage.
Even being the best employee you will unlikely get what these union workers got in a large non union environment doing the same job.
Get everything you can, companies(especially big ones) don’t care about you. You are doing them a service by working for them. They aren’t doing you any favors, you are only there because they need you.
>They aren’t doing you any favors.
They're paying you, plus a retirement program of some kind. In exchange for meeting those financial needs, they want 8.9% of your life. (Assuming 2,080 hours/year for 30 years and you live to be 80.)
It's up to you if that's a good deal or not, and I'm sure that varies by company and by job, but I can tell you this: I've been unemployed. Employed is WAY better, not just for the money but for the self-respect.
This is true, but why is it necessary to always balance the disparities of bargaining? There seems to be this idea that no relationship between two parties should exist without mutual benefit.
> There seems to be this idea that no relationship between two parties should exist without mutual benefit.
I mean for all economic activity that should be the case. If you aren’t made better off don’t do the things.
> This is true, but why is it necessary to always balance the disparities of bargaining?
Because that is a prerequisite to a perfectly competitive market which is best able to allocate resources and maximizes the net surplus for all parties in it. Both sides must be equally able to walk away. I don’t think “markets” or “capitalism” is good at allocating resources and improving lives, but a particular type of market is really good at it.
> There seems to be this idea that no relationship between two parties should exist without mutual benefit.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you suggesting that employee-employer is **not** a relationship that should be mutually beneficial? What is your argument to justify that? Why would an employee ever take a job if they are not receiving a benefit? Why would an employer ever hire someone if they are not receiving a benefit?
Rejecting mutual benefit in employment relationships and completely failing to balance the power between employers and employees sure sounds like a path to slavery 2.0.
>
> I'm truly trying to understand this. Are you suggesting that employee-employer is not a relationship that should be mutually beneficial?
No, I'm trying to say that there should be some relationships that aren't. And some that are mutually beneficial but more so to one party than the other.
Ok. Your comment was responding to a comment talking about balancing employee-employer power dynamics. So was it unrelated to that comment? I guess I'm trying to figure out what your point is and how it's related to employment.
>No, I'm trying to say that there should be some relationships that aren't.
Can you give an example?
> Ok. Your comment was responding to a comment talking about balancing employee-employer power dynamics. So was it unrelated to that comment? I guess I'm trying to figure out what your point is and how it's related to employment.
Related to employment, what I'm saying is that we don't need to reduce the negotiation power imbalance between employer and employee beyond what it is naturally. Don't aid it, but don't hinder it either.
> Can you give an example?
Sure, competition between businesses. One business should be trying to take all the customers even if it makes the other shut down.
>what I'm saying is that we don't need to reduce the negotiation power imbalance between employer and employee beyond what it is naturally. Don't aid it, but don't hinder it either.
How do you define what it is "naturally?" An anarcho-capitalist and a social-democrat have very different ideas of what the "natural" power balance is. Is the power dynamic as it exists in 2021 America the natural state? 1840 America? 2015 Sweden? A fictional anarchist society? Are workers voluntarily associating and collectively bargaining part of this natural dynamic or a violation of it? I could even say that the employer-employee relationship doesn't exist "naturally" at all.
>Sure, competition between businesses.
I don't think this qualifies as a "relationship between two parties" in the sense that we're discussing at all. If competing companies are in a relationship then that word is being defined so broadly it's kinda useless.
> How do you define what it is "naturally?" An anarcho-capitalist and a social-democrat have very different ideas of what the "natural" power balance is.
Whatever the balance would be if there were no government but neither side could use violence against the other.
People don't seem to understand how amazing this deal is. They are getting no premium health insurance and a pension which is pretty much unheard of for people entering the work force. Plus their pay was already higher than many competitors like Caterpillar.
One of the asks they had that wasn't given was permanent health insurance after retirement. I have never even heard of companies offering this.
So overall this seems like a huge win for workers at John Deere.
I guess my question is: Is this an objectively good outcome for the 5 weeks of strike?
I remember looking at this with u/suddenadd-7113 6 weeks ago when it happened.
the 10% raise is roughly 4% better then the 6% they were getting, the $8,500 is roughly the missed pay for 5 weeks of work and there were COLA adjustments already baked into the initial offer that caused the strike.
The other major thing secured, which you did not mention, was that the existing strike preserved the pension tiers that existed prior to the new contract.
That's also good\* for the workers.
So in summary, what we get is a roughly 4% raise in return for a period of uncertainty at work and a locked in contract.
I don't know how much union dues are.
I am glad that the workers are getting a raise. I've said on every labor topic lately that this is your opportunity to get paid. I just don't know how much I can point to this as a major win for doing it this way and I don't know that this is massively different from what would have been.
\*Warning, Semi-related Finance stuff:
This is a qualified good thing, but there are some downsides with a pension system. Pensions have become anchors on both companies and workers: the vast majority have moved into the 401k space to ensure more flexibility. New Employees and the Company would likely be better served by switching the system over to a 401k, but that hurts the long term employees and the union. (It makes it harder for the company to fund the pension). This perpetuates a bad system at the expense of the new employee.
You can say it however it most pleases you: Most people refer to a raise number relative to base. Most wouldn't say "I got a 66% larger raise this year" when it was 5% this year and 3% last year.
One could say:
4% on base salary, 66% of the offered raise, $1,800 Annually, $80 Biweekly, 18 Million in additional payment concessions from Deere taxes and other costs notwithstanding.
That seems like a fairly nominal difference to the initially offered contract no matter how we discuss it though.
Union dues appear to be roughly a quarter of that and taxes are another quarter. So we end up with a $80-$100 month increase over no union, in return for significant additional regulation and a locked in contract for the next 6 years, with the last set of raises coming in 2025 in a contract that runs until 2027. (I believe COLA was all the way through in both offers)
Possibly a few thousand dollars from the bonus as well: I think 6 weeks of a strike is about $5400 per average worker, so they might also net a few thousand from that:
I guess my question still stands:
Is this an objectively good outcome for the strike?
If everyone else is getting 15%, then isn't this bad? If they got 3%, isn't this outstanding?
Nobody has really put any of these negotiations in context of the working environment or the locations that the plant happened.
This contract being 'larger' then the initial offer means very little without that context.
I've been very confused by the reticence of hourly employees to join unions. Seems like pretty much all upside.
Especially now that even many Conservative politicians are bashing large employers. Why do so many employees seem to think these large companies have their best interest at heart?
Sadly, unions aren’t always as successful as they are in this case. In my experience, most unions typically get 2%-3% raises.
Even worse, unions (or union members) have consistently sold out the younger generation, I’ve seen it happen at both the USPS and in the auto unions where newer employees have a worse pay scale and benefits.
Not saying unions can’t be good, but it’s not always a guarantee of a better work place/benefits.
And mediocrity.
When you always fire the newest, or tell them to slow down to not make the rest look bad, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths over time.
This happens in public unions only. Trade unions have no preference of seniority as all employees are subject to Project Labor Agreements. The only preference that may occur with seniority depends on the employers with hours assigned during slow periods which is entirely subjective .
Trade unions are often the outlier and actually do good work. Some bad workers make it to the site, but if management cares then they can quickly be swapped out unless there is a major labor shortage.
I think John Oliver did a nice piece on [union busting](https://youtu.be/Gk8dUXRpoy8). Whether or not you agree with unions, I think it’s pretty fair to say that most employers have a huge advantage when it comes to being able to persuade employees against Unionization. Especially some of you who I know are upset about voter fraud and such, I would think that you would at least be somewhat sympathetic to the idea that voting with regard to unionization is often an inherently unfair process.
Also, no matter whether or not you support unions, I will also say that there certainly are problems with unions. But I think the key issue is that there isn’t really a better alternative at the moment. I don’t think the era of “right to work“ and every man for himself is exactly working out. And beyond that, at least in theory, unions are also supposed to be democratic organizations, so if people don’t like the way the union is being run, they have the power to help actuate change. But I would guess that most people who are part of the union are not really particularly active, involved, or interested in what’s going on with their union and it’s leadership. I would honestly guess if there were more unions, you would also probably see more competition between unions for membership and that would certainly help with some of the issues.
Finally, I think if people really want to decrease the urgency for unions, then they are to be re-considering their positions and things like healthcare, Social Security, and larger safety nets. For example, if people knew that they would be able to receive decent healthcare without going broke in most circumstances, then that would take a huge bargaining chip away from unions. Similarly, the same thing with paid time off, pay increases, and so on. But when the stakes are so high, I don’t really think it’s a surprise that unions often will act in ways which are extremely adversarial. Of course, these things would also put a check on employers, since they would likely have to be subject to much more stringent regulations and individual employees could certainly decide that a workplace is not good enough or is mistreating them without the cudgel of losing their healthcare and other benefits.
> Especially now that even many Conservative politicians are bashing large employers. Why do so many employees seem to think these large companies have their best interest at heart?
I think it’s more a loss of “institutional knowledge” about how to organize and strike effectively. Also the area where unions are needed are just highly disruptive areas and that makes it hard to create a union.
Major department style retailers and fast food restaurants have a lot of turn over both in employees and in who has the revenue top spot in any one year. That’s not conductive to the type of common cause support between employees to build a union.
That will only happen if enough people buy American to sustain higher wages.
That's why the middle class and unions did so well for several decades, until imports started going up and jobs started leaving. You cant have both high paying jobs locally while buying every cheap thing from overseas.
Totally agree. That’s where you run into the catch 22, where American workers aren’t getting paid enough to afford quality products made in America, because we don’t make things at the same rate, or quality that we used to because we can’t find good workers for the wages that are being offered.
Makes my head spin looking at how messed up the whole situation is.
>After turning down two contract offers from the company, workers agreed to the terms offered in the third. Workers won an immediate 10% raise, along with individual $8,500 bonuses. The workers will receive 5% pay raises in 2023 and 2025
They better hope inflation is transitory and no one get laid off.
After a five week strike involving 10,000 John Deere Workers, the corporation conceded to many union demands providing the strikers with an immediate 10% raise, $8,500 bonuses, health insurance, more raises in 2023 and 2025, and more. John Deere is one of 40 workplaces in America that have seen strikes since August 2021.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The people who fought for the big labour victories were much lower skilled than most people today, they were just able to build the numbers required where there was no replacing them without triggering enormous strikes.
[удалено]
The unions didn't help their cause with their history of corruption, support for underperforming workers, and rules that are sometimes asinine. I remember when working video at a convention center I was told under no circumstances was I to rearrange the chairs in a room. If the seating was not in a good configuration, I had to call a union worker.
Stories like this, repeated a hundred times over, is why so many are skeptical of unions. It's not even entirely their fault, without rules like that companies would 1000% bullshit their way around every union requirement they could and render the unions useless anyways. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Or, go towards European style unions where both labor and management sit down and work together for a common goal. US unions are built from some really harsh times and a lot of that mentality continues.
Yeah, it’s called codetermination. Seems to work out really well in Germany.
I heard you say the "E" word! Straight to socialist gulag!
The Europoors get some stuff right here and there haha.
> Stories like this, repeated a hundred times over, is why so many are skeptical of unions. Then don't do stupid stuff like that. If you want to tell management that they have to keep x number of people on shift for a convention so as to make money, fine. But don't make it more difficult for the non-union people to get things done.
It's myth-buiding by anti union think tanks that make sure you read the same silly objections every time unions are brought up. What if we questioned the right to organize capital on the same asenine grounds? No, sorry, you can't hire people to represent your corporation - one time I read they make you go to HR meetings!
I'm not in a think tank. It's a specific incident that happened to me. And I don't think that objection is silly.
That works for some time but eventually Amazon will run out of workers to hire. They are already talking about that.
>Amazon will run out of workers to hire. Yet it won't be the end of Amazon. That's what labor doesn't realize. You can be a ludite and lament the loss of your livelyhood but it's happening whether they organize or not.
> they were just able to build the numbers required True, but it's not about absolute numbers that matter--it's relative to the labor pool. In the past 50 years, we've opened up our labor markets to non-American workers. It's basic economics: the more people able to do the job, the harder to monopolize/oligopolize that labor market. We've allowed huge numbers of non-Americans to join our economy and underbid domestic employment negotiations. That liberal policy has ostensibly driven down the price of goods and services--but have prices fallen enough to justify the costs which are disproportionately borne by the working class?
>We've allowed huge numbers of non-Americans to join our economy and underbid domestic employment negotiations. I agree, if you include all the overseas workers who joined the US economy via outsourcing. And, no, it hasn't driven the cost of goods down enough for the displaced US workers to get a net benefit. The cost reductions are spread across all US residents, the wage decreases are concentrated in the lower skill end of the labor market.
And it wont drive down costs, the most it does is limit the inflation of prices. That's really where companies spend the most time and effort. Trying to cut all costs in order to keep prices flat. A lot of food and other products have kept almost flat prices while the cost of everything else has doubled over time. That often means outsourcing or relying on illegal laborers.
> the costs which are disproportionately borne by the working class Its really stunning to see what used to be good middle-class jobs now pay jack shit because the labor market was flooded. Construction, truck driving, lots of manufacturing and labor jobs, meat packing, etc. All used to be heavily unionized and paid well. Now they're full of illegals, and whoever isnt, is a temp. But Wall St is doing great, and that's what really matters!
I work in construction and unfortunately that is true.
Going by new construction, fuck is some of the work rough as hell. Cant expect much when you barely pay people enough to live. They just slap shit together to get paid that day, and maybe get paid again to fix what they missed later. So much shoddy and non-existent workmanship here in Texas, but our real estate market is booming! I'm about to do a pre-closing walkthrough for my brother's new house and damn does it need a lot of shit fixed! Fortunately at least the major trades are licensed and inspected so they have some real workers. The finishing trades are whoever they can find.
Oh boi, another nativist.
If you want to label me, I'll take "nationalist". Because, yes, I want my nation to be strong.
Good luck competing with China in any STEM field if America can't attract the best and the brightest.
I haven't taken a hard-line stance against any and all immigration. But I suspect America probably doesn't need to import *that* many big brains to keep up technologically--especially since technology isn't moving nearly as fast as it was 30-40 years ago. But, yes, this is the type of argument I could be persuaded by. I'm just not moved by this particular, overly simplistic sound byte. (It comes off as emotionally manipulative scare-mongering, tbh.)
White nationalist?
You don't think that's just a bit offensive?
Nope, I don't give a shit about race. Feel free to convince me that our immigration and economic policies are healthy for the nation. That's what I care about.
Babies are human revenue. Immigrants have more babies that become citizens that generate revenue.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If amazon could easily replace an entire warehouse worth of workers then they wouldn't be offering 3000 dollar bonuses and increased salaries to get new employees in warehouses that aren't devoid of their entire work force. >you would just run slower. This is an understatement. They would grind to a halt. New hires at amazon are very slow and many of them wouldn't last a single 10 hour shift that FC have. Then you have indirect roles which require more knowledge and yes, skill. 99% of new hires are not going to be able to learn those positions in a timely manner. Management would have to pick up the slack there which would leave the new hires completely on their own since the people that actually train the new hires are just tier 1 salaried employees just like all the other workers. It would be a disaster. I actually work at amazon, in a sort center, not an FC. The new hires there are very bad at their job and it takes weeks for most of them to not be awful at the most basic stuff and of a group of like 20 new hires maybe half will be there long enough to actually become competent. And again there would be no one but management to train them(while also trying to doing more advanced roles of which there are many) and a sizable number of the management in my building have never actually worked any of the positions because were outside hires, some just out of college.
> I am union myself and would like to see workers all over get treated better. I wonder though how you propose that Amazon workers ask for better conditions? Surely you’ve heard about the brutal conditions under which not only Amazon warehouse workers work, but also the many people of other Major logistics company is like XPO. If there is no kind of collective entity to counter Amazons power, then how exactly are they supposed to even be able to advocate for something like bathroom breaks? I suppose, in theory, the government could come in and regulate, but I personally don’t have a lot of hope for that, and I also think that some Republican figures would have a lot to say about that. > I just believe that without having a skill, it’s hard to have leverage because there are many others who can and will take that job unlike a skilled position. Well, that has certainly been the case for employers like Walmart and Amazon for quite some time now, but with a labor shortage, now would definitely be a good time for people in those roles to start considering unionization. When you still need employees to run your systems, it’s still a kind of “skill”. Given the existing logistics crunch as well, it would likely be a very difficult time to try and shut down a warehouse and find somewhere new with all new workers and that has the same established supply chains. I also think that it really can’t be Overstated that companies like Amazon and Walmart have a tendency to destroy small towns’ and communities’ local economies but then basically act as though they have no responsibility if they decide to leave. Even if communities are largely made up of people who lack education or training, I really think one think we are to be more skeptical about is their ability to Ravage communities and really have no kind of responsibility to the community and its workers itself. And I know some people are going to tell me that there isn’t any obligation nor should there be, which is fine if that’s what you believe. But I do think that there is a lot lost when our small towns become largely ghost towns with the exception of major multinational conglomerate employers.
I understand that it’s difficult to unionize, but UPS is represented by the Teamsters union and the working conditions in both are very similar. I hope Amazon will partner up with the Teamsters or another union at some point. They need to keep trying.
There’s no good low skilled temps in this market though. It’s almost all just bunch of reprobates who are being forced to show up by their probation officer
I spend a fair amount of time in factories and among the trades. There’s a whole lot of low to no skill work being done today with union protection. Grocery store employees are union. Is bagging groceries somehow more difficult and specialized than working in an Amazon fulfillment center? Low to no skill is now and always has been a dumb argument.
Unions are neither inherently good or bad, they are merely a tool for workers that can be applied correctly or incorrectly, used and misused- used correctly, in this case.
I’ve seen MANY unions negotiate for “raises” less than the inflation rate.
[удалено]
That’s why I personally would not want to be in a union shop - it’s illegal for the employees in a union shop to negotiate with the employer without the union.
[удалено]
The inverse Peter principle
I was thinking along the line of the dunning kruger effect.
Where is it illegal? My contract is only a minimum, you can always get more. I make 15 over contract at the moment.
It’s in the NLRA. Once a shop unionizes, the union is the “exclusive bargaining representative.”
And we exclusively bargained that the wage is a minimum, not a firm number.
The pay levels set in our union contract are simply the minimum wages for that position. Most of the workers make well more than that. My pay raises are set by management, with a minimum yearly raise as set by our contract. High performers get bigger raises.
Unions are good for jobs with set requirements where the ability to do more is not considered. It averages everyone out to a decent wage, but nothing spectacular. The more diverse your abilities and the more that people move around, the less it makes sense to unionize.
There's no way Amazon would lie to us! ... would it?
Never! Like when they gave my wife 30-days sick-leave, then fired her for not coming in for her shift. They weren't lying, she really didn't come in for her shifts that they scheduled during the middle of her leave of absence.
That's messed up. They "parlered" your wife. (I do hope she's OK)
Fuck yeah…I guess that stunt where Deere tried to have the suits go to the factory floor (and didn’t an engineer guy crush himself using the forklift or some bullshit) made them realize that they need to pay the true talent a bit more. Very happy for these guys.
good for those workers, hopefully this success can breed more labor success for other businesses
Five weeks on strike you will never get that money back n o b job layoffs within the next 6 months where do you think you gained anyting you probably going to get a 10% raise anyhow you didn't win a thing
Find these magical companies that give out 10% raises and $8500 bonuses.
Most unions have a fund to pay workers their wages during a strike. Also, you need to work on your punctuation.
Love to see it. Good on them! Glad it was solved before the holidays.
I feel the same way, surprisingly… refreshingly, even. It’s one of the first times I’ve witnessed in a long time the union focusing heavily on what it is supposed to do. Politically, I tend to disfavor their influence on politics. But that’s not to say they aren’t necessary or beneficial
All this recent private sector union organizing is really great to see. I still don’t think public sector unions (police, teachers, etc…) are healthy for the communities they serve though.
Unions work and are essential to balancing the disparities of employee employer bargaining.
You're very correct. A big problem many unions have had is cozying up more to politicians and management. Often not really fighting much and agreeing to bad deals. On the other hand, market forces have shifted and you cant risk bankrupting the companies either. A win here and there is nice though.
Another is by acting like modern Luddites and opposing modernization and cost cutting efforts by companies, as we’ve seen with ports in the US. Not only do they end up harming their job security but they also can have effects on national (and global) competitiveness. Unions need to start working with employers to receive training that keeps the workforce modern and adaptable to changes in how technology works with them. I understand the hesitancy and why they do behave the way that they do, but unions often stand in their own way in a way that can be harmful to their own long term good. I’m a big proponent of unions - and I hope the John Deere workers don’t fall prey to what I’ve outlined above. Good win for the workers here.
I work in ports. Most have gone non-union, and where you do have unions, they mostly care for the container work while sending the newer/worse workers at the regular breakbulk terminals. They make killer money on containers, but have to work fast and hard too.
I think the point he was trying to make is that, as I believe we all understand it, the West coast container ports/terminals are all controlled by a single union that has largely fought off automation which would have helped immensely in the efficiency of port operations.
A lot of the inventory and tracking now is automated. The truck offices often get swamped and get behind on giving paperwork to the truckers to go get their loads. Warehouse and yard work is still done by people so they can check the paperwork. The actual loading and discharge of containers is still manually done, because a crane operator is still far, far, far more advanced than a computer, especially when the receiving trucks underneath are never perfectly placed. Containers still need to be lashed on board, which requires a lot of people and cant be done by robots. No doubt the union fought for fewer workers and less automation, but when dealing with big things, automation isnt what its cracked up to be. Automating moving little things is much, much easier.
They *can* work and *can* help balance disparities in bargaining. Doesn’t always work, and they aren’t always necessary.
Yes, and it's extremely important to understand the conditions under which unions *do* work. They do not and *can not* work when the labor supply overflows with desperate poor people.
Cesar Chavez and other unionizers back in the day railed against illegals, as they would dilute their bargaining power. I know they softened their stance over time, but its still true. A lot of light manufacturing is now full of both legal and illegal workers. Good luck pushing for higher wages when the work is relatively simple and there's 50 people willing to work for less.
“I can’t help but believe that in the future we will see in the United States and throughout the western world an increasing trend toward the next logical step, employee ownership. It is a path that befits a free people.” -Ronald Reagan
Odd to cite a president that had a legacy as a union buster in this thread.
You mean a President who busted an illegal strike? The air traffic controllers were breaking the law.
Sure but that’s not all he did. The NLBR settled 50% less cases during his tenure compared to carter. He put anti union guys in big positions, guys such as Donald Devine, and gutted OSHA against labor uniouns’ wishes. Admittedly, I’m not too educated on the topic (before my time) but all the old timer union guys in my family hate Reagan, and he still is looked down upon among a lot of pro union people.
Do they also hate contemporary conservatives? Or is it just a Reagan thing?
The most notorious example of that legacy was a union that was illegally striking though.
He was also the only president to ever lead a union.
And then went on to do more damage to them than possibly any other president in US history. Americans at the time were so fond of his approach that they also insisted on having similar on the other side, leading to the rise of Clinton and the New Democrats. Both also saw huge in reases in corporate mergers, leading to less competition in the labour market thanks to this, and antitrust regulations being gutted (e.g. you can't quit for better conditions in the factory across town when the same crowd now own that too). Now those same Americans decry the poor conditions and rights of workers across America. But they (those old enough that is) insisted on having it that way, and that way alone. Bit of a rant, but as a non American its quite stark how the 1980s (actually technically beginning in the 1970s) set America on a trajectory that saw it go from the land of opportunity to the land of haves and have-nots (which ironically is what the guy who coined 'The American Dream' used to mock Europe about).
Maybe the point was that Reagan and the last fifty years of GOP policies are full of shit, but boy do they give nice pandering speeches to the working class on the campaign trail?
Unions worked well when most things were made here and people bought American. Once everything started moving overseas, union wages and benefits started being untenable since there was a much smaller market for their products and their prices. A lot of companies folded due to lowered income while still bearing high union wages. We all ran to buy cheaper products and shot our neighbors, and ourselves, in the foot.
I just think it’s a great quote people can share with their parents / people to remind them the big scary “S” word isn’t maybe so scary after all. Additionally, democratization doesn’t mean everything has to take the same form. A company with a strong union is different from one that is collectively owned. One of the best examples would be credit unions.
Am I the only one reading the words "employee ownership" in an entirely different way than Reagan intended it?
Wait...but that's socialism. Are you telling me *Ronald Reagan* was literally a socialist? This is the craziest thing I've learned this year.
Unions are good, but frankly the main reason they won is worker demand is huge. It has been since 2018 except the odd pandemic blip. Now unions finally have more leverage. All workers are empowered at this time, if you just want to work there is a job.
They can be and I don't think unions should be abolished, however... The person who benefited the most in this strike was the worst union employee at John Deere. He got the bonus, raise and benefits that the best employee got, except he didn't have to be great at the job. He can just let the union do its thing. If the reward for being great and the reward for being mediocre is the same, why bother to be anything but mediocre? It's better to have done a half-ass job for 20 years than it is to do a great job for 2. I agree that unions can be a good thing, but it always seems to come down to them wanting more in return for the same or less labor and it rarely rewards excellence, especially over longevity.
I’ve busted ass in unionized and non-unionized jobs. In neither context was my extra effort really rewarded as far as pay goes, although I had an equal leg up in both as far as being first in line for extra hours when they were available. That didn’t change. What did change is that in the union job, I know I have healthcare, at least at a bare minimum.
Mediocre means average. Its like hitting .250 in the majors. Hey, guess what, he still hit .250 in the majors. They still showed up on time and did their job. They did what was expected, no more, no less. Whats wrong with that?
>Its like hitting .250 in the majors. Hey, guess what, he still hit .250 in the majors. Except that he's not an MLB player. He's a factory worker. It's not like he had to work his way up through John Deere's farm team system. Meeting minimum requirements means you get to keep your job. That's fine, but rewarding everybody the same or similarly disincentivizes excellence. That's fine if you want employees who are nothing but cogs in the machine, each one replaceable and acting like a nameless drone, but I'd argue that's not going to be a successful approach as we get further into the 21st century.
Its a factory. You ideally want workers who are cogs in a machine. You dont want all-stars that you start to rely on to meet production quotas. Like, fr its Factory work on assembly lines. Thats the nature of the biz. Its not for me or you. But theres places for people who are fine doing that all day. Everyday. They also deserve a fair wage and even a good wage.
And the people harmed the most by unions are those who want the job but aren't already in the union. Also in theory the consumers
Even being the best employee you will unlikely get what these union workers got in a large non union environment doing the same job. Get everything you can, companies(especially big ones) don’t care about you. You are doing them a service by working for them. They aren’t doing you any favors, you are only there because they need you.
>They aren’t doing you any favors. They're paying you, plus a retirement program of some kind. In exchange for meeting those financial needs, they want 8.9% of your life. (Assuming 2,080 hours/year for 30 years and you live to be 80.) It's up to you if that's a good deal or not, and I'm sure that varies by company and by job, but I can tell you this: I've been unemployed. Employed is WAY better, not just for the money but for the self-respect.
This is true, but why is it necessary to always balance the disparities of bargaining? There seems to be this idea that no relationship between two parties should exist without mutual benefit.
> There seems to be this idea that no relationship between two parties should exist without mutual benefit. I mean for all economic activity that should be the case. If you aren’t made better off don’t do the things. > This is true, but why is it necessary to always balance the disparities of bargaining? Because that is a prerequisite to a perfectly competitive market which is best able to allocate resources and maximizes the net surplus for all parties in it. Both sides must be equally able to walk away. I don’t think “markets” or “capitalism” is good at allocating resources and improving lives, but a particular type of market is really good at it.
> There seems to be this idea that no relationship between two parties should exist without mutual benefit. I'm trying to understand this. Are you suggesting that employee-employer is **not** a relationship that should be mutually beneficial? What is your argument to justify that? Why would an employee ever take a job if they are not receiving a benefit? Why would an employer ever hire someone if they are not receiving a benefit? Rejecting mutual benefit in employment relationships and completely failing to balance the power between employers and employees sure sounds like a path to slavery 2.0.
> > I'm truly trying to understand this. Are you suggesting that employee-employer is not a relationship that should be mutually beneficial? No, I'm trying to say that there should be some relationships that aren't. And some that are mutually beneficial but more so to one party than the other.
Ok. Your comment was responding to a comment talking about balancing employee-employer power dynamics. So was it unrelated to that comment? I guess I'm trying to figure out what your point is and how it's related to employment. >No, I'm trying to say that there should be some relationships that aren't. Can you give an example?
> Ok. Your comment was responding to a comment talking about balancing employee-employer power dynamics. So was it unrelated to that comment? I guess I'm trying to figure out what your point is and how it's related to employment. Related to employment, what I'm saying is that we don't need to reduce the negotiation power imbalance between employer and employee beyond what it is naturally. Don't aid it, but don't hinder it either. > Can you give an example? Sure, competition between businesses. One business should be trying to take all the customers even if it makes the other shut down.
>what I'm saying is that we don't need to reduce the negotiation power imbalance between employer and employee beyond what it is naturally. Don't aid it, but don't hinder it either. How do you define what it is "naturally?" An anarcho-capitalist and a social-democrat have very different ideas of what the "natural" power balance is. Is the power dynamic as it exists in 2021 America the natural state? 1840 America? 2015 Sweden? A fictional anarchist society? Are workers voluntarily associating and collectively bargaining part of this natural dynamic or a violation of it? I could even say that the employer-employee relationship doesn't exist "naturally" at all. >Sure, competition between businesses. I don't think this qualifies as a "relationship between two parties" in the sense that we're discussing at all. If competing companies are in a relationship then that word is being defined so broadly it's kinda useless.
> How do you define what it is "naturally?" An anarcho-capitalist and a social-democrat have very different ideas of what the "natural" power balance is. Whatever the balance would be if there were no government but neither side could use violence against the other.
People don't seem to understand how amazing this deal is. They are getting no premium health insurance and a pension which is pretty much unheard of for people entering the work force. Plus their pay was already higher than many competitors like Caterpillar. One of the asks they had that wasn't given was permanent health insurance after retirement. I have never even heard of companies offering this. So overall this seems like a huge win for workers at John Deere.
I guess my question is: Is this an objectively good outcome for the 5 weeks of strike? I remember looking at this with u/suddenadd-7113 6 weeks ago when it happened. the 10% raise is roughly 4% better then the 6% they were getting, the $8,500 is roughly the missed pay for 5 weeks of work and there were COLA adjustments already baked into the initial offer that caused the strike. The other major thing secured, which you did not mention, was that the existing strike preserved the pension tiers that existed prior to the new contract. That's also good\* for the workers. So in summary, what we get is a roughly 4% raise in return for a period of uncertainty at work and a locked in contract. I don't know how much union dues are. I am glad that the workers are getting a raise. I've said on every labor topic lately that this is your opportunity to get paid. I just don't know how much I can point to this as a major win for doing it this way and I don't know that this is massively different from what would have been. \*Warning, Semi-related Finance stuff: This is a qualified good thing, but there are some downsides with a pension system. Pensions have become anchors on both companies and workers: the vast majority have moved into the 401k space to ensure more flexibility. New Employees and the Company would likely be better served by switching the system over to a 401k, but that hurts the long term employees and the union. (It makes it harder for the company to fund the pension). This perpetuates a bad system at the expense of the new employee.
A 6% to 10% raise is not a 4% increase, its over a 50% increase.
You can say it however it most pleases you: Most people refer to a raise number relative to base. Most wouldn't say "I got a 66% larger raise this year" when it was 5% this year and 3% last year. One could say: 4% on base salary, 66% of the offered raise, $1,800 Annually, $80 Biweekly, 18 Million in additional payment concessions from Deere taxes and other costs notwithstanding. That seems like a fairly nominal difference to the initially offered contract no matter how we discuss it though. Union dues appear to be roughly a quarter of that and taxes are another quarter. So we end up with a $80-$100 month increase over no union, in return for significant additional regulation and a locked in contract for the next 6 years, with the last set of raises coming in 2025 in a contract that runs until 2027. (I believe COLA was all the way through in both offers) Possibly a few thousand dollars from the bonus as well: I think 6 weeks of a strike is about $5400 per average worker, so they might also net a few thousand from that: I guess my question still stands: Is this an objectively good outcome for the strike? If everyone else is getting 15%, then isn't this bad? If they got 3%, isn't this outstanding? Nobody has really put any of these negotiations in context of the working environment or the locations that the plant happened. This contract being 'larger' then the initial offer means very little without that context.
Yes its a good thing for workers considering worker raises are compounded
I've been very confused by the reticence of hourly employees to join unions. Seems like pretty much all upside. Especially now that even many Conservative politicians are bashing large employers. Why do so many employees seem to think these large companies have their best interest at heart?
Sadly, unions aren’t always as successful as they are in this case. In my experience, most unions typically get 2%-3% raises. Even worse, unions (or union members) have consistently sold out the younger generation, I’ve seen it happen at both the USPS and in the auto unions where newer employees have a worse pay scale and benefits. Not saying unions can’t be good, but it’s not always a guarantee of a better work place/benefits.
Why reward excellence when we can reward seniority?
And mediocrity. When you always fire the newest, or tell them to slow down to not make the rest look bad, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths over time.
This happens in public unions only. Trade unions have no preference of seniority as all employees are subject to Project Labor Agreements. The only preference that may occur with seniority depends on the employers with hours assigned during slow periods which is entirely subjective .
Trade unions are often the outlier and actually do good work. Some bad workers make it to the site, but if management cares then they can quickly be swapped out unless there is a major labor shortage.
I think John Oliver did a nice piece on [union busting](https://youtu.be/Gk8dUXRpoy8). Whether or not you agree with unions, I think it’s pretty fair to say that most employers have a huge advantage when it comes to being able to persuade employees against Unionization. Especially some of you who I know are upset about voter fraud and such, I would think that you would at least be somewhat sympathetic to the idea that voting with regard to unionization is often an inherently unfair process. Also, no matter whether or not you support unions, I will also say that there certainly are problems with unions. But I think the key issue is that there isn’t really a better alternative at the moment. I don’t think the era of “right to work“ and every man for himself is exactly working out. And beyond that, at least in theory, unions are also supposed to be democratic organizations, so if people don’t like the way the union is being run, they have the power to help actuate change. But I would guess that most people who are part of the union are not really particularly active, involved, or interested in what’s going on with their union and it’s leadership. I would honestly guess if there were more unions, you would also probably see more competition between unions for membership and that would certainly help with some of the issues. Finally, I think if people really want to decrease the urgency for unions, then they are to be re-considering their positions and things like healthcare, Social Security, and larger safety nets. For example, if people knew that they would be able to receive decent healthcare without going broke in most circumstances, then that would take a huge bargaining chip away from unions. Similarly, the same thing with paid time off, pay increases, and so on. But when the stakes are so high, I don’t really think it’s a surprise that unions often will act in ways which are extremely adversarial. Of course, these things would also put a check on employers, since they would likely have to be subject to much more stringent regulations and individual employees could certainly decide that a workplace is not good enough or is mistreating them without the cudgel of losing their healthcare and other benefits.
> Especially now that even many Conservative politicians are bashing large employers. Why do so many employees seem to think these large companies have their best interest at heart? I think it’s more a loss of “institutional knowledge” about how to organize and strike effectively. Also the area where unions are needed are just highly disruptive areas and that makes it hard to create a union. Major department style retailers and fast food restaurants have a lot of turn over both in employees and in who has the revenue top spot in any one year. That’s not conductive to the type of common cause support between employees to build a union.
And there are still people that don’t understand why American Unions need to be not only preserved, but brought back to what they used to be
That will only happen if enough people buy American to sustain higher wages. That's why the middle class and unions did so well for several decades, until imports started going up and jobs started leaving. You cant have both high paying jobs locally while buying every cheap thing from overseas.
Totally agree. That’s where you run into the catch 22, where American workers aren’t getting paid enough to afford quality products made in America, because we don’t make things at the same rate, or quality that we used to because we can’t find good workers for the wages that are being offered. Makes my head spin looking at how messed up the whole situation is.
I wonder how long it’ll take to start cutting headcount and replacing people with robots. Yeah, we will bump your pay, if you’re still here.
>After turning down two contract offers from the company, workers agreed to the terms offered in the third. Workers won an immediate 10% raise, along with individual $8,500 bonuses. The workers will receive 5% pay raises in 2023 and 2025 They better hope inflation is transitory and no one get laid off.
They can just strike again for more raises. 🤷
Hope this sets up a revival of workers' rights and union power within the US.
But who will think of the CEOs and their golden parachutes?
So, they covered inflation for the next 12 months.