

Against the real enemy: why organized labor should join with entrepreneurs - Khroma
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/mayjune_2011/features/the_real_enemy_of_unions029138.php

======
jerf
The author spends a lot of the article wondering about why Big Labor seems to
be whiffing so many obvious opportunities (joining with entrepreneurs is the
hook but it's really just one special case of the larger point), but the
answer is obvious once you drop the theory for a moment and look at the
reality: Big Labor leadership is not the same as Big Labor membership.
Leadership has long since become its own entity, and succumbed to the first
law of organizations: All organizations inevitably evolve until the
perpetuation of their own existence becomes their overriding priority. Big
Labor and Big Business are adversarial, certainly, I don't think claiming they
are in cahoots adequately explains the behavior we see, but they _do_ require
the same basic environment to exist in. Which the article itself points out,
but since he's collapsed the two distinct entities into one he isn't quite
able to follow through on what it means.

It probably is in the interests of the membership to join with and support
entrepreneurs. It is absolutely not in the interest of the leadership to do
so.

(I know there is more than one union; I speak in the singular for convenience.
In practice it seems to me pretty much every union you've ever heard of is all
in the same place.)

The author also trots out the terrible "voting against their best interests"
argument (insulting those who don't believe what you do is generally an
unpersuasive argument technique) after three pages of explaining how
supporting unions has failed to produce the best outcome, the irony apparently
lost on the author. I don't vote Democrat precisely because I do not believe
it to be in my best interests. I believe with what is IMHO some justification
that they tend to trade short-term gains for long term losses, and tend to
simply create new entrenched interests instead of protecting mine. I live in
Michigan, where the long term losses have arrived. A lot of people have voted
their "best interests" around here. Perhaps less insulting and more
verification that it really _is_ their "best interests" being served is in
order. Second order effects can't be ignored.

The real point of the preceding paragraphs not being to prove that my beliefs
are true, as justifying them here would be a waste of time, but that the
assumption that not voting Democrat must be motivated by stupidity and lack of
self-interest is not fully justified. There are good reasons not to vote
Democrat. (There are good reasons not to vote any particular party.)

(Oh, and don't mentally translate "I don't vote Democrat" to "I vote
Republican", BTW. It would not be accurate.)

~~~
evangineer
Regarding conflicting interests in the unions:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2599005>

------
yummyfajitas
This article is silly. Entrepreneurs and unions are natural enemies.

A dynamic entrepreneurial environment is the last thing unions want. In a
competitive market with many players and new startups improving things
regularly, the union shop will have higher costs than their competitors and
they will go out of business. Even if costs are equal right now, a startup
will come along and disrupt the industry, destroying any business with rigid
contracts.

And if entrepreneurs work with unions, they are playing with fire. What
happens when a startup invents the UnionLaborTron (a machine which replaces
union laborers)? Work rules incompatible with rapid iteration. My startup
employs low skill labor and we have a new workflow every week. If I needed to
negotiate with a union rep every time I do that, we would shut down.

------
pnathan
I can not figure out the premises of the conclusion. I can sort of figure out
how small businesses could help labor from the article, but on the other fork
- what do unions offer a small businessman?

Thought experiment:

If I found a small software firm, I will need an office, a janitor on Fridays,
a secretary, a marketer-type, and some engineers. (well, I'm approximating
here, YMMV).

As an employer, I want to pay people enough so they stick around. I want to
pay just enough to get the quality of people I need, but not so much the
company is run into the ground. I don't see that a union helps me. If I pay
people badly, they will leave; at least the people I hired, who I assume are
generally hire-able and good enough to find jobs elsewhere.

Politically, I don't want to have to add this or that to my company's
operation unless it makes me money (e.g., our top performer needs child leave,
and him staying with leave is better than him quitting).

So, what does a union get me in my Pnathansoft firm? I am confused. Please
take pity on me and explain. :-/

------
lsc
huh. funny, 'cause my understanding that the basic ideas organized labor
fights for (e.g. pay based on seniority rather than perceived merit, no
firings without a well-documented good reason that involves the employee not
following the rules and protectionism on the international front) Are largely
incompatible with what most Entrepreneurs need.

I mean, this is my perception, and it may be incorrect, but I think it's a
pretty common perception among business owners.

And really, when you get down to it, small businesses and entrepreneurs,
generally speaking, treat employees much worse than even union-free large
businesses. Larger companies do a lot of the things unions want simply because
there are hoards of lawyers willing to jump on them if it even looks like they
might have a case. I mean, sure, you could bring a wrongful termination case
against, say, me... but you'd have a difficult time finding a lawyer to take
it on a percentage of the winnings; you can't get blood from a stone, and my
company just isn't worth that much.

------
evangineer
Unions on both sides of the Atlantic have made huge strategic errors in the
last three decades that have eroded much of their influence, relevance and
power.

Embracing enterprise and entrepreneurs in a deep way would a massive stride
forward. I don't see it happening though. Finding a common enemy to unite
against is one thing, but the fundamental shift in outlook required to go
beyond that is something else altogether.

Labo(u)r will find other ways to organize in the 21st century instead
forming/joining 20th century style unions.

~~~
hugh3
_Unions on both sides of the Atlantic have made huge strategic errors in the
last three decades that have eroded much of their influence, relevance and
power._

Probably not strategic errors so much as natural consequences of the fact that
the interests of the people running the union at any given time are not quite
aligned with the interests of the union.

~~~
evangineer
Yep, our old friend the Principal-Agent problem strikes again. Misalignment of
interests leads to decisions that aren't to the long-term benefit of the
organization.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem>

------
Duff
No entrepreneur in her right mind would allow organized labor anywhere near
their business. Best case, you cut out one of three monopolistic entities.
(union labor and stockmen, cut meat packers)

Once you let that camel under the tent -- you're screwed.

Example: [http://pressrepublican.com/0200_opinion/x1859507528/Labor-
ag...](http://pressrepublican.com/0200_opinion/x1859507528/Labor-agreement-
raises-concerns)

In the example, unions from one area of a state used their political influence
to require a type of labor agreement that excludes companies that aren't union
shops -- even though those companies pay union prevailing wage.

------
stretchwithme
organized labor IS a monopoly, a monopoly on a company's labor. And having a
monopoly on the supply of monopoly's labor supply is the most profitable
monopoly of all.

so, no, I don't think unions will want an end to monopolies.

~~~
hugh3
_And having a monopoly on the supply of monopoly's labor supply is the most
profitable monopoly of all_

Indeed, and the holy grail of having a monopoly on a monopoly is having a
monopoly on government employees. Witness the way the United Auto Workers
formed an offshoot, the SEIU, which now dwarfs its parent.

~~~
stretchwithme
Well, having a union at old Ma Bell or at a monopoly utility was/can be pretty
lucrative. And there's never a rate cut. Governments are always fumbling their
budgets.

The government unions are so bad because we can't simply decide "well, I'll
just write letters." And its easier to build in time bomb benefits. All you
have to do is steer union dues and volunteer labor to those that play along.

------
danbmil99
We need a new blend of progressive and libertarian principles that honors the
concept of respect for those who work, but does not support the dinosaur
ideology of big labor.

Big labor is bad for the same reason big govt and big business are bad -- it
exists to exist.

------
known
India is developing since you can exploit Indians via caste system.
<http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm>

China is developing since you can exploit Chinese by abusing human rights.
[http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-
show-1-tech-...](http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-tech-
apple-workers-forced-to-sign-no-suicide-pledge/20110504.htm)

Americans are suffering since US regime is letting Chindia exploit their
people via outsourcing.

------
lionhearted
After learning a lot of economics, I went from standard coastal American views
to incredibly hostile to labor unions. After learning more about political
factions of all stripes, I became more sympathetic.

I think labor unions and similar do have some value, but today's versions
aren't going to last. They're fundamentally hierarchical, seniority-based
organizations and entrepreneurship is usually anti-hierarchical and anti-
seniority.

Actually, that's one of the growing trends that no one's talking about yet.
This generation is the first one where a very significant minority of people
reject hierarchy-driven organizations and refuse to "work their way up." It
still comes unnatural to our generation and there's social pressures against
it.

But the next generation that grew up as digital natives, a lot more of them
are going to reject the hierarchy and strike off on their own. There will
still be social pressure against it, but much less so as our generation shows
what's possible (and the people who did reject the standard track are doing
pretty well).

The generation _after_ that, our kids, I think the standard
hierarchy/seniority model will be near dead for them. But still, there's a lot
of people in trades that "worked their way up", and they're going to hate this
trend.

It should make for interesting times. As for labor unions, they've really got
to stop selling out their younger members if they want to survive. The unions
keep bargaining off younger members' pay and benefits to protect older
members. That ain't sustainable - there's an entire culture shift going
against them, though it's really just started to pick up steam the last 5-10
years.

~~~
yardie
_As for labor unions, they've really got to stop selling out their younger
members if they want to survive. The unions keep bargaining off younger
members' pay and benefits to protect older members. That ain't sustainable_

Unions know this but most are between a rock and hard place. When negotiating
contracts they can only do it for the people being represented up to that
point. Anyone that joins after that contract is signed is on a new, seperate
contract. So when a union representative has to bring back the terms to it's
members its usually like this, "the company has agreed on the pay scale with
us, but any new hires will be on a seperate contract. Do you vote Yay or Nay?"
Now each union member has to decide if they will accept the contract as it
stands or do they go on strike for some ambiguously defined "future hire".

In fact, this sounds exactly like how our government decides to run its debt.
Do we pay it off and take the lumps or push all the hard decisions on
ambiguous "future generations"

The fact is people are selfish and unions represent people. Personally, I
don't care to join one but I don't get angry at people that do nor do I go
postal in chatrooms talking about them.

------
temphn
A lot of people on the left side of the political spectrum are starting to
wake up to the fact that many people _start_ startups as Democrats, but
quickly become strongly libertarian in their economic views as they come face
to face with the realities of government waste, regulation, and corruption.

The Uber and AirBnB founders are unlikely to pull the lever for statists, for
example. And this is very dangerous to the progressive movement as startup
founders tend to be smartest and most resourceful of their peers. Huge amounts
of money has been invested in making sure all college grads mouth fashionable
left-of-center slogans on economics, but the movement started by Paul Graham
inadvertently threatens to unwind all that.

This article is motivated by that realization and is one (vain) attempt to
bring entrepreneurs back into the fold. There are other attempts too, like
"Startup America". But in the longer term these efforts are unlkely to succeed
as more and more people at early stage companies encounter manifest
contradictions between their lived experience and the religion of their birth
-- namely progressivism.

------
da_dude4242
In one of his interviews, John Mackey pointed out that there are legislative
reasons for this as well. America isn't allowed to have in-house unions like
those of Japan. The present laws predispose unions to antagonistic
relationships.

------
InclinedPlane
Why do people imagine that organized labor (in some cases monopoly labor) is
any different than big business? When big business has an unequalled advantage
it abuses it, trying to milk money out of customers without returning any
value. Big labor does the same. Creating bureaucratic organizations that
maintain job security and job pay merely for showing up and belonging to the
union, rather than actually doing the work better or more efficiently.

------
cpt1138
I have an 1:20 commute but its on a bicycle the whole way. If its killing it
sure is a fun way to die.

