
Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class - aaronbrethorst
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-13/unions-did-great-things-for-the-american-working-class
======
1999
I haven't read the paper and I probably won't, but it seems suspicious to me
that the 1940 to 1970 timeframe mentioned just happens to coincide with WW2
and the aftermath and recovery. If you aren't prepared to systematically
destroy foreign cities and industry I don't think you can recreate those
conditions.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Generally, inequality increases during times of growth; it's a general rule
that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer.

It's during times of decline that you normally expect inequality to decline.
After all, the rich collect the profits while the poor collect wages. Wages
are relatively fixed while profits vary wildly.

~~~
yellowbuilding
This was a different situation. The union organizing was mostly done in the
30s, alongside voting FDR into office, then the war happened. When veterans
came home with the VI Bill a lot of them went to college and got involved with
the new science money (military industrial complex, etc.). In addition to the
Kaynesian New Deal investments, America was just on top of the world and
happened to upon the closest thing it had ever known to socialism.

------
jaggederest
I've often thought there should be a union in tech, similar to the way the
directors guild and screen actors guild operate. Not to set maximums on
compensation, but to set humane minimums and provide continuity and health
insurance in a pooled way, perhaps.

~~~
darawk
Do you think there are software engineers making wages you would consider
_inhumane_?

~~~
falcolas
Game Developers. Around $30-40k per year to live and work for 80 to 100 hours
a week in locations where the cost of living is higher than average. Toss in a
lack of job security (regular layoffs as projects complete and a ready supply
of raw recruits) and it fits my definition of inhumane.

------
johngalt
There is definitely something missing in the current management/employee
relationship.

For example, the Wells Fargo account fraud issue. Where they had thousands of
new accounts being opened without customer authorization. Caused by ratcheting
sales mandates and mid level management pushing employees to open accounts
fraudulently and firing those who objected. It showed an obvious lack of
ability for the branch level employees to push back, and everyone involved
being worse off for it. A more organized group of employees could have pushed
back effectively and prevented a costly situation for Wells. This benefits
more than just the workers. It's not like the shareholders were better off
after having a bunch of fraudulent accounts opened to game sales metrics.

In my opinion there are many business instances where a small problem becomes
a large one because acknowledging a small problem would offset this quarters
goals, or embarrass someone who has enough authority to prevent acknowledging
it.

This missing piece certainly looks union-shaped, but the problem is that any
union strong enough to push back against bad policy is also strong enough to
push back against good policy. Unions are also not immune to the same power
dynamics where small problems can go unacknowledged.

Rather than rehash the 1930s, what would a well coordinated 21st century
organization look like? One that resists small numbers of managers risking the
business just to make a bonus target, or pad their resumes? Yet is also able
to take advantage of new efficiencies and market opportunities without
employee revolt. Are there existing models that work that we could grow to
cover other industries?

~~~
yellowbuilding
Not really. Worker co-ops. Otherwise, the union just needs to implement the
right policies as they do in Europe. The problem with unions in the US was
largely that the big ones were often very integrated with the government and
company owners; not a project so much of the workers.

------
gibsonf1
Unions were great at stifling innovation and destroying some of our former
industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very
wealthy Detroit. The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota
Lean Production system in, as then you would need fewer workers. So in not
allowing innovation, the unions were key factors in destroying entire
industries which have now been built elsewhere.

If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here
and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.

~~~
jshen
It’s funny that you consider China freer than America. It shows that what you
mean by freedom isn’t really freedom.

~~~
gruez
Did GP ninja edit his post? I see no mention of china in his post.

~~~
jshen
What “freer parts of the world” is he talking about when it comes to stealing
industries?

------
danjayh
He mentions the impact of globalization, but I think that it's a much bigger
deal than he makes of it. For work that can easily be offshored
(manufacturing, software dev, phone/online support, creative work, etc.) the
obvious corporate response to unionization it to move shop. OTOH, for
professions that _can 't_ easily be offshored (medical, local services such as
fire/police/utilities, education, etc.), many are still heavily unionized.
Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American
Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though
they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the
profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and
they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and
therefore drive up wages).

OTOH, software is already being offshored at a rapid pace (I really doubt
whether I'd recommend that my children go into the profession), and I think
that labor organization would only serve to accelerate that. Having said that,
it probably could prevent some of the more egregious benefit erosions that
plague our industry ("unlimited" vacation, anyone?) ... which would be nice
while it lasted.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American
> Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even
> though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into
> the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the
> profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of
> demand (and therefore drive up wages).

None of this is true.

The AMA does not control training in the medical profession. That's determined
by the number of residency positions available, which is capped by the AAMC,
not the AMA. However, removing the cap wouldn't increase the number of
positions, because those are funded by Medicare. The AMA does not control who
can practice the profession either; only 25% of practicing physicians even
belong to the AMA.

(The AMA is also not a union because it does not invoke a monopoly claim over
the members of a bargaining unit, which is something that basically every
union in the US does - and conversely, something which basically no unions
outside the US claim - but that's all a separate matter).

~~~
danjayh
The AMA might not control it _directly_ , but like any good union, they are
politically active and have members on the relevant controlling bodies...

[https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-
associati...](https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-
opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html#7c6d0c7e42f2)

[https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/its-
doctors-w...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/its-doctors-who-
control-number-doctors-america-not-government/)

When both Forbes and MotherJones can agree on something (maybe this is the
only thing :) ), there must be some truth to it.

~~~
chimeracoder
> The AMA might not control it directly, but like any good union, they are
> politically active and have members on the relevant controlling bodies...

The first article you link claims (with no basis) that the AMA was responsible
for the current funding shortfall. The second article doesn't mention the AMA
at all.

In reality, the AMA has been pretty clear and consistent in advocating to
increase funding for GME. [https://www.ama-assn.org/education/gme-
funding/save-graduate...](https://www.ama-assn.org/education/gme-funding/save-
graduate-medical-education)

------
csours
Disclaimer: I work for an automaker with union representation. These are
solely my own opinions.

Yes, Unions did great things in the past, but I have the feeling that what got
you here won't get you there. There's a whole heap of politics in this
subject, but besides that, there just aren't a lot of clear cut wins anymore.

I can think of a lot of things that would make things better for somebody, but
they are things that would span multiple employers, something that current
unions do not really address.

------
mattdeboard
This may not be the venue to get good answers but what are the likely costs of
unionization in software? How would management respond to organized tech
labor? What would be the economic impacts?

Not looking for pro- or anti-union sloganeering, but real impacts. The
economics of the tech sector would change dramatically with organized labor in
computing, and I'm interested in how those changes would manifest.

~~~
acchow
I wonder how unionized labor would interact with US visas. If you're on an
H-1b and your union goes on strike.....do you have to leave the country?

~~~
mikestew
_If you 're on an H-1b and your union goes on strike_

You are still employed, you're just not getting paid. There are laws that
state, in effect, that you cannot get fired for going on strike as part of a
lawful strike. Well, if you aren't fired, then you must be employed, right?

------
doh
Related, at least in the sentiment
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-
man...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-
manufacturing-they-miss-unions/)

------
LeanderK
I am convinced that unions would have a positive impact even on high-paying
and in-demand jobs like software-engineering. From vacations, protection
against unfair practices (for example unfairy formulated shares in startups as
compensations) to protection agains high-stress burnout-inducing enviroments,
there is still a lot to do.

It's just not really pressing because everything is good enough, so that's why
it's not happenning (in my opinion).

------
lgierth
There's the relatively young Tech Workers Coalition:
[https://techworkerscoalition.org](https://techworkerscoalition.org) &&
[https://twitter.com/techworkersco](https://twitter.com/techworkersco)

------
akafred
There needs to be a balance between the powers of employers, employees and
government (as a regulator and moderator between the other two parties). I
think any reasonable comparison of this power balance between the US and other
successful democracies would show that employers have more power in the US
than most places.

I believe the US system of political clientelism has been especially
unfavorable for US workers since the mid-nineties. Globalization has taken
away their bargaining power, and politics have been taken over by business
interests.

I think this shift in the power structure is the major reason for the
continued worsening of inequality-measures (e.g GINI-coefficient) in the US,
to a level now only comparable to third world and less democratic countries.

------
Simulacra
IMO: I don't like unions in politics. Organized labor has done a lot of good,
but they need to stay out of politics.

~~~
akafred
I don't like corporations in politics. Successful businesses have done a lot
of good, but they need to stay out of politics. (Read: And as long as they are
in politics the unions have to be, too.)

------
popcorn49
A nice piece with excellent points, especially as low-to-middle income wage
earners see their piece of the pie cut more and more.

------
gaius
In Germany unions ensure that Workers get a fair share of the profits - and
they understand that the company must be profitable in order for that to
happen. But in the UK unions just want to destroy companies in an effort to
smash capitalism, they exploit Workers even more than bosses do. It’s probably
too late but we need German style unions here, then people would join.

------
chimeracoder
The title "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" does the
topic a great injustice, obfuscating the origins of many modern labor unions
(including the AFL-CIO) as functional white supremacist organizations.

If you were Chinese or Indian, unions were _directly_ responsible for your
deportation. If you were Japanese, unions were _directly_ responsible for your
family's forced internment. If you were Puerto Rican, unions were responsible
for the genocide that was committed against your mother, wife, and daughter.
The AFL wan't shy in the least about its intentions. If you read the
contemporary writings of its leaders, as well as the mass media that they
produced (flyers, pamphlets, etc.), they were very blatant about their desire
to protect jobs for white members by stripping naturalized Americans of Asian
descent of their citizenship and deporting them. The language that was used to
describe Chinese workers mirrors the exact same dehumanizing comparisons to
animals that were later used by the Nazis[0].

If you dislike the current US visa system, with its draconian system of per-
country quotas, you have labor unions from the 1950s to thank for that as
well.

It's highly unpopular to talk about this, and so I fully expect to take a hit
for bringing this up, but it needs to be said.

[0] They even published a pamphlet which referred to the Chinese as a "race
question"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question))

~~~
ataturk
Not sure why downvoted. While I object to "everything I don't like is racist"
bullshit, this one is actually true--unions are not only xenophibic, by
misogynistic. The union my Dad was a member of bragged about how it ran women
out, usually via overt sexual harassment.

Everyone thinks unions are some great system but they suck in actual practice.
The absolutely suck--it's just more egos and personalities in the way of you
making a living. The best thing about tech is the low barriers to entry--that
is populist, not unions. If you are good you succeed, if you are not good, you
become an architect or a manager or leave.

~~~
chimeracoder
> . The union my Dad was a member of bragged about how it ran women out,
> usually via overt sexual harassment.

Yeah, the AFL-CIO didn't allow women to join either. Sexual harassment is a
huge problem within unions, because harassers (as members, and oftentimes
members with power within the union) are able to use their power to silence
victims' complaints. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-
chica...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chicago-
sexual-harassment.html?_r=0&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)

------
vharuck
I'm not an economist, so I'm genuinely curious: does capitalism require
treating unions and companies differently? Couldn't a union be considered a
service company? Is there a reason beyond legal definitions and requirements?

------
mythrwy
They did. Right before they didn't.

It's a shame grassroots attempts to address exploitation usually turn into
another form of exploitation if not out and out gangsterism.

See: the communist revolution, the origins of the Italian Mafia, some cartels
in Mexico.

In the US unions did much good for society in general. But now we are saddled
with things like public sector unions which do very much the opposite.

------
purplezooey
We don't like unions because the right-wing Sinclair owned media outlets have
spent years convincing people in the red states that they are bad.

------
briandear
Is wage stagnation an actual problem? Here’s a view challenging that premise:
[https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/myths-of-inequality-
and-s...](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/myths-of-inequality-and-
stagnation/)

~~~
sjg007
You should consider your source here. The Brookings Institute has aggressively
courted corporate donations so the article you cite may be biased.

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/d...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/document-
brookings.html)

