▲ 130 points
back
89 comments
I really like the German system where employees get representation (usually union reps) on the board of the company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany - I think it helps bring a lot more balance to business decisions.
I worked in Germany for a while and one of such unions was built at my company. I can't think of a single good thing they did and I remember plenty of ways they made the life of employees worse in ways that looked deliberate. The way the union/council was built looked very bad to me to the point where I completely stopped following the office politics.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea and I certainly don't have enough knowledge of the German system to have an objective assessment, but this looks like another example where the law is produced with good intentions but the implementations of such rules are serving some other purpose.
Other than that, I felt like Germany has incredibly good laws for the workers/employees, the working culture there is very healthy and I like it a lot.
But then at the same time you have something like Volkswagen who just fired their CEO that was pushing hard into EVs. The inertia of the old ICE portion of the company (including the union people who may lose their jobs) just puts a hamper on their speed of execution which shouldn't be the case since incentives are generally aligned. If the company succeeds then the employees + union succeed as well. In this case it seems like they want to hold on to the old way of doing things as long as they can but I don't know what their game plan is going to be once reality comes knocking?
It makes me wonder, can unionized shops survive when some fast moving competitors(eg. Tesla) are not unionized?
Tesla isn't exactly a fast-moving competitor. Musk has been saying full self-driving is coming "any day now" for at least six years and counting¹, but Tesla's own lawyers say it's still largely vaporware². Meanwhile, other EV manufacturers like Mercedes-Benz are handily outpacing Tesla in both functionality³ and legal responsibility⁴ toward the driver. Consumer Reports rated Cadillac's self-driving system higher than Tesla two years ago now.⁵ I'd say Tesla's the one dragging their feet here.
[1]: For more on Musk's SAE level 5 timeline predictions, see https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-directo...
[2]: Tesla says full-self driving is "failure, not fraud" https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-08/tesla-laws...
[3]: Mercedes-Benz claims their driving pilot system is already SAE level 3: https://gizmodo.com/mercedes-benz-tesla-autonomous-driving-d...
[4]: Mercedes-Benz is so confident about this in fact that they're even willing to accept legal liability for accidents while their system is active: https://insideevs.com/news/575160/mercedes-accepts-legal-res...
[5]: Consumer Reports compares FSD systems: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/cadillac-super-cr...
Honeycomb did something similar, voluntarily. Paul Osman, the employee serving on the board, posted about the experience: https://paulosman.me/2022/10/17/being-on-a-board/
Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to fight back.
If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change.
Fucking Union!
This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes too even if you don't want to be a part of it.
Unions are great at first though.
To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union power in general while placing all of the unions power in the hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that’s just what I remember off the top of my head (IANAL).
The act should be repealed so union members have the power to strike regardless of whether union leadership agrees. Many common issues with unions people will share in this thread are experiences had under the Taft-Hartley Act, which is not the natural state of unions but an act of the state to weaken their power.
This is a really great point. The laws that get put on the books have a habit of benefiting the few over the many even if the sales pitch was to help everyone.
>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change.
Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.
A union more directly puts power in to the hands of workers than does the state.
No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive centralized federal government that is to large to care about the peasants in a certain state.
Corporations are people, so no, we don't have the state.
why cant we just individually decide what we are willing to do? why do we need to mindlessly join unions that tells us what we think?
imagine if you will, that everyone had some personal backbone and responsibility, and had standards for what they would accept. They then communicate this to prospective employers, and would quit if things happen they cannot accept.
if everyone, or majority did this, then companies would be either forced to align, or have no workforce. and IF enough people exists that dont care about working 14 hour shifts 7 days a week, good?
nah, this seems stupid, why should individuals decide? lets rather sign our free will over to unions that by definition simply just exists to shield the "mediocre workers that CLEARLY cant think for themselves"
It’s interesting seeing unionization back on the table in the 2020s.
I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros and cons firsthand.
We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all). Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the restroom. To address this they instituted a “log all bathroom breaks” policy _for everyone_ which caused the employee to not show up again.
However, the company kept the policy in place for weeks until I sent a strongly worded email to the union rep (who was unaware he was overseeing our store). He made a visit the next day and the policy was promptly changed.
So while I was glad to have a Union to override such policies I do wonder if the problem employee would have been around for so long without it.
Usually union employees can be fired if there is "just cause". Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in. Did no one even try to fire him or was he related to someone in a management position?
Being in a union doesn't mean you're "untouchable", it just means you can't be fired without hard proof that the worker is not doing what they are hired to do.
> Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in
Not with some of the one I have had to deal with. There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management.
In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision.
There are some unions that are taking a different approach and that are focusing one or or two issues that are important to them. They will be vocal about those, but be a bit less concerned by the rest unless there is some obvious abuse.
The thing is that it’s really hard to tell which way it’s going to fall.
And it’s also not obvious to tell which approach gives the best results.
I find this interesting, because in Europe unions protect everyone (or should in principle), there is no law difference between if someone belongs to a union or not, and if the company decided to be part of union agreements with the government, that means everyone gets to be part of the agreement, regardless of having a union membership card or not.
Yes, when I say “didn’t show up” I meant he called in “sick” every week to the point my manger would need to schedule on the assumption he would call off.
Once he did completely stop showing up he was still on the schedule for months due to union contract stipulations as he was full-time.
The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager.
This may be the intent of the rules/contract. But real world stories and experience show that unions tend to make bad employees untouchable, to the detriment of their fellow union members. And I say this as someone who generally supports unionization (but not necessarily the union management beast)
The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad company taking advantage of its workers.
If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.
Unions can also take advantage of employees, and set them against each other.
In my friends union shop, the union prohibits working from home because >50% of union members have to do hands on work and are jealous of the computer workers. The majority had the votes so the union fought against WFH, and management caved.
Some unions can neglect certain locals, especially if the local is small and distinct from the union's 'main area'.
For example, if a group of retail employees forms a new local for a large office worker union, the large union may not put much effort or many resources into achieving a 'good agreement' for the retail employees (because it's not worth the prospective increase in dues). Then, the 'good employees' will leave out of frustration, and only 'bad apples' remain, until the retailer shutters the store for under-performance.
> The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company.
The worst case scenario is bad employees harming other employees or the public. People who create a horrible workplace for others, people who harm the people the company or organization is meant to serve, but can't be fired.
Having robust policies to make it clear this won't happen and is not a goal would go a long way towards countering anti-union sentiment.
> I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.
A union can get a monopoly over a certain employer, such that all hires are required to join the union or they don't get the job. Union dues can be half the annual salary with no benefit to the union member unless they remain a member for 10-20 years. Though this practice is technically illegal, it goes on without any Labor Department intervention. Why would you want to give up half your salary for no benefit until you've been working for years?
1) If you are an above average employee, your upside is limited.
2) If you are an employee, you'll pay higher prices in other places.
Unions are cancer. If I wanted socialism, I'd have stayed in my shithole country
If problem employees are the cost of employers being reined in and not abusing employees with no recourse, so be it.
All systems have some sort of drag on them, the question is not elimination of that drag, but how much you’re comfortable living with.
This employee and another… lackadaisical employee were both full time. Full time guaranteed more hours, sick pay, accrued paid vacation time, actual healthcare, etc.
Pretty cozy benefits for retail work which is thanks to the union.
At the same time multiple part time workers, such as myself, would pick up slack or work OT due to these unmotivated workers. It definitely lead to a weird culture.
Organized labor is a mindset - management is the enemy, you are at war, their goals are not your goals. Why do you as a worker care about a problem employee? Are you feeling pressured to pick up the slack he leaves? Don't let management abuse you that way. Leave it undone. Are you personally invested in the smooth functioning of the store? Don't be. That's management's problem.
I think as engineers we like optimizing things. It feels almost intrinsically desirable for systems we encounter to be running well. And that gives us a level of sympathy for management's needs and goals that most unionized workers would interpret as betrayal.
I think the perfect balance is having the companies in deathly fear of unionisation without actually being bound by a union.
But unfortunately in 2023 we're now in a state where company leads don't respect their workers anymore and think they can get off with any kind of abuse, disrespect and exploitation. Time to remind them about the past I think.
Looking forward to the headlines of Apple taunting the Glasgow staff by offering benefits to other stores but not them, with the defense that the new benefits aren't part of the Glasgow agreement.
For context: https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-is-withholding-benefits-fr...
(to be clear, I'm not applauding Apple's efforts here at all, just observing an interesting, awkward, but mostly hilarious response)
You might want to look into Glasgow's history with the trade unions.
When it comes to things like this, Glasgow is the epitome of "fuck around and find out".
The "find out" bit being finding out that you have no economy.
The store is in the centre of Glasgow, by 2030 almost all of that area will be residential. Almost all the manufacturing jobs have gone. Docks have gone. Everything is gone. Govt and retail were the only major employers, retail is now going too (employee density of places outside the city is a fraction of what is was). This is stupid, the pay is fine for what it is, and Apple can and will just close the store.
Btw, my family is from Glasgow, one of my relatives was a Red Clydeside leader, the labour movement today is worlds away from what it was then. All the old trade unionists began moving away in the 60s. Middle-class people moved in seeking the status of a working-class movement, needless confrontation ramped up, and the leaders lost all their member's jobs.
Glasgow is one of the purest cautionary tales about the dangers of unions (and, to be clear, this was never a question for the early union leaders...unions were supposed to be about collaboration, not confrontation, all the countries in Europe that have collaborative unions have workers in industry, all the ones that had confrontational unions don't...it is that simple).
>Glasgow is the epitome of "fuck around and find out"
As a non-UK-an, can I ask what happened?
"So...we unionized and got better job protections and benefits than before, and you're punishing us."
Apple: "Yes."
"...by offering better benefits to other stores employees?"
Apple: "Yes. We're giving them nicer stuff than we gave you. This is why you shouldn't unionize."
"Hmm. By unionizing just our one store, we improved benefits for us, but also for ALL the non-union employees in the company?!"
Apple: "er....no"
"Well, if we hadn't unionized, we wouldn't have gotten better benefits, and you only improved their benefits to 'punish' us..."
Apple: "no, wait..."
"uuuunnnHHH! If we unionize another store, will you punish us harder, daddy!?"
Apple: >:(
No, the point is they don't give the union store benefits. So by unionizing they make stuff better for everyone but themselves.
lets see how long Apple keeps the store open.....
As an Apple investor, I wish that Apple would do more to make working conditions such that the retail employees would be less likely to want to join a union. A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay and could be helped by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs to corporate.
> A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay
Might be in other cases, but in this case it's about low pay, and shitty shift patterns:
> Reportedly, retail staff at Apple Glasgow earn 12 ($15) per hour. Workers at the store say that low wages, plus unfair shift patterns and a lack of pay transparency have prompted the move toward unionization.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/10/glasgow-apple-sto...
They seem to also have asked for ways to enable better communication to corporate but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears, even their colleagues in other countries have ways but no one listens:
> "In the UK, Apple have staff forums, but these are continually shown to be ineffectual and feedback is ignored," one anonymous worker told the Glasgow Evening Times. "It is a one-way conversation."
I guess the conclusion is that people tried, Apple didn't want to, so now the workers forced them to listen.
I hope workers in other countries are following what's happening here and realize they have more power than what they think.
In the wake of someone driving an SUV through an Apple store, I saw a LinkedIn post by some VP of retail stores. They were in a position that sounded sort of like they were in an HR-ish, "people management" role.
Lots of talk about family, and close knit this, and "it's my job to support them" that. The usual self-righteous linkedin bullshit, but unusually brazen given someone was killed and a couple people injured.
I remember thinking "if they're so 'supported' by one of the world's richest companies, why do so many of them want to unionize?"
$15/hour for high-end retail is peanuts in almost any urban area. Given how much cash Apple has, and how fast they continue to accumulate it, they can absolutely afford to pay a livable wage to their retail employees.
I might argue that the issue is not "having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs to corporate.". But rather having corporate act on those needs, and in the face of larger investors like Buffet and Vanguard, who would probably like more to see dividends and share price increases, unions are a good way to balance the scales a bit.
That's not incompatible with unionisation. Union employees still have company bosses who will hopefully try to make their working environment better for them. What won't change is the employment contract, as that will be negotiated collectively, but those are typically the same for all employees anyway, at least for hourly waged jobs like this.
I don't think there's really much of a downside to unionisation here. It's not like one staff member asking to be paid more was ever going to happen being such a small cog in such a big machine.
> I don't think there's really much of a downside to unionisation here.
This thread started off from the perspective of an apple investor not a retail employee. As an investor, I think there is a real downside to unionization.
> As an Apple investor, (things) could be helped by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs. (snip) A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay
They've already communicated their needs (wages are too low), and you've already dismissed their concerns. Your comment here is kind of proving exactly why Apple employees so desperately need to unionize -- they aren't going to get fairer wages any other way.
It pretty much always comes down to pay (assuming there are not dangerous working conditions). People will say things like "too many hours" but you know what? If you pay a shitload for those then generally people (or at least some of them) will be okay with the overtime.
Why would you not want the employees to join a union?
Theoretically if we had perfect labor laws and companies had a profit motive to keep their employees happy then Unionization might not be necessary (and could create additional overhead). But this is a VERY idealistic scenario. I say this as someone who is very pro union.