Comment by jcims

6 years ago

For years now I've seen comments like this from Europeans every time unions come up in conversation online. You all need need to come work for a large union in the US. They are just not the same thing. I've had direct or indirect experience with Teamsters, CWA, NEA, IBEW and UBC. You can dress it up however you like but there are definitely 'union jobs' with all of the connotation that brings.

Yes there are benefits to the worker (esp when your job puts you in harm's way). Yes collective bargaining is awesome. Unions, if run well, are fantastic. In my opinion we tend to mess them up.

This is the same argument I see americans make a lot.

"Unions are bad!", no, the concept is fine, you have some bad ones.

"Police are bad!", no, the concept is fine, yours are just untrained and overburdened.

"Public transport is bad, I need a car!", no, the concept is fine, you just have bad public transport and that forms your opinion.

  • Not really your main point but there are quite a few US "metro areas" with fairly sparse layout/wide scope, so I think public transit actually is a harder problem in the US than it is in e.g. Europe. That said even the cities that don't have this excuse tend to have mediocre at best transit here (for example Boston).

    • You have your causation backwards there. If you look at virtually every metro area in the US, the history goes: dense core -> policy decisions to favor cars above everything else, usually with a healthy dose of racism tossed in -> suburban sprawl.

      1 reply →

    • You would expect that the surplus of space in many US metropolitan areas would make it considerably easier to install and operate metro transit lines, but this seems not to be the case. I suspect the systemic bias towards road users is much more of a problem than geographical scale.

      3 replies →

  • "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Michael Scott

    We're not going to get different results when we form a union in the US unless we make an attempt to get different results.

    • No doubt about that.

      I’m just arguing that the concept is fine, and the implementation is corrupted. Removing the corruption would be great but the issue is not the concept itself.

      11 replies →

    • Yes, like dijit said, something modeled after the Screen Actors Guild. You rockstars get your million dollar salaries, no one gets overworked.

      7 replies →

  • You are failing to acknowledge the underlying issues associated with all your examples. This isn't American's whining about anecdotes while the system overall is sound. The system overall is a setup for unions, police, public transportation, etc to turn out bad way more often than they should (and probably way more often than they do in Europe, hence the confusion about why people are hostile to these things). People pushing the superficial and polarizing positions you've listed do exist sadly but largely, IMO, because they directly benefit from that polarization or they've been lied to and manipulated intentionally into taking those positions for the benefit of special interests and large corporations that dominate what laws actually get passed in this country.

  • And all of those are certainly opinions, but trading them as fact is overreaching.

  • Please give an example of good public transport. (I'm living in Germany)

    • From the perspective of a person who travels a lot and exclusively uses public transportation; I think you don't value what you have.

      American systems are not dependable, intercity and interstate travel is often not punctual to the point of futility.

      There are very few examples that prove me wrong here (probably NYC<->NJ links being an exception)

      Travelling around Los Angeles is just not possible, the buses are disgusting when they actually work and the time tables may as well be dinner menu's for value they bring.

      Getting to LA from San Francisco required a coach, the coach was 8hrs late. There were no trains.

      Going from NYC to Philadelphia by train cost me $300, when I returned it cost me $82 and was delayed by 4hrs.

      Travelling around NYC using their underground was "ok" from a dependability standpoint; though I saw human excrement on many occasions, in one case it was smeared entirely on one of the benches where passengers usually sit.

      I consider American public transport to be pretty poor. Where it is punctual it is disgustingly unhygienic. Where it is hygienic it is prohibitively expensive and non-punctual.

      The rail networks prioritise freight and lines are fragmented heavily- it is common for one line of track to have several different owners as it progresses through a state. This causes delays as they do not seem to cooperate in using the tracks effectively, or delays from the use of a line causes cascading delays.

      I've lived in Finland, England and Sweden- and I have travelled most of Europe (NL, DE, DK, FR, ESP) and have found public transport to be mostly punctual, in some cases it's actually "dependable" as in, I can rely on public transport getting me to my destination in a precise amount of time (+/- 10 mins).

      This is definitely not the case in the USA outside of a few very major cities.

      5 replies →

    • Western Netherlands, or more specifically, the "Randstad" area. People like to complain about train punctuality but really, shit's quite dependable. Trains run regularly and on a fixed schedule, trams in metropolitan areas, buses perpendicular on those trams and in the less-densely-populated areas. Higher education students get free usage of public transport during their studies. I have a driver's license, but I won't be using it often.

    • Switzerland. As an American, I wanted to move there after zipping around the country on their buses and trains.

      That was such a good experience, even the tickrt app brought me joy.

    • Tokyo Subway is the most impeccably run system you'll ever seen in the world, it's really quite perfect. The trains even have warm seats in winter.

      1 reply →

    • London. Everyone likes to bemoan it usually, but you have connections via metro, train, tram, bus, boat or cycle to pretty much every major location in and around.

      Alongside that you also have (putting aside the longstanding battle between them) a plethora of on-demand taxi services.

      There are decent (although not high speed) train connections to most other major cities in the UK and even to continental Europe, there's an airport literally 10 minute car ride from the financial district, and two major European airports under 30 mins train ride away (obviously all dependent on your starting location within the metro area).

      As an integrated system it's not perfect, but I'd certainly argue it's a viable aspiration for many cities to hit "good".

    • I've never had issues with public transportation in Brazil (living in small, medium and large cities). For the 5 years that I worked in person, I took the bus to work every day and I can only remember it failing me once.

      Admittedly sometimes I'd fall asleep and miss my stop.

    • I was really impressed by Amsterdam’s transportation system as a whole - roads, bike lanes, light rail. As an American it felt like the city was designed to encourage walking or biking followed by public transport with cars as a last resort.

      1 reply →

    • Even though it is ageing and could be cleaner, the subway in Paris is amazing to get you anywhere in the city. Add to it buses, trams, bikes + very well connected train stations, and you have a very good public transport.

    • Taipei's intracity transit, both buses and the metro system. Taiwan's intercity buses, rail, and HSR. Clean, very frequent, gets you everywhere.

    • Let it be known: I am about to indulge you knowing full-well that you're going to quibble over the definition of "good".

      With that said, I have lived in the following places for more than a year, and found the public transportation to be good, if not excellent.

      - Paris, France

      - Lyon, France

      - London, UK

      - Amsterdam, NL

      - Bayreuth, DE

      Despite some well-known problems in some of these places (strikes in Paris comes readily to mind), the advantages remain enormous:

      - Reduced motor vehicle circulation in the city

      - A high degree of mobility at a moment's notice

      - The ability to move around without breaking a sweat (sadly important when going to a meeting in a suit)

      - The ability to get home while inebriated

      - The ability for suburban (read: underprivileged) employees to participate in the heart of the regional economy

      The list goes on...

  • I hate to use the most cliche word from California startup culture, but... maybe someone needs to... umm... disrupt unions?

    Could you start a new kind of union as a kind of non-profit startup?

    If I wanted to do this I'd leverage modern information technology to create covert communication channels for organizing and leverage big data, machine learning, and game theory to drive organization and bargaining strategies. You could apply pressure across supply chains, not just in individual industries, and you could really be quite a pain in the ass. Cambridge Analytica for the working class?

    Also ditch the work rules and other antiquated industrial era ideas. Just go for pure financial and quality of life outcome. Work with industries if they're willing to play ball, but be a major pain in the ass when they don't. Negotiate, you know.

    Honestly the hacker in me would be tempted if I had the time, skills, background, and connections. It would be a chance to wear a black hat and feel good about it. :)

    If you did this you'd also have to be damn serious about opsec and tradecraft. When you threaten to increase labor costs, the gloves come off. I'd be about as worried about security doing this as I'd be running a dark web drug market.

    • Have you ever dealt with a cartel in real life? The idea that you can apply a "hacker" solution or "black hat" the cartel itself is naive. The whole point of any cartel (legal or otherwise) is to control and punish any attempts to operate outside of the rules and contracts that leadership negotiates. Anyone who considers doing something like this should be very aware of the career, financial, legal and physical risks of doing so.

  • Don't forget "I don't trust the government [to regulate X]".

    It would really help if people would just use some qualifiers "US Unions", "US Police", "US Public transport", "US government".

  • OK - but your response could be abstracted to

    Q: "Why is X so bad?"

    A: "You're doing it wrong"

    Could it also be that Y is always/sometimes just better?

    • If the evidence is that American institutions fail where the vast majority of developed countries succeed, the onus would seem to fall on the “American” part and not the institutions. The same logic applies for healthcare, public transportation, and representative democracy.

  • We don't have 'some bad ones'. We have a different definition and different goals for them. The unions are trying to pad jobs and pay, while keeping employees safe. Too much under one umbrella perhaps. But not just stupid American's who do it wrong. US unions are doing a great job, but to the wrong ends.

  • What's sorely missing from this discussion is the understanding that different cultures are differently suited for each system of government. There's simply no reason that what works in Sweden will work in the US, or China, or Zimbabwe, etc.

    The last two generations of western civilization were raised, out of good intentions, to be culture blind, and now with what's happening in the country we are seeing the result.

    • This kind of thinking reminds me of biotruths, eugenics, social Darwinism, and other authoritarian concepts which seek to explain why it’s okay to have inequality between and within countries.

      We should seek to raise rights and standards of living for all people. The focus on whether other people have cultures compatible with specific forms of government seems very suspect. Such talk keeps people down. Self-determination is a human right; therefore, it is a society’s right to determine government and culture. Your focus on culture is very strange; it suggests that the culture is a thing that justifies itself independent of the people. The culture is a thing people live and do. Your phrasing makes culture seem insidious, seeking to resist changes to status quo. Some monoculture advocates reject alternative cultures and seek to outcompete them. By implying there are singular cultures, you wipe away self-determination.

      2 replies →

Is that not exactly the point? "It's not unions that are bad, it's the concept of union jobs. Collective agreements would solve the problem you're pointing out."?

Here’s the thing, if you set up a new union, you don’t have to follow the same model as the ones that don’t work well in the us, you can follow the ones that do. You also don’t have the same incentives or personnel as the unions you mentioned, an engineering union would look quite different just in terms of the personality types of the people involved if nothing else.

  • You don't get to just decide how your union will run in a vacuum, the US has laws that standardize a lot of things about them.

    • Sure, as I said, model it after the unions, in the US, that work. There are many examples to pick from and many lessons to be learned about what not to do from the others. The US has not and cannot legally mandate a union to be completely useless, at least this side of a dictatorship it can’t.

Sounds like American individualism tends to skew work arrangements to the point of them instituting what outsiders would say is corrupt systems. American unions are positioned in opposition of their management, when the situation is supposed to be collaborative cooperation. And I suspect this situation is a result of active opposition by the businesses. Individualism is a nice word for selfish.

I don't think it's that the unions are bad, it's just that definitions of work came from factories, where moving or installing equipment would come as a part of retooling assembly lines.

Those definitions should be loosened in an office setting, rather than dismissing the entire idea of a union.