← Back to context

Comment by ericmay

10 hours ago

> Lots of research shows that generally places where unions exist have better work conditions and perform better over the long term.

Do you have any non-partisan sources for this? Genuinely curious. When you say perform better what do you mean specifically? And does better work conditions include better pay or just on-site conditions or something similar?

40 comments

ericmay

Reply
dofm  10 hours ago

The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself.

I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.

  • TheTaytay  9 hours ago

    I think working conditions have changed enough since then to make a request for non-biased studies a reasonable one. Most debates about unions seem to boil down to “I just know” or anecdotes. I would expect unions to fund research to show that working conditions are better in union shops, but not include the fact that some unionized shops can’t compete in a market with non union shops and might go out of business. (But have great working conditions until the last day) And vice-versa for pro industry research. Unions are adversarial, and feel necessary to people that view employment or employers through that lens. It’s possible that we can still credit unions with the status quo, but 1they have nowhere near the adoption of vaccines to make the analogy a good one. I’d rather debate “which employers/industries” need unions than debate whether they are objectively good in all circumstances.

    • inigyou  9 hours ago

      Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them?

      Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share honest financial numbers with their unions.

      10 replies →

  • ericmay  8 hours ago

    > The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself.

    I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).

    > I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.

    I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?

    I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    • dofm  6 hours ago

      I have additionally gone down a bit of a rabbit hole on this bit:

      > the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws

      To a meaningful extent, especially in 19th century Britain, the concept of the general public is the product of labour organisation, not the source of it.

      It's a pretty new concept — the idea that the public have any single collective solidarity or consensus, can be consulted, have the ability to read newspapers etc.

      A non-trivial part of that comes from the empowerment of labour, from the creation of commercial schools and universal education (which emerges from the social contract that grew as a result of organised labour interacting with the state etc.

      Unions were powerful in the education of adults, they created unified leisure time, they furthered the idea of trade schools, they created a path to politics for the underclass, etc.; I don't think there would have been a general public without labour organisation. Just a rarified wealthy upper class.

      3 replies →

    • robin_reala  7 hours ago

      none of the Mag 7 have unions

      They all recognise unions and have unionised employees in countries where unions are the default, with the exception of Tesla.

      1 reply →

    • inigyou  6 hours ago

      Labor laws came about because before there were labor laws, the employees would form an angry mob to burn down the boss's house and shoot his cat, and the boss would flee before he was next.

      This is the same reason the government protects unions.

    • dofm  8 hours ago

      > I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).

      > […]

      > I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense.

      Then you don't really know history.

      9 replies →

  • j16sdiz  9 hours ago

    We have gone a long way since industrial revolution.

    e.g.

    Child labor now outlawed.

    There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change)

    Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.