Let’s just all team up together, pool our issues and grievances as a group, and then have one person represent us to the compamy presenting our issues as some sort of united front. You know, so we could increase our bargaining power as some sort of collective.
We’re geniuses. No one has ever thought of this before.
I’ve found a lot of people are legitimately more interested when you sell stuff this way because terms like “union” or “socialism” have been heavily stigmatized “for some reason”
Instead of getting vaccinated, you’re micro dosing the virus!
A homeopathic virus dose perhaps.
“This water has a memory of the virus and will protect you. Just hold this crystal on the injection site as the sunsets for three days”
I like @[email protected] 's idea. Yours sounds dumb and threatens my money. Gimme some pearls to clutch!
I appreciate unions, but I often feel like this website gets out of touch with them.
Many jobs simply do not lend themselves to having a union. They’re too niche, the employees are scattered around, there’s no willing union representation, etc. “These guys should just join a Union!! And if they have to - by golly, form one themselves!” Always comes off to me like such a reductive take on how complex a lot of working/employment systems are, and where unions can and cannot benefit.
It often pushes up on just being idealogical grandstanding rather than legitimately listening and understanding case by case problems in employment
There’s a concept where I’m from of an employee committee, which is just an assembly of the workers in a particular workplace and a valid actor in collective bargaining. I’ve been a part of one to negotiate specific policies.
Still a collective bargaining agent, though. Whether or not it fits the US’s specific legal categorization of a union, engaging in collective negotiations with employers in an organized manner is fairly universally applicable and positive. “Unions just don’t fit this kind of work” sounds a heck of a lot like an excuse to avoid having collective bargaining altogether.
You have to remember that these are the same people who romanticize and call for general strikes without any consideration for what it does to families. Not to mention it doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that most general strikes in history have failed miserably. The reality is that successful union activity is generally small, difficult, and has to be sustained for years.
Precisely so. It can be grating to see Lemmy, a site full almost exclusively of well-paid computer programmers - preach “just unionize!” With the same oily lips as conservatives who tell millions to “just pull yourself up by the bootstraps!”.
In both cases it’s “talking down” to the end worker, pitching an ‘easy’, one sentence solution to all of their ills without any consideration for the vast amount of effort required in reality.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Absolutely. It’s really good to hear your perspective on the matter, because yeah - that shit is brutal and SAG-AFTRA was a ‘good outcome’. Many - especially those without the benefit of millions and millions of dollars, celebrity backers, and mass public support, do not have good outcomes.
If you’re interested in this kind of thing, “Germinal” by Zola is what I find to be the best depiction of a real strike. Because it has genuinely good intentions, but it’s also fucking terrible, and essentially everyone involved ends up worse for wear after it’s done.
There is a balance that needs to be struck. Back when we were peak union in the UK in the 70s their leaders would hold the country to randsom. They’d tell politicians that they want them gone and would instigate bi-weekly blackouts until they got what they wanted. Every household was well stocked with candles and wood logs due to the number of orchestrated blackouts.
The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in recent years. Now professions with strong unions like train drivers are among the only people who have had their wages keep up with inflation over the past 10 years.
Some jobs don’t lend themselves to having unions but they are the minority. Even software developers probably should have unions these days - if people don’t want to be part of one they can always work as a contractor instead.
My wife is a data analyst for what’s essentially a tech firm, she’s unionized and in her particular circumstances it’s amazing. Fully remote, 3 raises last year LoL, great benefits etc etc. I work with unions and many are not nearly as good for their members as others.
I work in big tech, and you would be amazed at how many people will openly decry pure acts of malice against employees - laying off the day before their stocks vest, removing remote working, gaslighting, etc, but who will also openly decry forming a union.
Funny enough, even highly educated people have some weird notions about what a union would do for them. They think it’ll make the workforce weaker, will reduce their salary significantly, and will promote laziness and job losses throughout their teams, with absolutely zero evidence to back it up.
What these people are doing is literally paying for the benefits of a union, without the actual union aspect, and with very little power on their side. All a union needs to be is:
- Collective bargaining for a minimum salary offered
- Access to a union rep for disputes
- Access to a union lawyer that specialises in conflict resolution
That’s it, and all for a small fee every month/year.
I never understood the “promote laziness” thing. A union wouldn’t be able to protect a worker that can’t meet the requirements of the job.
If anything, either management isn’t providing adequate training, or management needs to make better job descriptions.
I’m in construction. The Union absolutely protects the old guard, and some of them are the laziest fucks you’ve ever seen. Guys will work at a snails pace and grieve any and every attempt to train or discipline.
I’m not in the Union, I’m generally in favor of it but there’s absolutely very poor performers being protected.
