Hacker News
points by howunfortunate 3 days ago | 0 comments
This is a historical misconception.

The "cushiness" of jobs such as fewer work hours, more benefits, etc. preceded the formation of unions and then slowed down (overall) once unions became popular.

It has little to do with union pressure and a LOT to do with economics, in particular the demand for labor. Jobs get nice when employers are competing over the same pool of employees.

Unions are nice for those in them and bad for everyone else. They are (quite literally) cartels, in an economic sense.

[–] spacechild1 3 days ago
I don't know enough about the US, but for Europe this is 100% false! The first unions date back to the 18th century and they were an important part of the worker's movement in the 19th century. They absolutely played a crucial part in improving worker conditions during the industrial revolution and beyond.

> Jobs get nice when employers are competing over the same pool of employees.

Maybe in high-paying jobs that require high qualifications. For most jobs, especially the low-wage sector, this is absolutely not the case. There is no competition between employees if applicants are desperate and need to take any job they can.

[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago
This is not what economists believe about Europe either! A couple good sources:

1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...

2.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00144...

[–] spacechild1 2 days ago
I don't have time to read these papers. What I can say for sure is that your first sentence

> The "cushiness" of jobs such as fewer work hours, more benefits, etc. preceded the formation of unions and then slowed down (overall) once unions became popular.

is demonstrably false.

Sure, unions are not the only reason for better working conditions, but they certainly played a very important role.

The legal restrictions on the max. number of hours people are allowed to work per day or week are only in place because of the worker's movement and the power of unions. Companies certainly didn't lobby for these laws. In fact, certain industries are constantly trying to soften or undermine it.

BTW, in my country, unions are part of the annual negotations between employers and employees ("Kollektivvertrag"), which most notably includes the minimum wages and annual pay raises.

[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago
If you don't have time to read the papers, you could at least hand them to your favorite LLM and ask them to summarize the strength of evidence for broader macroeconomic factors vs. unions as the primary drivers of work hours, benefits, pay, unemployment etc.
[–] spacechild1 2 days ago
No, thanks. You should have done more research before making your initial ridiculous claim. Don't throw economy papers at me when it's very clear you don't know what you're talking about.
[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago
It makes me sad that you're not willing to do even the bare minimum of research to check if what you've written is well-founded or not.
[–] spacechild1 2 days ago
That's pretty rich coming from you.
[–] snohobro 3 days ago
Yeah not sure you’re right on this one. I’m talking strictly USA here, as that is where I live and my anecdotal experience.

The first official Union was formed in 1794, for journeyman cordwainers, I believe in New York.

The national labor union was formed in 1866 and is the first official call to congress to regulate to an 8-hour workday.

The first example I know of on a national scale that voluntarily promoted an 8 hour day, 40 hour work week was Ford in 1914 and realistically, that is exactly what you stated, an attempt to undercut other automakers / factories of the time for labor. Not because he was being altruistic.

I’m sorry you’ve had bad experiences with unions. I am certainly biased, because I grew up in a Union household and have been apart of them myself, but I’ve only had good experiences. Yeah, there are some bad eggs, admittedly, but I think collectively they have benefited the working person.

[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago
> I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with unions

I've actually had personally great experiences with unions! But I try to not let my anecdotal data color my views too much.

I think this is part of the reasons unions are insidious - their benefits are quite visible and concentrated to those who are in them, and their costs are spread out and invisible (until you put an empirical lens on them at scale).

[–] Viliam1234 2 days ago
> their benefits are quite visible and concentrated to those who are in them, and their costs are spread out and invisible

In your opinion, is the 8-hour workday an exclusive benefit for the insiders, or the invisible cost for the outsiders?

[–] twobitshifter 2 days ago
Historically, at the time of mass unionization there was but one major employer in many towns, so your cartel is needed to counter the monopoly power.

Prior to industrialization the closest you got to this was feudalism.

[–] oblio 3 days ago
> Jobs get nice when employers are competing over the same pool of employees.

During an all hands where quarterly earnings were presented for a very large American company, the live audience were obviously employees.

The CFO came on stage and was very enthusiastic about the labor market "loosening". Employees were clapping. Unsure if because they didn't understand the meaning of that statement or because just to appear supportive of leadership.

I was thinking: they're talking about us, turkeys.

[–] r0m4n0 3 days ago
Society has settled on certain norms that shame certain behavior (6 or 7 day work weeks for example) but I’m sure unions are more agile in demanding certain things for groups that need more than those norms.

I am with you on the competitive workforce groups though. Large corporations don’t need to feed you three meals a day and bus you in from hours away but they do to entice workers. There are some economics at play that probably are more effective for certain groups of workers. The less skilled and more replaceable the job though, the more a business can take advantage because it’s a race to the bottom.

Without laws and unions, I fully believe some industries would still have slaves, horrible unsafe conditions, etc. Laws are probably more vital than unions IMHO

[–] yoyohello13 3 days ago
How do Employees advocate for themselves if not Unions? I've never heard any anti-union person give a good answers other than 'just trust the employer to be a good human' or 'wait until it gets bad enough that the market sorts it out' which is just laughable.
[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago
> How do Employees advocate for themselves if not Unions?

The same way you advocate for getting good bananas, good streaming services, or good laptops.

You only make voluntary transactions you want to make. If you don't like what a job is offering, take another job or start your own business.

If you don't like ANY of the bananas being produced by ANYONE, this probably isn't because all banana producers are moustache twirling villains. It probably has something to do with the underlying realities of banana production, supply, and demand.

[–] Viliam1234 2 days ago
> It probably has something to do with the underlying realities of banana production, supply, and demand.

Such as the fact that you don't need the banana in order to survive, so they have little blackmailing power over you.