Trade unions

[guitarplayer]

With strikes across the UK, the question comes to the surface:

What do you all think of being a member of a trade union?

I part think posing the question on this forum is like sticking a stick into an anthill. I mean, what would Ayn Rand say about trade unions?

In order to keep this thread going I am going to say that this is not political debate and thus please ask people to talk about trade unions in relation to an individual.

I start: talking about joining a trade union recently with people who are now on strike, I get a warm feeling of being part of something bigger, voting for a cause, all that. You know, the 'Solidarity' slogan photo from Civilization 2. I asked my parents (who were members of the actual Solidarity or its later derivatives) - my dad was a member until his retirement; my mum told me 'I was a member but then signed out at some point because I had to pay membership fees and had almost no benefits out of it'

Looking at the map of Europe, in Scandinavia more than half of the working people are unionized, in comparison to small Baltic states where it is less than 10%. The rest of Europe is somewhere in between.

[chenda]

I think this will be difficult to discuss in an apolitical way.

[Bonde]

I'm a member of the doctors' union in Denmark.
The fee is about 1% of my salary, around 7000 DKK annually.
I could probably keep the same salary without being a member but I don't think that it is fair. And with less members the union will also have less power.
I like to centralise negotiations power and to me it is much more than salary, also working conditions is part of it.
There is some benefits of being a member e.g. international malpractice insurance and judicial advice and some other stuff that I have rarely used and is not worth the membership fee alone.

[ertyu]

Trade unions are inherently political. Politics is "the debate around how the surplus we've extracted from our workers should be distributed and why" -- in spite of politicians regularly attempting to distract voters from this fact by stoking rage-based identity politics on topics like abortion, purple hair, wokeness, and people's pronouns. Do not be surprised to find this thread locked post-haste

[Chris]

Looking at the map of Europe, in Scandinavia more than half of the working people are unionized, in comparison to small Baltic states where it is less than 10%.

Interesting to note that Denmark, Sweden, and Finland don't have a national minimum wage; the trade unions largely fill the role of government in this area. I'd assume compensation would then hew more closely to worker desires compared to a government-defined minimum, since compensation is more than just the wage.

[7Wannabe5]

I grew up in a Midwestern U.S. region where trade unions were very strong in my childhood. There was much less discrepancy in the lifestyle of working class vs. educated class than there is now. For instance, I can remember my father telling me that another child's parent wasn't a "real" engineer, as in "didn't have a college degree", but somebody who was "not a real engineer" could afford to live in the same suburban neighborhood in their second house, as my educated parents could afford in their first house. IOW, class distinctions were still made, but the actual difference in goods and services that were affordable to those with high school degree vs. college degree seemed less extreme.

My maternal grandmother's parents immigrated from Poland, and she was one of the attractive young women who worked in factories and danced with soldiers during WW2. She went back to work in an electronics factory when her children were old enough. She belonged to a union, and frequently took us to union sponsored events like big Labor Day weekend picnics with games and prizes for all the children. The company she worked for even provided its workers with cottages they could rent very affordably for their vacation, and I would accompany her every year to this resort.

[jacob]

In order to keep this thread going I am going to say that this is not political debate and thus please ask people to talk about trade unions in relation to an individual.

It's a UK specific question then.

A way to think about it is that you maybe get some individual benefits, which can be useful or useless such as administrative services, employment assistance, continuing education, ... These are arranged between you and the union.

You may also get some collective benefits such as wage negotiation, workers safety, ... that are negotiated between the union and the employer(s), perhaps on an industry wide basis. The employers might even have a union of their own to represent them in the negotiation. (This is why Scandinavian governments are generally not involved in wage discussions.) Insofar you're not a member, you're essentially a free rider on the collective benefits, if any. The strength of these benefits tend to depend on the strength (size) of the union and the size of the union depends on how many are signing up/leaving.

This is where it gets political: Some will fundamentally agree with collective bargaining. Others think that each person should bargain on their own. Many humans do not believe in paying material sums for anything that helps others until the day they need help from others themselves. As an individual, it is conceivable that you'll be having these discussions with your coworkers. As such I'd start with them rather than asking on an international online forum where answers will likely be devoid of context.

[Frita]

This is specific to the US. What I have personally observed and experienced in education/academia is that the union cannot be more functional that the organization. A healthy organization does not need a union. An unhealthier organization needs both someone to give the illusion of battling for the underdog and to play along with the existing system. Add the layers of national, state, local, organization, and department…oh, my.

Over the years I mostly paid up as a condition of group norms. I watched people getting heated over bargaining for ABCd (e.g., pay, benefits, policy change, longer lunch) and viewing the concession of d (adding 3 minutes to lunch break, real example) as a win. I also observed people use their union service to break into organizational leadership. Using the Gervais Principle as a framework, I got the impression that unionization was away to create/build a clueless group.

Here’s a success (?) story: My mother’s partner was in a trade union for a very large corporation. He would comment how he could sleep on company time while working third shift (10 AM to 6 PM) and never be fired. After 20+ years in the same position he retired at 50 years old with about 50% of highest wages and fantastic benefits (including zero deductible health insurance for life!).* People who I know of who have had this type of positive experience are in their 80s now.

* My FIL worked for the same company, working his way up into middle management, in the same division. He was force retired at 55 years old without the union-generated favorable terms.

[ducknald_don]

If you are a nurse, doctor or fireman in the UK then you have little opportunity to bargain on your own as there is effectively a single employer. If the terms aren't acceptable to you then your only choice is to change profession. Under these circumstances I can't see an alternative to collective bargaining.

[guitarplayer]

As such I'd start with them rather than asking on an international online forum where answers will likely be devoid of context.

Hehe, got the hint.

I think there is the expressive value in being a member, like being a member of any group can be. In the UK in the instrumental sense of the word, I look around me and scratch my head as there is so much abundance I hardly see anything to bargain for and still remain modest. There is the slippery slope argument that some use and it might have merit.

I will go check with my co workers and get back if anything.

[IlliniDave]

It's probably like any other membership--can be great when the individual's goals align with that of the collective and a source of strangulation when they don't. My main objection personally is that how well I do as an employee would not be directly reflected in compensation as that's set by a contract between a union and the employer, leaving me with little-to-no motivation to excel. The upside is that if I'm subpar my wages will not suffer and I'm nearly impossible to fire. I'm US-based and a little old fashioned so always preferred to stand on my own two feet, as it were. But I had skills in high enough demand I also could have easily voted with my feet if I thought my employer was not treating me well. I was never dead set against being in a union, and now I'm retired so it's moot. But in the 40+ years I was employed in one form or another, I never encountered a situation where I felt being in a union would be advantageous.

[ducknald_don]

My main objection personally is that how well I do as an employee would not be directly reflected in compensation as that's set by a contract between a union and the employer, leaving me with little-to-no motivation to excel.

Doesn't all the research point to extrinsic motivation being ineffective for anything but the most mundane work.

[AxelHeyst]

Doesn't all the research point to extrinsic motivation being ineffective for anything but the most mundane work.

I think the research is more like, intrinsic motivation is a surer ber for performance excellence, fulfillment, longevity of interest on the activity, etc. And there are downside risks associated with extrinsic motivation like burnout, disillusionment, etc. I'm not aware of any research that suggests that extrinsic motivation is ineffective for anything but mundane work. Certainly not as good as intrinsic... But not useless.

[guitarplayer]

Seems like the general consensus on extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation (as per psychology research papers at least) is that if extrinsic motivation is applied (to, for example, raising a child, those findings are most often in this context but I would imagine they then would rhyme with how adults behave), it is like taking away somebody's rod and starting giving them fish instead.

@AH, I saw on one of your graphics Self Determination Theory, they do heaps of research on Extrinsic vs Intrinsic motivation and it is pretty high quality (although questionnaire based so inevitably with some bias). In the past I did a bit of digging around this theory as was thinking of using it in research. I think the main point they make is that competence, relatedness and autonomy are indispensable for growth of intrinsic motivation, and that intrinsic motivation is superior to extrinsic motivation long term in a wide variety of settings. @Hristo Botev would here say 'define your terms' and what is meant by 'ineffective'.

Anecdotally, I once spent a long stretch of time in an environment that was cashless in the sense that barely anyone was drawing a salary and there was a sort of trust money pot people would use according to needs. This can go very well but can also go rather poorly. But the principle that system had been based on was precisely recognition that introducing remuneration would change the 'why' categorically.

[ertyu]

The best take on money, working conditions, etc. rewards that unions negotiate is the motivator vs. hygiene theory. A motivator is a factor which, when present, increases productivity and job satisfaction: see autonomy, being self-directed, etc. etc. A hygiene is something which hurts performance when it's missing, and money falls here. So, comparatively few will be motivated and satisfied with their job bc they're paid well (one of the jobs I've had that paid most also made me most miserable). But once compensation falls, pretty much everyone reaches a point of, "I work how you pay me."

[IlliniDave]

Doesn't all the research point to extrinsic motivation being ineffective for anything but the most mundane work.

I have no idea, not really up on psychology. For myself (which was the perspective I was giving), getting a paycheck was about 99% of my motivation to maintain paid employment from my first job as a janitor all the way through to the end of my professional career. Once I got into the professional workforce the desire for increasingly larger paychecks affected my behavior in the workplace. I remember the few times during those decades where we endured pay freezes the company HR wing would trot out supposed findings that compensation was not the primary thing that led to job satisfaction, but while we were grumbling in our dissatisfaction over the freezes we chalked that up to some sort of psyops to minimize the number of people who would vote with their feet in reaction.

[IlliniDave]

Doesn't all the research point to extrinsic motivation being ineffective for anything but the most mundane work.

I have no idea, not really up on psychology. For myself (which was the perspective I was giving), getting a paycheck was about 99% of my motivation to maintain paid employment from my first job as a janitor all the way through to the end of my professional career. Once I got into the professional workforce the desire for increasingly larger paychecks affected my behavior in the workplace. I remember the few times during those decades where we endured pay freezes the company HR wing would trot out supposed findings that compensation was not the primary thing that led to job satisfaction, but while we were grumbling in our dissatisfaction over the freezes we chalked that up to some sort of psyops to minimize the number of people who would vote with their feet in reaction.

I actually had to look up a definition of extrinsic motivation and this is the one I found:

Extrinsic motivation is defined as a motivation to participate in an activity based on meeting an external goal, garnering praise and approval, winning a competition, or receiving an award or payment.

As a worker meeting external goals (feeding children, for example) and receiving payment were the two facets of that definition that applied most to me. Maybe I'm cynical, but here in the US unions tend to deal largely with the latter (negotiating compensation). Quite possible it's different in other countries.

[ffj]

Unions ultimately become focused on the money and politics.

I became a union member which started at ground zero at my last job, so I got to experience the good a union can do while also watching it morph into a bit of a bully and a money grab. When an organization starts bringing in a lot of money through mandatory dues, suddenly all of these "needs" pop up that have to be paid for while also part of your money went to the larger umbrella organization which always funded Democrat candidates. So the organization was fundamentally political.

There were huge disincentives for opting out of the mandatory dues-paying org, not least of the rumor mill that you were ungrateful and leaching off of the dues paying members. I stayed in it because at the early stage it was beneficial for increasing our wages but it didn't take much to figure out the org had a limited useful life-span if one projected out twenty years or so. Once you slay the obvious problems then you simply become a gate-keeper, which is fine but they didn't decrease our mandatory dues in relation. They just found new minutia to "fight" for to justify the money they were receiving.

[Frita]

A hygiene is something which hurts performance when it's missing, and money falls here. So, comparatively few will be motivated and satisfied with their job bc they're paid well (one of the jobs I've had that paid most also made me most miserable). But once compensation falls, pretty much everyone reaches a point of, "I work how you pay me."

I have observed this, though it has not been my personal lived experience. It did prompt the connection that when people/organizations cannot agree on soft-benefits (like respect, input, etc.), battling over money becomes the substitute.

Once you slay the obvious problems then you simply become a gate-keeper, which is fine but they didn't decrease our mandatory dues in relation. They just found new minutia to "fight" for to justify the money they were receiving.

Yep, do unions share a common playbook?

[jacob]

Once you slay the obvious problems then you simply become a gate-keeper, which is fine but they didn't decrease our mandatory dues in relation. They just found new minutia to "fight" for to justify the money they were receiving.

Yep, do unions share a common playbook?

One way to think about it is that unions primarily exist to solve the hygiene problem for labor like mentioned above. The corresponding employer unions solve corresponding problems for employers (capital, investors) like lawsuits, strikes, hiring and firing rights, human resources, ... and not surprisingly tend to lobby politicians on the right.

The question is whether once solved the hygiene problem is permanently solved, or whether the continued existence of labor unions prevents a regression to previous conditions even if that looks like the union is doing nothing. (In which case they may well invent busy-work for themselves and others.) In that regard, it's analogous to paying insurance or a retainer: "I'm perfectly healthy, so why should I be paying insurance"; alternatively "Why am I paying my lawyer $1000 for what appears to be ten minutes of work". "Why should we have a military when we're not a war." Or even more general: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society." In short, you're not paying for what they do. You're paying to keep what they are or can do plus the fact that building anything from scratch when in a precarious position is much harder to keeping things around in case they're needed later.

As such unions don't share a common playbook as much as they serve a function in the system that they have in common with each other as well as other system structures.

I'm not really sure whether this helps any decision whether to join one or not. I'd still go for what the average of my 5 closest coworkers do/think.