> It's also the small family companies like Zildjian that worked around unions
Employers dont like instability, period. They want continuous, headache-free production. Unions can cause instability. (Whether it's justified or not is a separate matter.) So...
Of course, unions in the US are an extremely weird beast, and for all the good that some of them do, there are or were many that simply took the dues and bought nice houses for the leadership. When anti-union legislators started poking about in the 1970s there were plenty of workers all too happy to give the union the middle finger, based on their own experiences of being ignored, mistreated, or horrified by the local union. (That's not to imply that the legislators had workers' interests at heart, of course.)
> Of course, unions in the US are an extremely weird beast, and for all the good that some of them do, there are or were many that simply took the dues and bought nice houses for the leadership.
It isn’t just in the US that there are weird beasts. In Australia, there is this union called the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA). They are the main union for retail and fast food employees. The employers like them because they are rather moderate and keen to reach “understandings”, plus they will fight hard to keep more radical unions off their turf. Employers would even encourage their employees to join it. For many years they were controlled by socially conservative Roman Catholics, who used the union as a political and financial base to oppose same-sex marriage, abortion, IVF, etc, despite the fact those most of their members (who skew younger and the clear majority of whom aren’t Catholic) didn’t share those views and didn’t realise their union dues were paying for views they probably didn’t share. It is only in the last decade or so that the tension between the leadership and the membership over social issues got to the point that the leadership realised they had to move to neutrality or risk losing control of the union, so they did what they had to do
Labor disputes in the US led to the first use of arial bombardment by government aircraft. The Tulsa Massacre had some bombardment but it was strictly amateur/enthusiast, not government.
>Employers dont like instability, period. They want continuous, headache-free production. Unions can cause instability. (Whether it's justified or not is a separate matter.) So...
Which is an interesting perspective in its own way, as for example when Volkswagen came to the US, they demanded that employees unionize as they felt it would allow greater stability by having content employees and a single entity to negotiate with.
VW likely expected their relationship with unions in the US to be similar to Germany (from my understanding, the relationship between large companies, unions and government in Germany is somewhat unusual). I assume the reality came as a bit of a shock!
> Employers dont like instability, period. They want continuous, headache-free production. Unions can cause instability.
Unions cause cost and bargaining.
If all you want is simplicity, stability and throwing money at the problem, instead of dealing with each of your employee's individual asks and try to gauge what's the most common complaint, you deal with a single entity.
Now I'm sure the US have a ton more baggage regarding unions, but we'd then come down to feelings and history, more than arguable reasons.
Some Unions in the US also have a lot of association with the mob, and can sometimes overdo things to everyone’s detriment. It’s a more co-operative, less ‘goose with the golden egg’ type situation in Germany.
My understanding is that both sides had a lot of association with the mob ?
I skooped this article randomly, but I see it as common knowledge that as long as the mob is powerful enough, anyone with money and enough to lose will either be pray or collaborating with mobs:
Some of them for sure (shoutout to Jimmy Hoffa), and that's certainly a common and widespread public perception, but at no point in american history has organized crime really moved the needle towards unionization.
Every union is different, though. Learn your history!
Not really. If you are high up they do, but a lot of juniors end up leaving when times are bad because the union doesn't have work and so they are sitting in some union hall waiting for work making much less that minimum wage (unemployment) - if they find a job elsewhere to make ends meet when times get good they start at the bottom. Even if the job is with a different union they still start at the bottom, but more likely it is with a non-union shop hiring for a temporary job.
Each union is different. Not all of them have the above. However many unions are in areas where the business cycles affect them, some years there is more demand for their work than others and when there is a down year they can't provide stability for all members. When times are tight companies first stop building new buildings and so anyone in construction will have years of low demand.
Employers don't like to pay their employees more than the bare minimum, period. Whether that is out of greed or "just economics" is in the eyes of the beholder.
Employers dont like instability, period. They want continuous, headache-free production. Unions can cause instability. (Whether it's justified or not is a separate matter.) So...
Of course, unions in the US are an extremely weird beast, and for all the good that some of them do, there are or were many that simply took the dues and bought nice houses for the leadership. When anti-union legislators started poking about in the 1970s there were plenty of workers all too happy to give the union the middle finger, based on their own experiences of being ignored, mistreated, or horrified by the local union. (That's not to imply that the legislators had workers' interests at heart, of course.)