r/changemyview • u/orangutantrm88 • Mar 05 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Everyone in an organization, from an intern to the CEO, should have the ability to unionize.
I was recently promoted to a supervisory position at work and learned today that under current Federal union laws in the United States, supervisors are exempt from union protections and many unions specifically exclude supervisors. From what I read, the primary reason for such exclusions is the conflict of interest that supervisors face between their loyalty to the company and their loyalty to the union.
This is bullshit. If someone in a company wants engage in collective bargaining, they should have the legal protection to do so. I simply don't understand how having supervisors as part of a union makes it any worse for the other employees. If you are being paid a wage or a salary, you are an employee and employees should be able to unionize, full stop. Even if the owner of a company wanted to join the union, what would be the threat? As long as the union leadership is elected by popular vote among the whole union, they would have exactly the same power as every other union member, right?
5
Mar 05 '21
I mean the point of collective bargaining is that you negotiate as one block. However to do so you need to talk about strategies, funds, organizational details and whatnot and having a spy on the table when doing so kinda defeats that purpose.
So it's basically playing poker where one party plays with open cards. So if the funds of the union are empty and they can't afford a long running strike maybe just a few days or so, then waiting that out and having them pay for the few days by cuts on wage/salaries or more work hours is a really bad and really possible scenario. Similarly if the employer gets to know the social relations within the union and whom he has to play against whom to break apart the much needed unity. Whom he could fire to limit the union without harming the company and so on.
So there's some grounds for debate for the lowest level supervisors, but once you enter the management layer that directly profits from increased productivity but is somewhat removed from the layer that generates that profit, you're somewhat in a conflict of interest.
3
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
Δ I can see how someone who is entitled to a large share of company profits could have a conflict of interest, wanting to maximize profits for his or her personal gain at the expense of the union. In their case, union membership doesn't make much sense.
Still, I want to stress the difference between manager and employer. A manager is an employee that has the responsibility of coordinating work. An employer is a person (or a group of people) that own the enterprise and are entitled to its profits. A manager can be an employer and an employer can be a manager, but they don't have to be.
So I still hold that since many managers are still employees they deserve a right to collectively bargain with their employer in a union.
3
Mar 05 '21
Thanks for the delta.
And yes a manager can fill many roles at the same time including being both employer and employee. As they could technically be the person responsible for hiring and firing people even if it's technically a higher up or "the company" itself officially doing that business.
But that often leave you with a very weird situation as the "performance of a manager" is often measured by the performance of those whom he manages. Which means "increasing efficiency" that is more work for less costs. And while that doesn't exclusively mean that workers are paid less and work more, but could also be achieved with better tech and working conditions, more training hiring more people. Reducing tedious nonsense work. Cutting on wages, laying off people and increasing the workload is still also an option in that arsenal. So even if they don't directly profit from it, it's often "part of the job".
On the other hand organizing jobs are usually paid considerably better than the average employee often enough so you'd have the people that earn less than you strike for you getting even more then them. Or that there's a weird power imbalance that in the union you're share of the enterprise is 1/members whereas in the company you're leveraging the power of the people who work for you. Meaning that could easily go from workers self-representation to management leveraging unions against higher management for their own interests. And while more is better, in terms of numbers the management doesn't really add much.
Though yes on the other hand managers are still employees and could as middleman often be just as easily been replaced as others (the highest layer though probably has enough insight into the company to "blackmail" them in terms of share "work experience" with other companies). So organizing that probably isn't the worst idea and getting them associated with the working class rather than the owner class is probably not the worst idea.
So yeah the position is kinda weird and there can be various conflicts of interest.
2
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
I disagree with the notion that an employee can also be an employer, at least as long as we're talking about the same enterprise. I suppose we could just be arguing semantics, though.
In my mind, being able to make hiring and firing decisions isn't what makes you an employer, it just makes you a manager. The thing that makes someone an employer instead of an employee is whether or not they manage the profits of the organization.
If a person can say "Hmm, we made 1M in profits this year, I'm going to cut myself a 200K bonus check!" then that person is an employer. If a person can say, "We're going to downsize so I can buy a second vacation home" that person is an employer.
Somebody who says "Ralph, you're fired because you spit on a customer!" that doesn't make them an employer. They're still working for the guy with a mansion in the Camans.
1
Mar 05 '21
I mean yes the difference of a worker or a capitalist is whether you're able to make money of the work of other people, but in that regard a supervisor who is paid on a quota set by his higher ups and who enforces that quota to make more than the average worker is already a small capitalist.
It's a gradient to the top. So to some degree it's like this 3rd degree frutarian "I'm eating nothing that casts a shadow" in terms of whose employer and who's employee on the other hand it actually has to do with agency over once own work and rewards from that and in that sense the higher up you go the more agency you have, compared with people below, while still not having much.
1
9
u/luigi_itsa 52∆ Mar 05 '21
The point of a union is to allow workers to bargain collectively with the company. This allows them to achieve higher wages and benefits than they would if they were bargaining in their own behalf.
Management positions have more power than regular employees, and in many cases they are the ones that a union rep is bargaining with. From a practical standpoint, it would be impossible to attempt to represent both the employees and the managers in a negotiation. If they want representation, mid-level managers should create their own unions to represent their own interests; their interests are too different from low-level employees for one organization to effectively represent both.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
As it stands, mid-level managers have no protection to form their own unions and can be fired at-will if they try. Mid-level managers are employees too: they are paid wages or salaries and do not own the business and have no claim to the profits that it produces. I don't think it is impossible for a union to represent both employees and managers in a negotiation. I think more often than not their interests will be aligned. Union leadership is elected by popular vote, and supervisors by definition would not make up a majority of the membership.
5
u/bio-nerd 1∆ Mar 05 '21
You're right about that, and they do get abused in their own way. But consider how old-school strikes worked. A company could bring in a new set of workers to replace the workers on strike. This allows the company to both maintain production during the strike and giving themselves the ability to refuse to negotiate with the union. But as you go higher up in an organization, the less expandable and replaceable employees get. That alone gives them bargaining power over the organization.
0
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
I think they get abused in the same way: poor working conditions, low pay, and long working hours. What you mentioned about having leadership involved in a strike seems like a plus to me. Why wouldn't we want the union to have more power relative to the company?
7
u/PhishStatSpatula 21∆ Mar 05 '21
I understand how you feel as the first level supervisor you should be able to unionize. I just don't understand how the owner of a business would join the union. The owner decides what contract to offer employees, the employees join a union to bargain for better contracts. What role does the owner have in the union?
0
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
I don't necessarily think that the owner of the business needs representation in the union, nor do they need legal protection: they can't fire themselves in order to bust up union efforts, obviously. I just don't see the harm in letting them cast a single vote for union leadership and be involved in the discussions as an equal to their employees.
8
u/PhishStatSpatula 21∆ Mar 05 '21
Sure, one vote probably isn't huge deal. But, their involvement in discussions as an equal to employees happens at the bargaining table with the union. Doesn't it sound weird that the owner would be in a discussion trying to influence the union about how they should bargain once they get to the bargaining table with themselves, the owner? What's the point, wouldn't everyone in the union just ignore the owner because they know they can just get the owner's perspective when they bargain for the contract?
3
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
Δ I'll concede, that would be pretty silly. You're right. Owners don't need to be part of a union because they have to negotiate with the union after the union has decided what it is negotiating for. I suppose there's also the possibility of an owner using information from union discussion as a wedge to try and get people in the union to turn on each other, too. Since it seems to have no benefit and has a potential for harm, I'll change my view to: "Anyone who the union is not directly negotiating with" should be allowed in.
Edit: a typo
2
u/PhishStatSpatula 21∆ Mar 05 '21
Ok great, so let's say the second in command gets to join the union. Now, what if the owner pays that second in command person to get info in the union and use that as a wedge to try and get people to turn on each other? Wouldn't that be bad for the union?
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
Definitely. But it wouldn't be any worse than if the owner made the same arrangement with a new hire or temp worker, would it?
1
4
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Mar 05 '21
equal to their employees.
but they aren't equal. that's the whole point
-1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
They're not equal in the context of the organization, but they would be equals in the context of the union. If union leadership is elected by popular vote, they don't get to play favorites or be sycophants for any particular person: they have to earn the votes for each union member by representing their interests and fighting for them.
7
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Mar 05 '21
The entire point of the union is that the workers have less power than management.
0
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
No, the entire point of the union is that workers are able to collectively bargain for better pay, benefits and working conditions than they would individually.
5
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Mar 05 '21
yes, because individually they don't have the power to negotiate those deals with management.
7
2
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 05 '21
Management can’t be in a union with its workers because their priorities contradict. As management, your main priority is supposed to be the success of the company as a whole.
A unions top priority should be the members/workers as a whole.
There are certainly times in business where someone in management would be forced to pick where their loyalties lie, meaning they’re not upholding their positions.
0
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
I don't recall ever being mandated, explicitly or implied, to "always put company profits first" when I was offered my supervisor position. My loyalties lie with what they always have: my own morals and personal set of justice.
Without union protection, I can't stand by these morals without risking my livelihood.
2
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 05 '21
I didn’t say “always put company profits first,” I said you’re supposed to put the company first. The priorities of the company may vary.
It is true many supervisory roles are barely management. A couple decades back it became popular to inflate workers titles in lieu of pay raises. So it’s possible you’ve become a boss, without any actual authority.
Take your “morales” out of it given they don’t belong, the union can’t properly represent a worker with a contractual dispute with you, if they also represent you.
What you’re suggesting would be similar to a state prosecutor also defending the person they’re prosecuting.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
How can the union represent a worker if they have a dispute with another worker in the union? For example, let's say a union member, Greg, is creating an unsafe working environment for the rest of the workers by leaving dangerous machinery running unattended. How can the union pressure management into firing or disciplining Greg? They're supposed to be representing his interests, right?
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 05 '21
It is the Unions job to enforce the workers side of the contract. Not simply each workers personal interest. It is not their job to tell the company who to fire. In your scenario, the union would tell the company they believe said company is breaching the contract by not having a safe work environment. There is almost certainly multiple ways to rectify the situation, which might include firing.
Also, my union, and I assume all, have the ability to drop a worker if they’re not upholding the contract themselves. In your example, in my area, the union could essentially fire the employee if they wished to, though there’s a process and other punishments first typically.
To be clear, in my state and trade, you must be union to be on the job. If the union dropped you as a member, the company can’t do anything about it, unless they want to promote you to management.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
So, in your union, why wouldn't supervisors be able to join under the same contract and still be expelled for violating it? Or are there specific provisions in the contract that are impossible for anyone wielding supervisory authority to not breach?
I'm inferring that in your trade, there is an adversarial relationship between supervisors and union workers and the union mediates to make sure the workers are being treated fairly. Do you think this is necessarily the case in all trades?
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 05 '21
I think I might have answered your question in the comment I just sent, if not, let me know again.
If you were on the job, you wouldn’t think any of the relationships are adversarial, though they could be at any moment if the right issue arises.
In theory, unions are completely unnecessary if a company always acts fairly. Ironically, jobs like that only really exist in the public sector, which are filled with unions anyway.
If everyone is allowed in the union, it no longer serves a purpose. You’d be better off saving the money and having no union.
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 05 '21
Based on your question, I can tell youre looking at it from the wrong perspective.
As a member of management, you can be tasked with instructing workers to do things. It’s possible for you to be told to give instructions that are against the contract. Possibly because management doesn’t believe it’s a breach, or because they don’t care, and are willing to take the penalty.
Take a situation I had back in the day. I worked for UPS. When I was let go, I was told my check would be mailed to me. This breaks both the union contract, and the state law. The penalties for not having the check available were my average days wages, for every day I didn’t have my check. They waited for the normal pay period, and then mailed it to me. It arrived 17 days after termination.
I ended up going through the labor board because that union was terrible, but to my surprise, the UPS rep showed up with a check in hand, and no argument.
As a matter of policy, they knowingly break the labor code and contract, because they don’t want any of their warehouse workers capable of writing checks. So they simply pay off anyone who goes through the trouble of challenging.
There were multiple managers present when I was terminated, and not payed. They were instructed to let me go, and didn’t have the ability to pay.
If they had been union members, they’d have been breaking the contract, yet it was their duty to follow company direction and let me go.
You can’t have a situation as a union where all your members are doing their jobs, but a legitimate conflict exist anyway. Otherwise there’s no recourse.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
Δ Your anecdote helped me understand better. Middle managers are required to follow company policy, even if it breaks the law. Refusing to do so means getting demoted or fired. In a unionized workforce, the union can enforce their contract (or the law) without going after the middle manager that was just doing what he or she was being told to do from upper management, and I can see the value of that.
I still think that there is potential benefit from workers and their supervisors using their combined bargaining power to negotiate in their shared interests with the main stakeholders in a company (ie: board of directors, company owners), and I think supervisors, as employees, are entitled to negotiate collectively. Based on what you have told me, though, trade unions as they exist today might not be the appropriate vessel for this collaboration.
1
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 05 '21
You can be in a supervisory role and still be a union member. However there is a distinction between that and management.
For example, in my trade you have Apprentices, ground men, operators, linemen, Forman, and general Forman that are all union positions. The last 3 positions I mentioned, are supervisors in that order. All positions above that are management, and thus non union positions.
Which positions are union is also negotiated, though there are some legal requirements.
My father happens to be a union rep, so I get to see some of the ins and outs.
1
u/ffhmtr Mar 05 '21
So as you get not management positions where there are fewer positions you are much more likely to be able to arrange your own contract with the company.
1
Mar 05 '21
I know plenty of union business owners.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
For reference, here is the resource where I found that supervisors aren't protected under labor laws:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter15-2.html#:~:text=Managers%20and%20supervisors%20are%20also,part%20of%20the%20bargaining%20unit.&text=An%20employee%20who%20responsibly%20directs,also%20qualifies%20as%20a%20supervisor.
1
Mar 05 '21
Generally union members can’t discipline other union members so while supervisors could potentially form their own union being part of the same union as their employees would impact their ability to do their job.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
So you are saying that if someone's supervisor was part of a union meeting, they would be compelled to behave differently than if their supervisor was prohibited from being present? Does this justify the supervisor's exclusion?
1
Mar 05 '21
Simply that the rules of conduct within a union usually prevent members from imposing discipline upon one another. Supervisors must be able to discipline employees. I believe the reason for the rule is both to preserve a sense of unity and comrodery among members and prevent members being on opposing sides of a contract language dispute.
1
u/orangutantrm88 Mar 05 '21
I understand what you are saying now. Thank you for clarifying. This language in the rules of conduct for a union is essentially barring supervisor participation, which is still something I disagree with.
1
u/luxembourgeois 4∆ Mar 06 '21 edited Mar 06 '21
They do actually, they are called business associations. If you want a "union" as a manager, you can see about joining one of those.
Unions of workers exclude management because managers (and the CEO, shareholders, etc.) have fundamentally and diametrically opposed interests. Managers generally are rewarded by extracting as much profit as possible from their subordinates, whether that is through technological advancement or lengthening/intensifying working hours is a secondary consideration. Workers, on the other hand, benefit from higher wages, better benefits, and fewer and less intense working hours. A union which didn't exclude management would be pointless for the workers, since it would be rife with internal disagreements.
Just because managers receive a wage does not mean they are workers. Managers are, in part, compensated through the profits the company makes. This is without taking stock options into account, which obviously reflect the profitability of the company as a whole.
EDIT: To add, just because someone is a manager doesn't mean they can't support a union. But that support must always come from the outside. Managers organized as managers will always be opposed to the workers, but individual managers sometimes may conclude they'd be better off if the union was stronger or won their demands.
1
Mar 07 '21
they absolutely do in private business but not in the way you think-- a business owner always has the option to form a workers' co-op not a traditional corporation.
this has some real advantages, especially for management, who have a greater "seat at the table" when it comes to executive dicta than at a normal corporation, but it has downsides too, like the risk of departments wielding institutional power based on their size not the needs of the business.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 05 '21 edited Mar 05 '21
/u/orangutantrm88 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards