The workers should feel free to form a union -- this is a fundamental right. The risk is that management will increase the number of robots in an already highly automated factory, eventually replacing all the humans.
> The workers should feel free to form a union -- this is a fundamental right.
I agree that people should have the right to band together in an organized way to increase negotiating power. What I have a problem with is when joining the union and paying dues becomes expected or even mandatory.
When I was in college, I worked a summer for a high-end grocery store as a part-time bagger. Nearly every day the assistant manager (the local union representative) would accost me to join the union and to pay union dues. As a part-time and temporary employee this made absolutely no sense for my situation and would only serve to modestly increase the bargaining power and coffers of the union.
In other situations paying dues to the union becomes mandatory under the legal concept of "fair share fees" where non-union members are required to pay into the bargaining costs of the union.
> If a majority of the public employees at a given site vote to be represented by a union, that union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers. In California, some 325,000 teachers in more than 1,000 school districts are represented by the California Teachers Association and, to a lesser extent, the California Federation of Teachers.
> Of those, 9 percent have not joined the union, but under California law, any union contract must cover them too, and so they are required to pay an amount that covers the costs of negotiating the contract and administering it. The idea is that they reap the bread-and-butter benefits covered by the contract — wages, leave policies, grievance procedures, etc. — so they should bear some of the cost of negotiating that contract.
The situation in the NPR article and your own seem different though. Are you saying the teachers in California should be able to benefit from the union without paying any dues? How do you expect a union to continue to exist in that circumstance?
> The situation in the NPR article and your own seem different though.
Good point - I realize that including my own experience muddied the waters of my argument a bit.
I mentioned my experience to highlight that aside from the situation where an employee is legally required to pay fees to a union there are other ways that a union can apply undo pressure onto an employee who does not want to join. In my case, it became clear that membership in the union was expected and not just suggested.
> Are you saying the teachers in California should be able to benefit from the union without paying any dues?
The "benefit" that non-union members receive from the bargaining of the union only applies as the established agreements extend to all employees (both union and non-union).
I'm saying that non-union employees should not be included in outcome of union negotiations. Non-union employees are by definition not represented by the union - they've opted not to participate as part of the collective bargaining group and should not be forced to pay into or support the negotiations of the bargaining group.
> How do you expect a union to continue to exist in that circumstance?
A union would be able to continue to exist as long as there is enough benefit of membership that it can continue to recruit and retain dues-paying members.
>A union would be able to continue to exist as long as there is enough benefit of membership that it can continue to recruit and retain dues-paying members.
In this example why would the corporation hire/retain any union member? The union would cease to exist if this were allowed.
Firing someone because they were involved in union activity is extremely illegal. It happens only when companies are confident there won't be consequences.
Perhaps the union can continue to exist, perhaps not, but the workers certainly shouldn't suffer a private tax. It must be nice being able to tax a group of workers like that, needing only to hand over a cut to the politicians to ensure that the private tax can be enforced.
From the worker's point of view, the continued viability of the union is "not my problem".
Maybe I can dip into your paycheck? Perhaps I should give a cut to your governor, ensuring I get some enforcement. Not that you wouldn't love to pay me of course, but you might forget. Actually, let's just take it out of your paycheck. I need a new car.
In this example you're doing things like increasing the amount of vacation I get, raising my wages and in general existing as a balance to the power of the corporation I work for?
Sure, same as any union: I'll put in a word for you, though mostly I'll just pay myself and make campaign contributions to politicians that you might hate.
I see Bender as more of a "Destroy all unions" kind of guy.
Seriously, I think we as a species should be more considerate with the ways we treat each other. If we're lucky, the machines will learn that from us.
If a super intelligent AI came to life today, it might learn one too many lessons about employers cutting human costs, media companies disparaging the unemployed as lazy layabouts that deserve nothing, and the always-too-easy-to-manipulate human psyche.
And then we humans would have to reckon with a machine that excels at the worst traits of people that our society deems necessary to have to shower with money and power.
That risk exists irregardless of the formation of a union. Automation of mundane physical tasks is just that much cheaper than manual labor over the long run.
Risk is a spectrum. The higher the wage the more incentive to automate. It is not always cheaper to automate, but if you push wages above that point...
note: irregardless is not a word, it is just regardless
Then the robots will form a union.