We always ignore Nordic unions when ever we trash talk unions. If things were as easy as black and white then there wouldn't even be a need to debate, the productive non-union businesses would just slay and everyone would be working for them.
In Sweden (the largest industrial hub in Scandinavia), unions don't collectively negotiate wages with employers - they collectively set wages across an entire industry with the government and business management (think Syndicalism, which is the primary industrial philosophy in Europe compared to the US).
Also, blue collar membership has declined after the 2008 Financial Crisis dealt a killing blow to Volvo and Saab. Blue Collar union membership in Sweden peaked at 85% in the 1990s but has fallen to 59% in 2019.
Some American unions (primarily UAW and Teamsters) would have to fundamentally reform in order to act like European unions, and they would assuredly fight tooth and nail against such a change. Also, the kind of sector level salary negotiations common in Europe might fall foul of American collusion laws, and might anyhow be unpopular with local chapters (hypothetical example: if UAW and all major automotive manufacturers decided to set wages at South Carolina levels nationally, that would be a pay cut in the Midwest).
UAW already went through some reforms which is arguably why they're experiencing a surge in popularity. In particular Shawn Fien was part of UAWD's 1 member, 1 vote initiative: https://uawd.org/
The characterization that they would eschew reform even when it would boost their popularity is not reflected in current events (certainly the managerial friendly unions of the past would avoid reforms)
Those reforms aren't comparable to Swedish (which I'll use as a stand in for Nordic) Unions.
At the end of the day, unions in Europe are much more pro-business management than any union in the US can ever dare.
For example, Swedish unions didn't go on strike when Geely fired thousands of Swedish autoworkers when acquiring Volvo, and German (yes not Nordic) unions haven't fought for salary increases leading to German salaries remaining stagnant since the 2000s, while helping German corporations like Volkswagen, Daimler, etc remain competitive globally.
In the US, unions will go militant and remain independent of the government and management because they are grassroots driven. In Europe, unions are subordinated to the government and management, as Union leaders end up joining both.
I'm not even trash talking unions. I love unions because I love the idea of workers being lazy (unironically!)
But, from the buyers perspective, I don't want union hands touching my car. I also will NEVER buy a volvo because they're bad cars from every standpoint except safety. This is the brand that though a turbo, supercharged hybrid drive-train would be a good idea in an SUV. The SUV isn't even that fast despite it!
A tech unicorn slays, but for how long? I do think the intention of most American tech companies is to financialize some aspect of the market, and that is lucrative and "slays" - but I think such arrangements are moats built with sand. Without that angle, a tech company is just another goods or service and looks less like Uber and more like the gaming industry.
Are you saying GM's thinking is broken or the governments? GM did what was in their own best interests, the other was to declare bankruptcy - what company would have chosen different?
GM's thinking, not from the bailout, that is probably more a symptom
but look at the recent decisions that led to
- recent statements about EVs
- the Cruise debacle
- deciding not to allow Apple/Google car infotainment systems and opting for a homegrown solution, despite consumers repeatedly stating they want the system that aligns with their phone
They aren't listening and management seems to think they know better
> kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind
Take this to an extreme: a start-up. A union is overly bureaucratic. I’d wager a union doesn’t start making sense until the lowest-ranking employee ceases to have on-demand access to senior management.
That's quite small. Having worked at a few companies in the 30-50 employee mark, while it is true that I could speak to management almost any time, it was also obvious that they were very busy.
> companies in the 30-50 employee mark, while it is true that I could speak to management almost any time, it was also obvious that they were very busy
Sure. But if you had a grievance, you could voice it. And if you needed to pull some like-minded coworkers together to underline it's shared, that could be done ad hoc. If a 50-person company needs a union (because e.g. management refuses to listen) that's a problem. That's my point.
I don't know where the delineation is. But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction. For the same reasons a middle-management layer or expansive C suite, below a company of a certain size, is a sign of dysfunction [1].
> But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction.
FWIW I don't think that's obvious at all. Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone and protect themselves and future employees against potential changes in ownership or a downturn in company health.
> Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone
I'm not arguing it couldn't be done, nor that it doesn't have benefits. Just that it has costs, and those costs at a small level should outweigh the benefits. While they're doing that, and maintaining that structure, they could be doing something else. (Something more enjoyable and lucrative.)
Sure, but now you've changed your point from "very obviously" to "it's a cost-benefit analysis." It's not hard to imagine how someone else's analysis might end up different from yours (say, based on their previous experience, or experience of others in their industry).
Without unions, the logic of supply and demand favors larger businesses because they have greater purchasing power - they are already operating as a collective!
> They have to compete against other businesses to hire skilled positions.
Yes, but because they are a collective when they "purchase" skilled positions they are usually asking for more than one hire. Yes they are competing against other businesses, and the perspective hires are competing against the other hires. By the numbers, there are fewer businesses hiring then there are workers looking for that position. In other words, the businesses have more leverage then the workers in the form of purchasing power. The laws of supply and demand favor the business if there are no unions.
Edit: FYI: supply and demand for labor is equal when unemployment is at 0%.
Experts have a narrow, deep view while CEOs have a wide, shallow view.
If the expert works in a lab developing new experimental solar panels they probably don’t see a clear path to mass production.
The CEO might know another manufacturing expert that does see a path to production and have enough high level understanding to know the methods are compatible.
In this case yes, but in this case we have to assume the research side has achieved it's goal (its proven a material exists with the desired properties), now it is a manufacturing problem. If the lab can't produce the material, the manufacturing lines have nothing to manufacture with. And that seems to be the case with FSD. CEOs make wild claims, but the tech isn't there. The material has not been proven to exist in a lab with the desired properties.
Like a CEO saying, I have a material that can protect wearers from nuclear fusion blasts and it will be on the market in 6 months, but the experts in the field have yet to actually prove that material exists and create it in a lab.
But the point is that we are all equally capable of being wrong. Especially when we step outside our area of expertise. CEOs are just another type of expert but their domain is organization. We have to consider the source’s experience relative to the domain in question before we can decide if their prediction is trustworthy.
Both might be equally capable but the incentives are entirely different. An Engineer is motivated to deliver accurate predictions because that's their job. A CEO is not motivated to deliver accurate predictions because their main job is to hype their product and services.
In this case the actual CEO we all know we're talking about is a serial confabulist who publicly agrees with anti semitic conspiracy theories and tells his advertisers to go fuck themselves, so your abstract hypothetical arguments generously giving some unspecified billionaire CEO the benefit of the doubt don't hold any water.
He also does dubiously claim to be an expert in many fields, although despite the success of the engineers working for him, his greatest personal expertise appears to be sycophant creation — competence can only propel one so far.
Although one should never believe the ravings, useful work does surprisingly often nucleate around them, just not to the degree or with the speed promised.
"it doesn't make people feel heard" isn't a real emotion, it includes a judgement about the AI. According to "Nonviolent Communication" p235; "unheard" speaks towards the feelings "sad, hostile, frustrated" and the needs "understanding" & "consideration". Everyone agrees AI would be more efficient, but people are concerned that the AI will not be able to make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.
That's true! I suspect it will be difficult to convince people that an AI can, as you suggest, make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.
Woah there, let's calm down a second. There is no need to advocate for the profitability and ethics in kidnapping private jets with billionaires on board. I'm sure if we just vote then we won't need violent revolution to avoid billions of people being displaced from climate change.
