Rule to Require Employers to Disclose Use of Anti-Union Consultants(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Rule to Require Employers to Disclose Use of Anti-Union Consultants
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/business/economy/union-labor-regulation-consultant-relationships.html?ref=business&_r=0
2 comments
An infinite supply indeed. For example:
> [...] lawyers would only have to make the relevant disclosures if they provide advice about how to discourage the formation of a union or collective bargaining. He said that advice on pure legal matters would remain uncovered by the rule.
Quite subjective.
> [...] lawyers would only have to make the relevant disclosures if they provide advice about how to discourage the formation of a union or collective bargaining. He said that advice on pure legal matters would remain uncovered by the rule.
Quite subjective.
How is that subjective? Not being a smartass here, I just see that there's a pretty clear distinction between "advice on pure legal matters" and advice on "how to discourage" union formation.
It's like the difference between a political campaign's counsel and it's campaign consultants. Or the difference between a corporations general counsel and its PR department.
Now of course, people will try to get around this, but that's true of any law. Just because we outlaw murder doesn't mean there are no murderers.
It's like the difference between a political campaign's counsel and it's campaign consultants. Or the difference between a corporations general counsel and its PR department.
Now of course, people will try to get around this, but that's true of any law. Just because we outlaw murder doesn't mean there are no murderers.
> But won't they just hire the same people as "workforce relationship consultants who are TOTALLY not anti-union"?
They can try, but that won't get them off the hook. It doesn't matter what the sign on the consultant's door says, what matters their discussion of unions.
They can try, but that won't get them off the hook. It doesn't matter what the sign on the consultant's door says, what matters their discussion of unions.
Yay! Unions are great! Just look at IL's fiscal situation!
Unions are terrible. Awful, in fact. At least on average.
But not having unions seems even worse, so until we invent something better...
But not having unions seems even worse, so until we invent something better...
That sounds like what Churchill(?) said about democracy: A terrible form of government, but better than all the alternatives. It's the nature of human institutions - name one that's better.
The way I think of it is that other people with power are act in corrupt, self-interested ways, why should working people be denied power for doing those things? They shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Unions are about power; it gives the working class a seat at the table with all the other power-hungry corrupt people who run our society. Note that since unions started weakening in the 1980s, wages have stagnated for those people who have lost power and they have increased dramatically for the wealthy people who have retained it. That's simplistic, but I don't think those outcomes are unrelated.
I'd like an end to corruption, as well as universal peace and love; but I'm not going to wait for it to happen before I support unions.
The way I think of it is that other people with power are act in corrupt, self-interested ways, why should working people be denied power for doing those things? They shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Unions are about power; it gives the working class a seat at the table with all the other power-hungry corrupt people who run our society. Note that since unions started weakening in the 1980s, wages have stagnated for those people who have lost power and they have increased dramatically for the wealthy people who have retained it. That's simplistic, but I don't think those outcomes are unrelated.
I'd like an end to corruption, as well as universal peace and love; but I'm not going to wait for it to happen before I support unions.
Corruption comes from incentives, and it's all about (counter)balancing incentives.
I would add to this by saying that I don't think the function of unions is to optimize the economy. It's to counterbalance the dominion of corporations over citizens.
Not sure they are that great anymore... For sure they played a huuuuge important role in the formation of basic workers' rights. That can't be discounted. But in practice in 2016, I have yet to see where they actually shine, and I'm a bleeding heart liberal with teachers dotted all over my family.
That said the one place I can still see some importance is for police - mostly in available representation in legal matters.
That said the one place I can still see some importance is for police - mostly in available representation in legal matters.
Shine? I already said they were terrible, why would you expect them to shine?
But there are definitely areas where they are missing. Consider the tech industry, for example. There are tons of workers in the lower tiers who just get chewed up and used by the industry. They work 50,60,80 hour weeks on salary without getting significant equity or even job security. Or they work hourly at far below what they're worth. Or they work through contract agencies and get mistreated by everyone (with the contract agencies taking 1/3 or 1/2 of their pay with almost nothing in return except access to working at a big company). And it's even worse in game dev.
Or, not far off, look at the visual effects industry. Hollywood is a rough neighborhood business wise, and they've had tons of practice sharpening their cutthroat skills. Everyone in that business who earns a living either gets paid cash up front plus a percentage of the gross (the "stars" and powerful producers and directors etc.) or is unionized and gets paid a standard, decent, wage. With the exception of newcomers like the VFX industry, who didn't have the clout to demand cash up front and tried to play around with competitive bidding, with the result being a ton of them going bankrupt and lots of VFX employees getting screwed over.
Unions wouldn't solve all the problems there but they would swing the pendulum in the right direction at the very least. It's the same with minimum wage laws. Also horribly flawed and broken, but when other more effective mechanisms don't exist currently you have to use what's available.
But there are definitely areas where they are missing. Consider the tech industry, for example. There are tons of workers in the lower tiers who just get chewed up and used by the industry. They work 50,60,80 hour weeks on salary without getting significant equity or even job security. Or they work hourly at far below what they're worth. Or they work through contract agencies and get mistreated by everyone (with the contract agencies taking 1/3 or 1/2 of their pay with almost nothing in return except access to working at a big company). And it's even worse in game dev.
Or, not far off, look at the visual effects industry. Hollywood is a rough neighborhood business wise, and they've had tons of practice sharpening their cutthroat skills. Everyone in that business who earns a living either gets paid cash up front plus a percentage of the gross (the "stars" and powerful producers and directors etc.) or is unionized and gets paid a standard, decent, wage. With the exception of newcomers like the VFX industry, who didn't have the clout to demand cash up front and tried to play around with competitive bidding, with the result being a ton of them going bankrupt and lots of VFX employees getting screwed over.
Unions wouldn't solve all the problems there but they would swing the pendulum in the right direction at the very least. It's the same with minimum wage laws. Also horribly flawed and broken, but when other more effective mechanisms don't exist currently you have to use what's available.
How many of IL's former Governors are in prison?
I always have difficulty understanding how the people who do all the work and make none of the decisions are always to blame, and the people who make all of the decisions and do none of the work always avoid blame in the public discourse.
Now, that's a very crude and strictly incorrect observation, but to me it seems perceptions have been heavily skewed against labor for a very long time.
Now, that's a very crude and strictly incorrect observation, but to me it seems perceptions have been heavily skewed against labor for a very long time.
> the people who do all the work and make none of the decisions are always to blame
A union is NOT just a bunch of ordinary hardworking employees with no power. A union also has a leadership apparatus, and for the larger unions this can be huge, with dozens of full-time employees. Such leadership apparatus may use the union dues that they collect to engage in extensive lobbying efforts, especially when it's a government employees union. If that's the case the unions' campaign contributions are at least as much to blame as, say, an arbitrary corporation or billionaire with similar spending volumes.
Or if we want to talk "prison" specifically we could talk about the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa's organized crime ties.
> it seems perceptions have been heavily skewed against labor for a very long time.
Just recently I came across a curious article estimating that some astonishingly low percentage of US union members (<10% IIRC) had actually ever voted in favor of the union that they're in. I wonder if there are relevancy issues. (Certainly any tenure-based organization has some amount of relevancy issues with younger members.)
A union is NOT just a bunch of ordinary hardworking employees with no power. A union also has a leadership apparatus, and for the larger unions this can be huge, with dozens of full-time employees. Such leadership apparatus may use the union dues that they collect to engage in extensive lobbying efforts, especially when it's a government employees union. If that's the case the unions' campaign contributions are at least as much to blame as, say, an arbitrary corporation or billionaire with similar spending volumes.
Or if we want to talk "prison" specifically we could talk about the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa's organized crime ties.
> it seems perceptions have been heavily skewed against labor for a very long time.
Just recently I came across a curious article estimating that some astonishingly low percentage of US union members (<10% IIRC) had actually ever voted in favor of the union that they're in. I wonder if there are relevancy issues. (Certainly any tenure-based organization has some amount of relevancy issues with younger members.)
Right-wing unions aren't the only kind. Take the IWW, which is quite anarchist: "They are known for the Wobbly Shop model of workplace democracy, in which workers elect their managers and other forms of grassroots democracy (self-management) are implemented. IWW membership does not require that one work in a represented workplace, nor does it exclude membership in another labor union." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_Worl...)
Obviously, corporations and governments support right-wing unions. Which they then attack after successfully coopting any threat of workplace democracy.
Obviously, corporations and governments support right-wing unions. Which they then attack after successfully coopting any threat of workplace democracy.
If you want to talk about Hoffa and organized crime ties, why don't we talk about strikebusters, many of whom were cops? Hell, why don't we talk about Enron, or any number of companies who have committed crimes? I guarantee that if you tried to compare corruption done by unions and that done by corporations, corporations would have more by a landslide.
Sure, we can talk about all these things. Nothing says I can't be skeptical of corporations and unions... and government, for that matter... all at once!
> it seems perceptions have been heavily skewed against labor for a very long time.
The young never believe that one day, they too, will be old.
Okay, youngsters, enjoy the world you got by dismantling things like seniority.
Suddenly, now, everybody is complaining about age discrimination. I wonder why?
The young never believe that one day, they too, will be old.
Okay, youngsters, enjoy the world you got by dismantling things like seniority.
Suddenly, now, everybody is complaining about age discrimination. I wonder why?
We have created a system where for a lot of people there really is no clear path to retirement. As engineer some time in your 40s your market value goes down to the level of often not being employable (yes there are exceptions). That together with wage stagnation and no defined pensions leads to a lot of people having a very uncertain future.
Unless you make it big as executive, in the stock market or ride the real estate bubble you are in bad shape getting older. For regular income earners the best and secure path to retirement is a unionized job where you get a defined pension.
Unless you make it big as executive, in the stock market or ride the real estate bubble you are in bad shape getting older. For regular income earners the best and secure path to retirement is a unionized job where you get a defined pension.
Which was actually the thing that employees cut even before I entered the workforce. I distinctly remember that my dad was on the declining wave of such benefits being cut from the company he was working for.
It seems like for the programs that were pre-funded over the years those retirement funds either got lost in stock market declines or were otherwise raided for various non-retirement reasons (usually by the company or through cutting benefits and freeing that stored resource); in other cases I can easily see it having been 'funded' the same way 'Social Security' was 'funded' (assume eternal expansion, pay for today's retired with today's income).
I think the appeal of Basic Income Guarantee ideas is not just how effective experiments show them to be, but that it replaces 'retirement' and all sorts of other social safety nets with one solution that's a lot more streamlined. It turns all of the other fraud problems in to tax enforcement and tracking, which thanks to credit cards, the average consumer already gladly agrees to.
It seems like for the programs that were pre-funded over the years those retirement funds either got lost in stock market declines or were otherwise raided for various non-retirement reasons (usually by the company or through cutting benefits and freeing that stored resource); in other cases I can easily see it having been 'funded' the same way 'Social Security' was 'funded' (assume eternal expansion, pay for today's retired with today's income).
I think the appeal of Basic Income Guarantee ideas is not just how effective experiments show them to be, but that it replaces 'retirement' and all sorts of other social safety nets with one solution that's a lot more streamlined. It turns all of the other fraud problems in to tax enforcement and tracking, which thanks to credit cards, the average consumer already gladly agrees to.
Basic income is like the Ron Paul of HN.
Pensions are too unsustainable, but we're gong to magically pay a wage to everyone. Good luck with that.
Pensions are too unsustainable, but we're gong to magically pay a wage to everyone. Good luck with that.
The problem of the pension is that it has proven unreliable to allow private institutions which can go defunct, dissolve, or otherwise discharge that liability to have it.
The next fad was (is) forcing employees to 'invest' in their own retirement; except that it turns out even experts aren't that great at investing, let alone the average worker who's job REALLY isn't investing.
The obvious thing is actual socialism in limited areas of society. BIG is a way of making the resources provided by taxation compete instead of being lost to bureaucracy. In this case the 'limit' is set at having more than what a normal person is expected to have. It presumes that we have reached a level of technology where energy and machines are able to provide more than the standard of living desired by the population using a given set of resources.
Obviously if that assumption is invalid then nothing could 'solve' that problem aside from modifying the population or the resources. Unfortunately there are only two 'tools' that we've yet invented for resolving that problem; birth control and war.
The next fad was (is) forcing employees to 'invest' in their own retirement; except that it turns out even experts aren't that great at investing, let alone the average worker who's job REALLY isn't investing.
The obvious thing is actual socialism in limited areas of society. BIG is a way of making the resources provided by taxation compete instead of being lost to bureaucracy. In this case the 'limit' is set at having more than what a normal person is expected to have. It presumes that we have reached a level of technology where energy and machines are able to provide more than the standard of living desired by the population using a given set of resources.
Obviously if that assumption is invalid then nothing could 'solve' that problem aside from modifying the population or the resources. Unfortunately there are only two 'tools' that we've yet invented for resolving that problem; birth control and war.
Pensions are clearly superior to self-investment. You need to address the employer stealing the funds or not making contributions as required.
That's where a government solution would add value -- have a state-administered pension fund with strong controls.
States like New York with string funding requirements have sustainable public employee pension systems. No reason that something similar could be done for the rest of society.
That's where a government solution would add value -- have a state-administered pension fund with strong controls.
States like New York with string funding requirements have sustainable public employee pension systems. No reason that something similar could be done for the rest of society.
10 bonus points for "Ron Paul of HN"!!! That's funny.
Seniority by itself doesn't mean anything... if I can be mildly affective at a job, and the environment changes, and I don't keep up, why should I be given preference...
I understand cross/retraining and maintaining talent and those with deep domain knowledge... all of that has value. But that all depends on the needs within a given environment.
That said, it's hard to make 30-40% more than your entry-level peers when you do have both knowledge and experience on your side... even if the value you provide is far beyond what a potential employeer is looking for.
I understand cross/retraining and maintaining talent and those with deep domain knowledge... all of that has value. But that all depends on the needs within a given environment.
That said, it's hard to make 30-40% more than your entry-level peers when you do have both knowledge and experience on your side... even if the value you provide is far beyond what a potential employeer is looking for.
> if I can be mildly affective at a job, and the environment changes, and I don't keep up, why should I be given preference...
Seniority and firing are two different things.
Seniority kicks in when there are layoffs. You have to lay the younger people off first. This prevents management from using "layoffs" to suddenly reduce their salaries by swapping out all younger people for all older people.
Firing is available at any age. However, the union will force you to DOCUMENT it. The problem is that management almost never wants to document things because it invariably makes management look bad--their demands look silly, the historical record is against them, end users love the person they are attempting to fire, etc. The reason for this is that the number of people actually being fired for being grossly incompetent/work hazard/etc. is dwarfed by the number of people management is trying to fire for political reasons.
Yeah, you all have apocryphal stories of the youngsters being disadvantaged. I have real stories of being part of strikes, the abuse companies used to try to push people out before they could get their full retirement benefits, reassignment of roles to abuse someone for speaking out about dangerous conditions, etc.
And, those of you who suggest that lawyers are the answer have never actually sued someone. I have. And won. It would have been more profitable for me to lose if it had happened 3 years earlier. The law is expensive and slow.
Seniority and firing are two different things.
Seniority kicks in when there are layoffs. You have to lay the younger people off first. This prevents management from using "layoffs" to suddenly reduce their salaries by swapping out all younger people for all older people.
Firing is available at any age. However, the union will force you to DOCUMENT it. The problem is that management almost never wants to document things because it invariably makes management look bad--their demands look silly, the historical record is against them, end users love the person they are attempting to fire, etc. The reason for this is that the number of people actually being fired for being grossly incompetent/work hazard/etc. is dwarfed by the number of people management is trying to fire for political reasons.
Yeah, you all have apocryphal stories of the youngsters being disadvantaged. I have real stories of being part of strikes, the abuse companies used to try to push people out before they could get their full retirement benefits, reassignment of roles to abuse someone for speaking out about dangerous conditions, etc.
And, those of you who suggest that lawyers are the answer have never actually sued someone. I have. And won. It would have been more profitable for me to lose if it had happened 3 years earlier. The law is expensive and slow.
> before they could get their full retirement benefits
Is it any wonder that young people are extremely skeptical of defined-benefit plans?
I for one would never want a job where that was a significant part of the pay package. Cash on the barrel head, please. Even if I trust you now, I can't possibly trust whoever is going to be running the company thirty years from now.
It's like agreeing to get paid partially in IOUs or company scrip. It seems like an obvious scam, and I can't relate at all to people who long to go back to that pattern.
Is it any wonder that young people are extremely skeptical of defined-benefit plans?
I for one would never want a job where that was a significant part of the pay package. Cash on the barrel head, please. Even if I trust you now, I can't possibly trust whoever is going to be running the company thirty years from now.
It's like agreeing to get paid partially in IOUs or company scrip. It seems like an obvious scam, and I can't relate at all to people who long to go back to that pattern.
> you all have apocryphal stories of the youngsters being disadvantaged.
The big disadvantage is for youngsters is being utterly unemployed. Notice that in places like highly-unionized France youth unemployment is something like 25%+. That's not apocryphal, that's we-got-tons-of-data.
The big disadvantage is for youngsters is being utterly unemployed. Notice that in places like highly-unionized France youth unemployment is something like 25%+. That's not apocryphal, that's we-got-tons-of-data.
And in the US we're finding the same percentages as older workers replace younger workers in jobs like food services that traditionally employed younger kids.
We also have lots of stories of H1-B's replacing workers even in the youthful age brackets. That's the sort of thing that seniority rules also prevent.
It ain't unions causing the problems.
You would do well to cogitate on the real causes instead of just swallowing the anti-union propaganda.
We also have lots of stories of H1-B's replacing workers even in the youthful age brackets. That's the sort of thing that seniority rules also prevent.
It ain't unions causing the problems.
You would do well to cogitate on the real causes instead of just swallowing the anti-union propaganda.
I just want to clarify, that I'm not against unionizing or collective bargaining... it's part of capitalism at work. I just wanted to point out that seniority really doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
The youth unemployment rate in the US is around 10 percent. I'd say a two and a half times difference is pretty significant.
Would you rather move to San Francisco or Paris straight out of college? Which you do think has better career prospects? Do you think that has anything to do with the extreme difficulty of hiring and firing workers in France?
Would you rather move to San Francisco or Paris straight out of college? Which you do think has better career prospects? Do you think that has anything to do with the extreme difficulty of hiring and firing workers in France?
Yet, if I look here:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7197743/3-010...
One of the most unionized countries (Germany) has one of the lowest unemployment rates.
So, apparently the issue isn't unions.
> Would you rather move to San Francisco or Paris straight out of college?
Unfortunately, THAT ISN'T AN OPTION. Immigration policies specifically block the ability to do that.
And, personally, if I did have the option, I suspect going to Berlin and joining the union is the best option.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7197743/3-010...
One of the most unionized countries (Germany) has one of the lowest unemployment rates.
So, apparently the issue isn't unions.
> Would you rather move to San Francisco or Paris straight out of college?
Unfortunately, THAT ISN'T AN OPTION. Immigration policies specifically block the ability to do that.
And, personally, if I did have the option, I suspect going to Berlin and joining the union is the best option.
Okay, youngsters, enjoy the world you got by dismantling things like seniority.
When did "youngsters" do that? They all got the short end. Some people in previous generations did too, but they'll find more likely culprits in the mirror.
When did "youngsters" do that? They all got the short end. Some people in previous generations did too, but they'll find more likely culprits in the mirror.
> The 1959 law on which the regulations are based already required employers to disclose the hiring of such consultants. But the Labor Department argued that previous administrations had allowed an enormous loophole that effectively exempted consultants who coached supervisors on how to influence employees so long as the consultants didn’t interact with the employees directly.
But won't they just hire the same people as "workforce relationship consultants who are TOTALLY not anti-union"? Isn't there an infinite supply of loopholes here?