Unions

[Krugerrand]

Sort of. When the company changes the salary band specifically to limit increases, it doesn't matter what it was when you were hired. Also there is age and experience discrimination, so for many it's virtually impossible to get a better job, or even change jobs because you have too much experience. Prior to 1980 family income and CEO income increased about the same amount--no problem there. After 1980 CEO income increased by leaps and bounds while family income remained stagnant. Worker productivity has also increased since 1980. Kind of says something, doesn't it?

Do you not think that CEOs (and other management members) take more 'heat' when things don't go right? When a company doesn't meet its numbers, who gets canned first? But the discussion is not about that.

There are folks who work hard and there are folks who don't. Unions or non-unions don't really make that much difference as far as how folks work.

Absolutely no argument there, however, unions protect those folks who don't work hard and they don't allow those who do work hard to be rewarded. That's a fact. At least without a union a supervisor/manager has the ability and opportunity to get rid of those that aren't pulling their weight and rewarding those that go above and beyond.

 

[strider]

I don’t know how the laws work in the US. But if what you describe is true with regards to that firefighter, then I don’t see any reason for that either. And of course: No one should be forced to join a union.

They wouldn't let him volunteer because they viewed it as him "taking" a union job away.

However, and maybe I’m missing something, but it seems pretty clear to me that large parts of both the House and the Senate have a stance that’s identical to the profit motive of the private sector when it comes to the public sector. And it also seems pretty clear that these parts have influenced current policy. And doesn’t workers in the public sector have a wage motive? So that part I don’t get.

The problem with public-sector unions is that the workers get to vote in their "management." So because public-sector unions pour a ton of money into political campaigns the politicians buy those votes by seeing who can outdo the other with regards to pay and benefits packages. Also politicians are not held to account for spending more than they take in. By the time the bill comes due they are long gone. So in the public sector the "management" is for higher pay and benefits and the workers are for higher pay and benefits. No compromise ever occurs. That is how you end up with firefighters making $150,000/year. They then go out on "disability" after working 15 or 20 years and are then paid $150,000/year for the rest of their lives plus get full medical benefits. These obligations are bankrupting cities right now and will be bankrupting states soon enough. No greater a liberal luminary than FDR believed that public sector unions are bad.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

I think what Elon fundamentally means in his "neutral" position is that he is open to his workers organizing and joining unions.

Elon says he is neutral because that is what he MUST say to stay within the law. He cannot be seen as limiting employee's right to organize or he and Tesla could be in deep legal trouble. I'm quite confident no one on this board knows Elon's true feelings towards unions and in the end it doesn't actually matter. Elon and Tesla have to follow the law (and/or fight to change it if that is their wish).

 

[jerry33]

Absolutely no argument there, however, unions protect those folks who don't work hard and they don't allow those who do work hard to be rewarded.

That sounds no different than the non-union place I work for. Just replace union with corporation in your sentence.

 

[SCW-Greg]

In Sweden no one is forced to join a union no matter what. If folks have indeed been forced to join a union in the US (or elsewhere), surely there must be some sort of (relatively) objective and impartial depiction of one or several such events. Or maybe this procedure is even documented in some publicly accessible 'unionizing 101-page' of an actual union somewhere.

So if this is indeed the case, just point me in the right direction (as in post a link that I can click on).


- - - Updated - - -

Why was it not an option to not sign up?


Edit: So it seems I was unaware of what seems to be a vital difference in employer & (unionized) employee relations that exists in the US on one hand, and Sweden on the other. So I guess I have no other choice than to remain neutral on the topic of unions in the US until I have fully understood the differences…

Yeah if we had the option to sign up for a union, that would makes things entirely different here. As it is, virtually all unions enacted here, are mandatory enrollment if you want the job. It's based on fear that the union may not be able to maintain their membership numbers, and have any effective/relevant force in negotiations.

 

[Krugerrand]

That sounds no different than the non-union place I work for. Just replace union with corporation in your sentence.

If it sounds no different, then maybe you might want to consider working for a different company. Replacing union with corporation doesn't make it the same.

A company that protects one of its own 'less desirables' (a member of its managing staff that's doing a poor job) does so with very specific knowledge of that individual's shortcomings. It is often the act of one or two other members of the company, making it a personal deliberate act to cover up. A company may also protect one of its less desirable employees. Again, though, it's always a personal deliberate act. The protection (perhaps simply looking the other way) is sometimes based on friendship, sometimes on sympathy, sometimes it's about manipulation etc...

A union is a third party. It provides employees (those not on the managerial staff) with a service. Employees give monetary compensation for that service. They gain the power of numbers, but they also give up their individuality and what that can bring to the job. A union has no personal knowledge of any employee not doing their job well and it doesn't care. It is the structure and rules set in place by the union that protects all employees equally. Other employees and even the company can (and often do) have knowledge of poor employees and both parties have their hands tied to do anything about it because of the service set in place by the union.

If you're someone who believes that all in the workplace should be viewed as equal in all regards no matter skill, talent, or output, that seniority is the only way promotions and lay offs should be decided, and that the employee - management relationship is 'us' against 'them', then a union is for you.

 

[lolachampcar]

The best we can do as citizens is encourage our politicians to create legal environments that promote balance between unions and management. At the same time we can hope that union leaders recognize that their members and society in general is better off if they develop contracts that reward excellence and downplay length of membership.

It is sad but I think I have more faith in Unions than I do politicians. Both appear to an outsider like me to be dysfunctional at best or serving corrupt masters at worst. The closer the employer/employee issue is brought to the parties directly involved, the better the chances of reaching agreement. Perhaps Unions should be a location by location affair or limited to a specific company so as not to introduce outside influence.

 

[Canuck]

In my opinion, the real issue is not union vs. non-union. That's just a ploy to divert the masses from the real cause of our economic problems. Here's some facts:

"As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)."
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So what you are arguing over is dividing up 11% of the allotted money for 80% of the workers (union or non-union). When the pie is so small, of course you will argue over who works harder - union or non-union people. That's just what the 1% want you to argue over. Then factor in the fact that the 1% print the money, control its quantity, loan it government, create government debt, etc. etc. and the union vs. non-union begins to look like arguing over whether fleas cause more damage to your dog as opposed to it being hit by a car.

 

[J in MN]

I'm quite confident no one on this board knows Elon's true feelings...

I do. Just fire the ass (arse) holes
Or he recanted.

 

[RobotGrease]

I do. Just fire the ass (arse) holes
Or he recanted.

Proper link (Curse word is censored and then ruins the link): http://goo.gl/NsVoOe


I find his quote strangely comforting. The question is whether or not his opinion on the matter has changed at all in the last 4.5yrs...

 

[Kaivball]

Unions press for place with Tesla (SFGate.com)

In my opinion, the real issue is not union vs. non-union. That's just a ploy to divert the masses from the real cause of our economic problems. Here's some facts:

"As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)."
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So what you are arguing over is dividing up 11% of the allotted money for 80% of the workers (union or non-union). When the pie is so small, of course you will argue over who works harder - union or non-union people. That's just what the 1% want you to argue over. Then factor in the fact that the 1% print the money, control its quantity, loan it government, create government debt, etc. etc. and the union vs. non-union begins to look like arguing over whether fleas cause more damage to your dog as opposed to it being hit by a car.

What does this have to do with anything?

How is my ability to earn money impacted by how much you make?

It's the reverse: this imaginary "income inequality" is a ploy to divert from the real reasons why the economy is growing so sluggishly: over regulation and too much government spending.


Only fixed size pie thinkers worry about who makes what.

We should me more worried about the power the central leviathan, aka the government, amasses.

Do you honestly believe that you would earn more money if Bill Gates had $10 billion less?

Of course not, that would be foolish.

 

[SCW-Greg]

In my opinion, the real issue is not union vs. non-union. That's just a ploy to divert the masses from the real cause of our economic problems. Here's some facts:

"As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)."
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So what you are arguing over is dividing up 11% of the allotted money for 80% of the workers (union or non-union). When the pie is so small, of course you will argue over who works harder - union or non-union people. That's just what the 1% want you to argue over. Then factor in the fact that the 1% print the money, control its quantity, loan it government, create government debt, etc. etc. and the union vs. non-union begins to look like arguing over whether fleas cause more damage to your dog as opposed to it being hit by a car.

This has no relevance to the conversation here. This is not a zero sum game. Not a pie.

I'm with Kaivball on this.

 

[Canuck]

It's completely relevant but for sake of not repeating myself, read my post #44 (on page 5) in this thread. Kavball posted his same comments twice, and instead of responding to the specific issues raised in my reply, he simply repeated himself.


- - - Updated - - -

How is my ability to earn money impacted by how much you make?

It's not, and I already told you it's not (see my post #44 above).

First off, I am doing very well, thank you, and I don't want you to earn any less than you are entitled to. In fact, I want you to earn as much as your hard work, risk taking, smarts, innovation allows. Under the current system, this is becoming more difficult. The "American Dream" is, in fact, alive and well. Just not in your country: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ri...an-dream-is-alive-and-welljust-not-in-america

Now, please answer me this: How is hard work, risk taking, etc. (the "American Dream") benefited by the "Federal" Reserve Bank being privately owned by people who can print money with no backing, loan it to the government at interest (your federal debt!), collect the principal and interest and do fractional reserve lending?

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
​

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

 

[ElSupreme]

I want to point out a few things here. Many things are said about unions, and they are supposed to mean certain things. But I generally take a different side to the coin. Some of my comments are just throw aways, so take some of them wit a bit of salt. But do try to think about things differently if only for a second. And I don't expect to change other people's minds.

Poppycock!

Unions are run by people, all of whom have their own personal agendas not always inline with the company or for the company's good.

This is my favorite one. Why is it acceptable for a company to look out for it's own good, but not for the employees to look out for their own good? Obviously keeping their employer in business is in their interest. And allowing the company to grow is also in the employees interest. So there is at least some 'free market' protection for the company in this relationship.

Unions make it about the employees vs the company.

Isn't competition good in our capitalist world?

Unions require everyone to be part of them even if/when someone doesn't want to be part of them.

It's part of employment. I have to be part of my company if I want the job. I can always go elsewhere. And not all unions have this requirement (25 states are 'Right-to-Work' states).

Unions make it next to impossible to get rid of poor workers.

I would contend that this is poor negotiation on the corporation side. And also short sidedness on the Union side. Obviously this is a common theme in modern US union talk, and probably is a problem. But not an issue with Unions in general.

Unions make companies downsize via less seniority rather than via less work output/less skills.

Is this actually a bad thing? I know it is for the company. But a 20+ year employee is obviously capable. And has given more value to the company than a newbie. So why shouldn't they be given more value by the company?

Unions squeeze companies (on behalf of employees!?), regardless if it's good for the company's survival or not, thusly putting companies out of business.

Yes, yes, I understand what unions are suppose to be. It's all quite noble and for the good of the employee, but what of the company? No company, no employees. Yes, I acknowledge that unions have worked for some, and brought a more level playing field, but it's not all been sunshine, butterflies and rainbows. Unions have done their share of destruction. Today is not the past and unions are as outdated as car dealerships.

The goal of a union is the protection of its workers, and to make sure they are fairly (maybe even handsomely) rewarded for their work. If they do this at the expense of the company then they failed their charge. Sure it happens. And the UAW is an easy target, but I would contend that GM/Ford/Chrysler were also to blame for not accounting for future pension payments, and not making better cars, for their downfall as well.

I am also not saying Unions perform optimally either, but corporations also perform non-optimally. So why should they get a pass and not employees/unions.

Do you want me to start listing the companies that unions have killed?

Do you want me to start listing the companies that management has killed (with or without unions)?

I'm against being forced to organize, which many employees are. I'm against paying for it. I'm against organizations thinking they know what's best for me (and paying them for it). I'm against organizations that can't see past the end of their noses. I'm against organizations that abuse their power because they have the numbers. I'm against organizations that pit their members against the one buttering their bread - that's called biting the hand that feeds you. I'm against organizations that protect selfish members et al...

As free as people are to organize, they are also free to not work for a specific company.

So don't work for a Union shop. I don't see any being forced to organize at all here. (25 states are 'Right-to-Work' as well)

Everyone, those on the company side and those on the employee side, have their own definition of personal responsibility. Sometimes those definitions are night and day.

Unions (particularly the bigger, more powerful ones) allow employees to hold companies hostage, whether there's a virtuous stance or not. Omnipotence is often abused. Since you've never been in a union and seen it work its *magic* (good and bad), I can see that you might not understand how it's led to the failure of many a company, and thus while supposedly helping employees it's put those employees out of work.

And why is that a bad thing. Without unions companies can hold employees hostage. Why is that an acceptable power structure, and not the opposite?

The company (which is actually people) and the employees (also people) need to nurture each other and work for each other's benefit because neither can survive without the other. Unions (which are groups of people) sometimes forget that, and to be fair sometimes companies forget that. And as has also been explained, unions equalize employees so that those of less personal responsibility can easily hide and are next to impossible to get rid of, while those of greater personal responsibility can't be and aren't recognized for their effort. How do you think that makes the latter feel? How would you feel if you worked your butt off and watched a fellow employee who showed up late regularly, did the bare minimum, and scowled at you for doing your best, received a promotion over you simply because they worked there two weeks longer than you? Yeah, that's what unions allow.

I agree that this happens. But it lends itself to poor negotiating. And a poor union. But they don't 'allow' it as you say, any more than any corporation. You should rally against poorly run organizations, not Unions.

Proper profit sharing and departmental goals work much better than unionization: They give incentive to the employee to do a good/great job. Unions work to "protect" their members from doing too much for the company.

I know of a certain collective bargaining structure that could negotiate for profit sharing program pretty well! And maybe some better healthcare. And profit sharing is crap. I have some stupid system, and I work really hard, make my company a boatload of money, and they distribute 5% of that to me and my coworkers, so I see about 1% of it. Not much of an incentive there really. (numbers made up, but not unlike the real structure I work under).

s =
-If you meet your quota, you stop working

Ok, if a company says you need to make 100 of these widgets a day, and for that I will pay you $500. Why shouldn't I stop at 100 widgets, or at least expect ~$5 per extra widget. (As the marginal cost of each additional widget goes down for the employer). Why should the company benefit from my good work and not me?

-If you go over quota, you are chastised by your peers and foreman

Because if you are making a widget at $4 per unit, the company will drive the cost down and start expecting/paying $4 per widget. And you diminish others value.

-Strive to do as little as possible, and make sure that work ethic is passed around

Well do exactly as much work as what is expected. But yes this is a drawback of the first two points I made. But honestly that happens in most jobs. Work as little as you can, without getting fired. It is a personality, and one I can easily identify with, but don't

-Even if you're a crappy employee, you are protected and it's virtually impossible to get fired
-You strike (shut down the company, you lose pay) if the union bosses don't get along with management

This is poor organizations. Both union and company at this point. There will never be a solution to this. But the act of a strike is quite laissez-faire. The side with the most to gain by agreeing (by deduction the side with the most upside after the dispute and thus more powerful side) will cave first. Thus keeping a balance. But this also has another side, of the side with the most to lose caves first, which can have major repercussions. But most laissez-faire system have this sort of unstable component.

My family was subjected to a machinists union's stupidity for decades. They made it impossible for the company to make money here in the states so they shipped all the new/good machines to Mexico. They kept all the crappy ones here in the states. The good/seasoned machinists decided to apply for the union-run maintenance crew, so everyone lost. My Father retires in less than a year, so he's just biding his time.

I'm just a bit biased. Never mind me

Did the union really prevent your company from making money. Or just not enough money? And being a union shop doesn't mean the union was the cause of the move. Higher wages in the USA could have been the root cause, not that they were higher paid union wages.

 

[sranger]

I believe that a Union would destroy Tesla. There are plenty of laws to protect workers. Unions were once needed, but are now just a relic of the past...

It is just my opinion...

 

[Krugerrand]

But do try to think about things differently if only for a second.

I have thought about things in different ways. I've worked in non-union and union workplaces as has my husband and several of our family and friends. I've seen both sides of the coin.

This is my favorite one. Why is it acceptable for a company to look out for it's own good, but not for the employees to look out for their own good? Obviously keeping their employer in business is in their interest. And allowing the company to grow is also in the employees interest. So there is at least some 'free market' protection for the company in this relationship.

You'll have to point out where I said employees shouldn't look out for their own good. I don't see it, but perhaps I posted while under the influence or asleep? :tongue:

Isn't competition good in our capitalist world?

Yes, but what does that have to do with pitting employees against the company?

It's part of employment. I have to be part of my company if I want the job. I can always go elsewhere. And not all unions have this requirement (25 states are 'Right-to-Work' states).

I've said nothing different, but now you're taking comments out of context as they are part of a direct conversation, not stand alone comments as if no other side exists, which I've been quite clear about. Oh, would you look at that, California is not a right-to-work state. And since we're talking Tesla...... :wink:

Is this actually a bad thing? I know it is for the company. But a 20+ year employee is obviously capable. And has given more value to the company than a newbie. So why shouldn't they be given more value by the company?

Yes, it can be a bad thing. And no, a 20+ year employee isn't obviously capable, nor may they be giving more value to the company than a newbie.

Do you want me to start listing the companies that management has killed (with or without unions)?

Knock your socks off, but it's not relevant. My comment was directed at a very specific statement. There is no disagreement that management has killed companies with or without unions present.

So don't work for a Union shop. I don't see any being forced to organize at all here. (25 states are 'Right-to-Work' as well)

I don't and neither do the Tesla employees who've been hired to this point. And if the UAW entrenches itself there, it's quite possible there will be an exodus of people. Because, again, California is not a right-to-work state, so all employees will be forced to join a union.

And why is that a bad thing. Without unions companies can hold employees hostage. Why is that an acceptable power structure, and not the opposite?

I've never said it was acceptable for companies to hold employees hostages, or that it's never happened. Ever. Indeed, I've been quite clear that I know how it can work from both sides. Don't make the assumption that by pointing out the flaws in unions that I a) don't understand the good they've done (which I've alluded to), or b) that I support companies that treat their employees poorly.

I agree that this happens. But it lends itself to poor negotiating. And a poor union. But they don't 'allow' it as you say, any more than any corporation. You should rally against poorly run organizations, not Unions.

Both allow it to happen. Every single person who's held a job has seen it at least once. I have enough things on my plate to rally against, tyvm.

Ok, if a company says you need to make 100 of these widgets a day, and for that I will pay you $500. Why shouldn't I stop at 100 widgets, or at least expect ~$5 per extra widget. (As the marginal cost of each additional widget goes down for the employer). Why should the company benefit from my good work and not me?

Because if you are making a widget at $4 per unit, the company will drive the cost down and start expecting/paying $4 per widget. And you diminish others value.

I never made those next two statements. You've misquoted me and I'm not sure which poster actually said them, but I'll answer those questions. I've actually worked in a factory before and had to produce x number of parts per shift, and every single day I did my job I tried to make more than the minimum I had to make. Why? Because that's what my Daddy taught me. Work hard, do your best every single time, and you'll be rewarded at the very least with a feeling of personal satisfaction and pride. I would never begrudge a company I worked for extra widgets on my shift if I could make them. That's good for the company, which means it's good for me, the employee. As talked about earlier in the thread, it's called personal responsibility. And I've never had a company drive down the cost paid per part, or increase the minimum parts per shift because I made extras, but I sure did make a few other employees mad by exposing their less than best efforts.

Well do exactly as much work as what is expected. But yes this is a drawback of the first two points I made. But honestly that happens in most jobs. Work as little as you can, without getting fired. It is a personality, and one I can easily identify with, but don't

This is poor organizations. Both union and company at this point. There will never be a solution to this. But the act of a strike is quite laissez-faire. The side with the most to gain by agreeing (by deduction the side with the most upside after the dispute and thus more powerful side) will cave first. Thus keeping a balance. But this also has another side, of the side with the most to lose caves first, which can have major repercussions. But most laissez-faire system have this sort of unstable component.

Did the union really prevent your company from making money. Or just not enough money? And being a union shop doesn't mean the union was the cause of the move. Higher wages in the USA could have been the root cause, not that they were higher paid union wages.

Gosh, didn't make the last three comments either that you've attributed to me. Something going on with how you're quoting posters.

 

[Doug_G]

It's completely relevant but for sake of not repeating myself, read my post #44 (on page 5) in this thread. Kavball posted his same comments twice, and instead of responding to the specific issues raised in my reply, he simply repeated himself.

That is just how Kaivball rolls. See Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

 

[Canuck]

That is just how Kaivball rolls. See Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Actually, I did read that thread but I never made the connection. Thanks for pointing it out. I won't waste my time on responding to him in the future. I like a good rebuttal, and can be convinced to change my position, but discussing things with him has shown to be pointless.


“The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”― William Blake

 

[SCW-Greg]

It would be interesting to start a survey.

I don't plan on actually doing this (someone else can). I think the general populace (at least within the U.S.) would not side favorably on overall union value. At least not from a product value perception.

Thinking about your own understanding of unions (scale answers 1-5, 1 being disagree/bad, 5 agree/good)...
Are unions needed in the auto industry?
Are unions good for the auto industry?
Do unions help improve car quality?
Do unions help lower the price of a car?
Do unions help raise the price of a car?

Do you believe unions provide value to the product?
Are unions generally good a thing?

Do you work in a unionized job?
Have you ever worked in a unionized job?
If so, what union industry?
If so, do you believe your union was a good thing for you?
If so, do you believe your union was a good thing for your company?
If so, do you believe your union was a good thing for the product/end-user?



Can you imagine how some of these might be answered?

Again, this is just a hypothetical. It is not complete. May even skewed. But some quick thoughts on some possible questions... that could lead to some interesting public perceptions.

 

[brianman]

surely there must be some sort of (relatively) objective and impartial depiction of one or several such events.

Haha. You give modern U.S. media way too much credit here.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds no different than the non-union place I work for. Just replace union with corporation in your sentence.

If that's the case, then that corporation is broken. In contrast, a union that behaves that way is "by design".

- - - Updated - - -

Only fixed size pie thinkers worry about who makes what.

Indeed.

- - - Updated - - -

This is my favorite one. Why is it acceptable for a company to look out for it's own good, but not for the employees to look out for their own good?

She said unions not employees. U.S. unions involve far more than "employees looking out for their own good". Today's U.S. unions are a very different animal than you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

But a 20+ year employee is obviously capable. And has given more value to the company than a newbie.

In general, wrong and wrong. Sometimes "A and B" but definitely not "A implies B".

- - - Updated - - -

So don't work for a Union shop. I don't see any being forced to organize at all here. (25 states are 'Right-to-Work' as well)

People with specific skills in union-blanketed sectors and don't have he means to move, don't have the "don't" option in 25 states then. No?

- - - Updated - - -

And why is that a bad thing. Without unions companies can hold employees hostage. Why is that an acceptable power structure, and not the opposite?

Please reserve the word hostage for the proper usage rather than a the typical misuse you see from politicians and lawyers with a weak argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, if a company says you need to make 100 of these widgets a day, and for that I will pay you $500. Why shouldn't I stop at 100 widgets, or at least expect ~$5 per extra widget. (As the marginal cost of each additional widget goes down for the employer). Why should the company benefit from my good work and not me?

Any company saying "we will pay you X for Y product per hour" as an employee is wrong-headed. That's the starting point of the problem. Paying that to another company for a product is a different story entirely.

- - - Updated - - -

Because if you are making a widget at $4 per unit, the company will drive the cost down and start expecting/paying $4 per widget. And you diminish others value.

If your analysis leads to "I will end up lowering costs, thus providing same-quality products to consumers at cheaper cost" and you consider that a bad thing, then you need to make adjustments. My quote in the previous sentence should be a goal of companies not something you want to motivate workers to prevent.

 

[Arnold Panz]

A major part of my job has been working in management jobs with union and non-union workforces (including negotiation of labor agreements), as well as working on union campaigns on behalf of management. A couple of points on this interesting discussion:

1. It is unlikely that Tesla will be organized.

As others have noted, Elon (and Tesla) would be foolish to say anything negative about unions or unionization. That said, there is no individual employer that would prefer a unionized workforce in this day and age -- it reduces an employer's ability to manage his workforce as he wishes, and every dime that goes towards union dues has to be made up to employees somehow, so at a minimum it will cost a little bit of money (and often a lot more than that). So, as an employer you are basically guaranteed to lose at least some (and perhaps a lot) of flexibility, and increase your labor costs without any net benefit (such as additional hours worked or employees). Not a recipe for success.

Tesla, like most Silicon Valley companies, treats its employees like a resource, not an expense, and tries to keep them (generally) happy. This is important -- almost all successful unionization efforts occur when employees are dissatisfied with management, are treated unfairly, are fired capriciously and arbitrarily, and do not buy into management's strategy (surprisingly, low pay is generally not a reason that people want to vote in a union). Treating employees with respect, and being consistent with ones words and actions as management, is the easiest way to avoid a union campaign. This is among the main reasons the Valley has stayed union free for so long.

Everything we have seen and heard about Tesla is that it's a great place to work, and does all of the "right" things for its employees. I expect that they have fairly low turnover, relative to many other similar workplaces. In those circumstances, most employees are going to wonder why they would benefit from paying union dues -- what exactly are they expecting to get from management with a (paid) third party representing them that they aren't getting today? Is there a cheaper alternative for them to pursue to get those things, and is it realistic that management would listen to them if they came forward with such requests? These are generally the issues that drive a union campaign, and I think Tesla is probably doing what it needs to from a management perspective to win such a campaign, if one were ever to occur.

2. It would be much better overall for the economy, and US society as a whole, if a much higher percentage of private sector employees were unionized.

Many of the arguments here, especially between the European model vs. US, have to do with policy issues around unionization as a whole. The percentage of unionized workers in the private sector in the US has steadily declined from the 1960s to today, and is now less than 10% (public sector unions are a completely different animal, as explained by many others before). This is one of many reasons that income inequality has risen dramatically in the US in the last thirty years. As a matter of public policy, it is hard to unionize and stay unionized, and individual employers would be foolish to willingly become union while their competitors in whatever industry they are in stay union free. However, if an entire industry is union, then that advantage disappears, and with all things being equal, we'd be better off as a society (and economy) as a whole if workers on the bottom rung of many industries were paid more and got better benefits such that they could spend more and drive our economy forward.

This is a tragedy of the commons situation, because no employer (or industry, for that matter) would or should voluntarily come forward to increase its costs and reduce its flexibility. But if it were to happen across the board, most companies could see the obvious advantage to the overall economy of having increased unionization throughout the country. Unfortunately, it is not remotely possible that the labor laws will change in the foreseeable future -- the unions made a fairly strong push in 2009 with overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made it much easier to unionize workplaces, and it never even got close to a vote. So we are now probably stuck where we are, but unionizing a relatively small employer like Tesla isn't going to change all of the societal issues with the loss of union jobs in the US, and I would strongly encourage Tesla to stay union free until/unless conditions change dramatically in the US in the next several years, and to continue to treat its employees as valuable resources and maintain an excellent and consistent corporate culture that encourage collaboration and collegiality such that there is no incentive for employees to seek third party representation.