Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.
In sectoral bargaining, unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts representing corporations. When nobody gets competitive edge over others, there is less downside for agreeing.
For example, the ILWU union allows its members to give their position to their children as an inheritance. It's literally a mafia ("family").
And of course, any random Joe can't just apply for a job with the ILWU. In rare cases where positions become available, they conduct a lottery.
The end result is that the ILWU-controlled ports are competing with each other for the coveted last place in the global Port Performance Index. Right now, it's held by the LA ports.
One example I especially like to use is how agricultural workers are somehow not deserving of the same minimum wage as others. Even in the progressive states. Surely, it could not have anything to do with the workers mostly being poorer immigrants from a certain region.
My negative opinion of a union came from my own direct experience as being part of a mega-union that crossed multiple industries. The structure of the union was such that they were so divorced from the actual work being done that they could not possibly help us. Advancement meant playing the union political game, and not being good at your job. They were a constant thorn in all of our sides. I try to limit my disdain to that union in particular (not all unions are like this). But your comment dismissing concerns such as these fault of the business sound incredibly tone deaf. And as a result will not lead to a positive opinion of unions in America.
Systemic and institutional reasons are more important than individuals.Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.
All across the US, if you are younger, you likely get less compensation than if you are older. Older union members vote for higher compensation for themselves and reduced compensation for young and future union members, since they cannot vote. For example, if you look up collective bargaining agreements, you will often see tier 1 benefits for employees hired before year x, tier 2 benefits for before year y, and tier 3 benefits for after year y, etc.
A similar dynamic plays out with taxpayer funded benefits and older voters vs younger voters.
The US has an “Additional Medicare Tax”, to help pay for healthcare for older people. But there is no “Additional Medicaid Tax”, to help pay for healthcare for poorer/younger people.
I suppose they will always hide behind “competitive” edge. The more naked truth seems to be that between the stakeholders of the CEO+board of directors v.s. workers—avoiding the nebolous “company interest”—there is always inherently a zero sum game. Like one of the automative CEOs in the US who boasted about how she was paid according to her performance—her performance being, among other things, directly related to how low she could keep wages for the rank and file.
This is how companies treat enterprise bargaining. It is rarely true.
Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours.
But executives/corporations don't see it this way - they see this all of this as a power game, and every union demand they agree to is a fight lost.
In cases where this is actually true, the company would be offering these things of its own volition -- as happens in many industries without unions. So then what would you need the union for?
You could obviously have poorly managed companies that get this wrong, but then they would be at a competitive disadvantage in the market.
Where this more often doesn't happen is in the places where it isn't true. There are some jobs where worker productivity isn't that salient -- or is only relevant to the extent that it allows the company to employ fewer people, which is the sort of thing a union would then try to prevent.
That's assuming the company/industry doesn't have competitors in other countries.
Except for, ostensibly, employee satisfaction and quality of life?
