6 ms·

I would love it if they unionize. The only thing I dislike is protecting the bad apples such as police union or teacher union style tenured. I feel like compa

I would love it if they unionize. The only thing I dislike is protecting the bad apples such as police union or teacher union style tenured. I feel like company HR aren't there for you but for the company and unions are there for you. I was in a situation were I was harass by my boss and HR was never there for me. After twice reporting, there was an incident where I decided I'm going to quit because I couldn't handle the harassment. This was in a gov agency mind you and I regret not joining a union. We also had an option to take out of our paycheck a monthly fee for legal advice and retainers. I got that option just cause I thought it was a nice security I really don't know why I would need it. It turns out these retainers cannot help you legally against your boss or company btw.

wmil 11y ago
I actually think the worst bad habit of unions is taking over managerial functions -- eg scheduling, vacations. It effectively turns the union into a subcontractor, and employees start needing a union to protect them from the union.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  This actually happened to us. We were unionized by the government, and they've taken over our vacation, fitness, and various other gift benefits, which they are slowly taking away from us (vacation just got nipped). Otherwise, they just take money from our paycheck and do nothing useful. I personally think something dodgy is going on, but you don't argue with the government.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    How can you be unionized by the government? That seems like a contradiction in terms to me...
    - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
      My world is full of contradictions. Well, the Chinese communist party, which is basically the government. All of us are supposed to be a part of a union; they let foreign tech companies slide for awhile but closed that loophole a couple of years ago. It is a trade union, but will "work closely with management to resolve any problems in a harmonious way." So not really what you would expect from a union in the west.
      - palmer_eldritch 11y ago
        > So not really what you would expect from a union in the west Oh, you know, these days in the West, the big unions are more partners with the governments/employers than they are on the side of the workers. Many unions have become tools that exists only to perpetuate their own existence, instead of being tools for workers to organize and collectively defend their interests against those of their employers and governments.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      It's a union busting strategy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union#China
  - omouse 11y ago
    That's the biggest problem; when your union caves into the government/corps demands then you get screwed and yet you're still forced to pay union dues and be a member of that union. All the major unions in Ontario (Canada) actually maintained a wage freeze and gave up some benefits and vacation because of financial issues in the government; the only unions that had wage increases were the police unions. On the other hand, my buddy who's a construction worker gets a decent wage and great benefits because of his union. The last time their union leaders tried to screw things up for them, the union workers went on strike against that leader. >Otherwise, they just take money from our paycheck and do nothing useful Yep, that's par for the course for most governments whether they're liberal or conservative :)
kelukelugames 11y ago
Just want to point out it's not a feeling. It's a fact that HR is there for the company and not you.
johnward 11y ago
"I feel like company HR aren't there for you" That's because HR literally exists to protect the company from you. You don't report serious issues to HR. You hire a lawyer.
- hwstar 11y ago
  Good luck with that unless California AB 465 passes and is signed by governor Brown and upheld in federal court. (Note: There is some concern AB 465 might not survive a federal court challenge as it might conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act). Most employers make binding arbitration a necessary condition of employment. Binding arbitration makes it almost impossible to win a case against an employer.
  - kelukelugames 11y ago
    Binding arbitration is not so binding especially in cases that violate federal law related to the EEOC or NLRB. I am in the middle of writing a post about this. Will share when done. I think HN really needs to learn employee rights.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I feel like company HR aren't there for you but for the company and unions are there for you. HR is paid by management to manage -- that is, assure that the company can get the most out of for the least cost -- the "human resources" of the company. Unions are paid by their members to assure that those members can get the most out of their employers for the least cost. From the employees point of view, it is quite literally true that HR is not there for you whereas unions are (or, more accurately, the union you are a member of, if any, is) there for you. > We also had an option to take out of our paycheck a monthly fee for legal advice and retainers. I got that option just cause I thought it was a nice security I really don't know why I would need it. It turns out these retainers cannot help you legally against your boss or company btw. Yeah, employer-arranged group legal services plans never cover any scenario where you are against your employer; they are something the company arranges so that employers can be less distracted from serving the company's interest by outside legal matters.
- rancur 11y ago
  I think if we could externalize the benefits of unions such that they don't protect the willfully lazy and don't hinder the brilliant, that might be the best of both worlds.
  - philwelch 11y ago
    But, like crdoconnor says, unions are an exercise in democracy--and the majority of the workforce are not brilliant.
    - rancur 11y ago
      never said democracy was good. A benevolent dictator externally motivated by serving his subjects is a much better government. for example, Jesus.
      - ectoplasm 11y ago
        I'll take democracy over religion any day.

wmil 11y ago

I actually think the worst bad habit of unions is taking over managerial functions -- eg scheduling, vacations. It effectively turns the union into a subcontractor, and employees start needing a union to protect them from the union.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
This actually happened to us. We were unionized by the government, and they've taken over our vacation, fitness, and various other gift benefits, which they are slowly taking away from us (vacation just got nipped). Otherwise, they just take money from our paycheck and do nothing useful. I personally think something dodgy is going on, but you don't argue with the government.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  How can you be unionized by the government? That seems like a contradiction in terms to me...
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    My world is full of contradictions. Well, the Chinese communist party, which is basically the government. All of us are supposed to be a part of a union; they let foreign tech companies slide for awhile but closed that loophole a couple of years ago. It is a trade union, but will "work closely with management to resolve any problems in a harmonious way." So not really what you would expect from a union in the west.
    - palmer_eldritch 11y ago
      > So not really what you would expect from a union in the west Oh, you know, these days in the West, the big unions are more partners with the governments/employers than they are on the side of the workers. Many unions have become tools that exists only to perpetuate their own existence, instead of being tools for workers to organize and collectively defend their interests against those of their employers and governments.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    It's a union busting strategy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union#China
- omouse 11y ago
  That's the biggest problem; when your union caves into the government/corps demands then you get screwed and yet you're still forced to pay union dues and be a member of that union. All the major unions in Ontario (Canada) actually maintained a wage freeze and gave up some benefits and vacation because of financial issues in the government; the only unions that had wage increases were the police unions. On the other hand, my buddy who's a construction worker gets a decent wage and great benefits because of his union. The last time their union leaders tried to screw things up for them, the union workers went on strike against that leader. >Otherwise, they just take money from our paycheck and do nothing useful Yep, that's par for the course for most governments whether they're liberal or conservative :)

kelukelugames 11y ago

Just want to point out it's not a feeling. It's a fact that HR is there for the company and not you.

johnward 11y ago

"I feel like company HR aren't there for you" That's because HR literally exists to protect the company from you. You don't report serious issues to HR. You hire a lawyer.

hwstar 11y ago
Good luck with that unless California AB 465 passes and is signed by governor Brown and upheld in federal court. (Note: There is some concern AB 465 might not survive a federal court challenge as it might conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act). Most employers make binding arbitration a necessary condition of employment. Binding arbitration makes it almost impossible to win a case against an employer.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Binding arbitration is not so binding especially in cases that violate federal law related to the EEOC or NLRB. I am in the middle of writing a post about this. Will share when done. I think HN really needs to learn employee rights.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> I feel like company HR aren't there for you but for the company and unions are there for you. HR is paid by management to manage -- that is, assure that the company can get the most out of for the least cost -- the "human resources" of the company. Unions are paid by their members to assure that those members can get the most out of their employers for the least cost. From the employees point of view, it is quite literally true that HR is not there for you whereas unions are (or, more accurately, the union you are a member of, if any, is) there for you. > We also had an option to take out of our paycheck a monthly fee for legal advice and retainers. I got that option just cause I thought it was a nice security I really don't know why I would need it. It turns out these retainers cannot help you legally against your boss or company btw. Yeah, employer-arranged group legal services plans never cover any scenario where you are against your employer; they are something the company arranges so that employers can be less distracted from serving the company's interest by outside legal matters.

rancur 11y ago
I think if we could externalize the benefits of unions such that they don't protect the willfully lazy and don't hinder the brilliant, that might be the best of both worlds.
- philwelch 11y ago
  But, like crdoconnor says, unions are an exercise in democracy--and the majority of the workforce are not brilliant.
  - rancur 11y ago
    never said democracy was good. A benevolent dictator externally motivated by serving his subjects is a much better government. for example, Jesus.
    - ectoplasm 11y ago
      I'll take democracy over religion any day.