3 ms·

I always saw unions as protecting employees from abusive employers. In fact, the old rail road construction workers are exactly what it makes me think of. Those

by SEJeff 11y ago

I always saw unions as protecting employees from abusive employers. In fact, the old rail road construction workers are exactly what it makes me think of. Those workers didn't have many other options for work and the employers were blatantly exploiting them. For them, a union made tons of sense. On the other hand, most tech companies aren't really that abusive, or they won't retain talent for super long (see the recent NYT hatchet job on Amazon as an example). Given that so many tech companies in the U.S. Are "at will" employment, there aren't many perceived benefits of a union that I can actually think of. The downside would obviously be that new employees would be forced to pay union dues whether or not they wanted to join. It seems to me that due to there being more employment opportunities for what I do than there are people, I've got the most power, not the employer. If that previous statement is true, I simply see no benefit of organizing into a union. Gone are the days (for the most part) where you slog it out for 30 years at the same employer and get a pension for life. On the flip side, the mean salary is MUCH higher, so if you're living below your means and save, you have the potential to end up better than your parent's generation with their pensions. Just my opinion. I would never join a tech workers union unless I was at an abusive company. However, an abusive company isn't a place I'd stay at.

hwstar 11y ago
At-will employment is more of an advantage for the employer than the employee. The employer is in a position of strength in and at-will arrangement. Yes, the employee can quit at any time, but the employee usually very dependent on getting paid, and will not quit unless the employment relationship is really bad. At-will employment allows the employer to terminate the employment relationship for any reason whatsoever (with a few exceptions which vary from state to state). Unions and most other developed countries in the world use the doctrine of "Just-cause". Just cause limits termination of employment by the employer to non-nebulous things like non-performance, breaking the law, policy violations, and business conditions. The employee is still free to terminate the relationship at any time. This is a fair balance because the employer is in the position of strength and has the upper hand in most instances. Unions do have issues. It would be better if the US harmonized its employment law with the rest of the developed world.

by SEJeff 11y ago

hwstar 11y ago

At-will employment is more of an advantage for the employer than the employee. The employer is in a position of strength in and at-will arrangement. Yes, the employee can quit at any time, but the employee usually very dependent on getting paid, and will not quit unless the employment relationship is really bad. At-will employment allows the employer to terminate the employment relationship for any reason whatsoever (with a few exceptions which vary from state to state). Unions and most other developed countries in the world use the doctrine of "Just-cause". Just cause limits termination of employment by the employer to non-nebulous things like non-performance, breaking the law, policy violations, and business conditions. The employee is still free to terminate the relationship at any time. This is a fair balance because the employer is in the position of strength and has the upper hand in most instances. Unions do have issues. It would be better if the US harmonized its employment law with the rest of the developed world.