7 ms·

> Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that. I see it everywhere, this weir

> Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that. I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty." Unions are a tool. That tool can be misused! But it can also be used well for great effect. Sorry your union isn't working well for you.

oh_sigh 8y ago
You're recommending everyone unionize, even though some unions are shitty and may end up being a net negative for people. But, aren't some businesses or sectors not shitty? Why unionize in nonshitty sectors or businesses?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dmazin 8y ago
  It seems prudent to unionize and protect yourself while the business/sector is employee-friendly rather than have to unionize if the employer is taken over etc.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  Unionizing in a non-shitty sector will give the workers a way to help ensure that the sector continues to not be shitty, both by maintaining a baseline for what a union shop looks like, and by contributing money to politicians who will work to pass laws that help keep the sector free of shittiness.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    But the sector is already doing a good job of being non-shitty without a union. And what about the case where you're in a non-shitty sector, but end up with a shitty union, resulting in a net negative for the employees? Do you just say "Oh well, it was for the greater good. Someone else somewhere has a union which is non-shitty, just in case some day the sector becomes antagonistic with employees"?
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      Isn’t the whole point of the OP about how shitty the video game sector is
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        OP is saying that they don't understand why any workers would not unionize, not just workers in the video game industry.
  - mac01021 8y ago
    You can always unionize later. Ununionizing might be a much bigger challenge.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > You can always unionize later. Ununionizing might be a much bigger challenge. Deauthorization of a union is much more difficult than forming a union in the first place. It is very difficult to obtain sufficient support for deauthorization without the union leadership hearing about it, at which point they can usually find sufficient reason to expel the member from the union. If there is an exclusive contract with the employer (which is usually the case in the US), this may result in the employee's termination. Even if there is enough support for deauthorization to require an election, the NLRB has the authority to overturn the results of the election, and it has historically wielded this power quite generously in favor of the union.
fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
What assurances do i have that the tool you are offering me is a good tool and not a bad one?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- asdff 8y ago
  Your due diligence to research and drive change if needed.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    Why do I have to do due diligence and drive change for something I don't want or need in the first place?
    - pimmen 8y ago
      You're already prefacing that you don't need unions, it's impossible to argue against that. If you don't need or want a union membership, don't get one, nobody is saying anything else. The argument is that you will know whether or not the tool is useful if you do some research. I posit that if the market of the labor you're offering isn't very advantageous to you anymore, and if you're being mistreated by an employer when you're in a position where you can't use your financial means or time to fight back for whatever reasons, you will feel the need of someone else to fight for you because you can't just find an employer that will shower you with money two blocks away. And when I say "mistreated" I mean that everything you are entitled to in your contract is not something you can count on, so no severance, and when I say you're not in a financial position to fight back I mean that you don't have the means or the time to sue, even if you're 100% in the clear legally. If you believe that will never happen, you're likely correct. I don't think my apartment will be on fire without me noticing too, it's a very low risk of that ever happening in my life, but I still want a smoke detector. I just can't take the risk. Same thing with union membership for me, I can't take the risk of being treated the same way my ex-wife was treated when she was simultaneously struggling with depression (and wouldn't have gotten anything she was entitled to from her employer during her medical leave if someone else hadn't fought for her).
darawk 8y ago
> I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty." Yes, but some things have structural properties that lead to shittiness. Some would argue that unions have this property.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  What are the structural problems that would cause unions to be inherently bad?
cgriswald 8y ago
The fact that "shitty unions are shitty" implies that unions represent both cost and risk that must be weighed against current and potential future states-of-affair. Those who have experienced the downsides of those costs and risks are informed by those experiences and unsurprisingly more likely to be cautious about unions in the future.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Their feedback is desirable because again, they can help others build better unions. A 2.0 version, if you will.
  - docker_up 8y ago
    The people high up on the union food chain have no desire to fix a broken system. Just like any other system.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      That assumes that new unions cannot be created, which is like assuming that new startups cannot be created.
      - maxk42 8y ago
        You're assuming a new union would be immune to the same fate. You can be as clever as you like but all systems are exploitable.
        Apocryphon 8y ago
        I would expect a new union to design around some of the pitfalls that have affected unions past. Your general attitude sounds defeatist and strange on a community that is all about improving from past mistakes and learning to build better systems by breaking existing ones.
- hoaw 8y ago
el_cujo 8y ago
The poster responded to someone saying “why would anyone not want to unionize” by saying “some unions are shitty”, is that not reasonable? They aren’t even saying it’s a good reason, but a lot of people seem to have this idealistic view of unions and I do think it is healthy to keep in mind that this isn’t the case, just wanting to unionize and handing the reigns over to people who are lazy or greedy can leave you with labor problems AND a bite from your paycheck.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Then isn’t the solution to design and build better unions, not reject the concept entirely?
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    Designing and building better governance bodies by a democratic process is hard. Very hard. And may be even impossible depending on the people under its governance.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      And yet, is tech not about solving hard problems? Isn’t the supposed vision of this industry to make the world a better place?
      - marcosdumay 8y ago
        Indeed we should try to solve the problem. Tech is already helping (things are much better than just a decade ago), and there are plenty more opportunities to help. But I'll stick with my point. Creating an union right now is not completely safe, so there are reasons to be wary of people proposing them, and to debate the details. There is even reason to not create one if the details are not right.

oh_sigh 8y ago

You're recommending everyone unionize, even though some unions are shitty and may end up being a net negative for people. But, aren't some businesses or sectors not shitty? Why unionize in nonshitty sectors or businesses?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dmazin 8y ago
It seems prudent to unionize and protect yourself while the business/sector is employee-friendly rather than have to unionize if the employer is taken over etc.
egypturnash 8y ago
Unionizing in a non-shitty sector will give the workers a way to help ensure that the sector continues to not be shitty, both by maintaining a baseline for what a union shop looks like, and by contributing money to politicians who will work to pass laws that help keep the sector free of shittiness.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  But the sector is already doing a good job of being non-shitty without a union. And what about the case where you're in a non-shitty sector, but end up with a shitty union, resulting in a net negative for the employees? Do you just say "Oh well, it was for the greater good. Someone else somewhere has a union which is non-shitty, just in case some day the sector becomes antagonistic with employees"?
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    Isn’t the whole point of the OP about how shitty the video game sector is
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      OP is saying that they don't understand why any workers would not unionize, not just workers in the video game industry.
- mac01021 8y ago
  You can always unionize later. Ununionizing might be a much bigger challenge.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > You can always unionize later. Ununionizing might be a much bigger challenge. Deauthorization of a union is much more difficult than forming a union in the first place. It is very difficult to obtain sufficient support for deauthorization without the union leadership hearing about it, at which point they can usually find sufficient reason to expel the member from the union. If there is an exclusive contract with the employer (which is usually the case in the US), this may result in the employee's termination. Even if there is enough support for deauthorization to require an election, the NLRB has the authority to overturn the results of the election, and it has historically wielded this power quite generously in favor of the union.

fuzz4lyfe 8y ago

What assurances do i have that the tool you are offering me is a good tool and not a bad one?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
asdff 8y ago
Your due diligence to research and drive change if needed.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  Why do I have to do due diligence and drive change for something I don't want or need in the first place?
  - pimmen 8y ago
    You're already prefacing that you don't need unions, it's impossible to argue against that. If you don't need or want a union membership, don't get one, nobody is saying anything else. The argument is that you will know whether or not the tool is useful if you do some research. I posit that if the market of the labor you're offering isn't very advantageous to you anymore, and if you're being mistreated by an employer when you're in a position where you can't use your financial means or time to fight back for whatever reasons, you will feel the need of someone else to fight for you because you can't just find an employer that will shower you with money two blocks away. And when I say "mistreated" I mean that everything you are entitled to in your contract is not something you can count on, so no severance, and when I say you're not in a financial position to fight back I mean that you don't have the means or the time to sue, even if you're 100% in the clear legally. If you believe that will never happen, you're likely correct. I don't think my apartment will be on fire without me noticing too, it's a very low risk of that ever happening in my life, but I still want a smoke detector. I just can't take the risk. Same thing with union membership for me, I can't take the risk of being treated the same way my ex-wife was treated when she was simultaneously struggling with depression (and wouldn't have gotten anything she was entitled to from her employer during her medical leave if someone else hadn't fought for her).

darawk 8y ago

> I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty." Yes, but some things have structural properties that lead to shittiness. Some would argue that unions have this property.

Apocryphon 8y ago
What are the structural problems that would cause unions to be inherently bad?

cgriswald 8y ago

The fact that "shitty unions are shitty" implies that unions represent both cost and risk that must be weighed against current and potential future states-of-affair. Those who have experienced the downsides of those costs and risks are informed by those experiences and unsurprisingly more likely to be cautious about unions in the future.

Apocryphon 8y ago
Their feedback is desirable because again, they can help others build better unions. A 2.0 version, if you will.
- docker_up 8y ago
  The people high up on the union food chain have no desire to fix a broken system. Just like any other system.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    That assumes that new unions cannot be created, which is like assuming that new startups cannot be created.
    - maxk42 8y ago
      You're assuming a new union would be immune to the same fate. You can be as clever as you like but all systems are exploitable.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        I would expect a new union to design around some of the pitfalls that have affected unions past. Your general attitude sounds defeatist and strange on a community that is all about improving from past mistakes and learning to build better systems by breaking existing ones.
hoaw 8y ago

el_cujo 8y ago

The poster responded to someone saying “why would anyone not want to unionize” by saying “some unions are shitty”, is that not reasonable? They aren’t even saying it’s a good reason, but a lot of people seem to have this idealistic view of unions and I do think it is healthy to keep in mind that this isn’t the case, just wanting to unionize and handing the reigns over to people who are lazy or greedy can leave you with labor problems AND a bite from your paycheck.

Apocryphon 8y ago
Then isn’t the solution to design and build better unions, not reject the concept entirely?
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  Designing and building better governance bodies by a democratic process is hard. Very hard. And may be even impossible depending on the people under its governance.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    And yet, is tech not about solving hard problems? Isn’t the supposed vision of this industry to make the world a better place?
    - marcosdumay 8y ago
      Indeed we should try to solve the problem. Tech is already helping (things are much better than just a decade ago), and there are plenty more opportunities to help. But I'll stick with my point. Creating an union right now is not completely safe, so there are reasons to be wary of people proposing them, and to debate the details. There is even reason to not create one if the details are not right.