5 ms·

How do unions work? Can an employer hire someone if they are not part of the union?

philipov 8y ago
Unions work by collectively bargaining with the employer to secure terms for the benefit of the group. The terms that get negotiated aren't set in stone: the point is to present a common front in the negotiations so that the employer can't use a divide and conquer strategy against the workers.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  The problem is you switch having almost no negotiating power against the employer as an individual... to having almost no negotiating power against the union as an individual. You're just trading masters and you don't get any more say. If you are young for example, and the union wants pay to be by seniority, then the union may be working against your interests and you could be better off negotiating with the company.
  - philipov 8y ago
    That is a more fundamental issue than whether or not you have Unions, and that's the out-of-control scaling of the economy. Companies have become so big that individuals are insignificant, period, outside of a few elites. If corporations were kept within healthy limits, unions wouldn't have to be equally huge to keep pace. The law of large numbers demands that individuals get reduced to statistics. Statistics get measured, they don't get to negotiate! Individual misery can be averaged entirely out of the picture. Unions are a response to a shitty situation, and they have flaws. Not having unions, in the face of dwindling individual share in a growing economy, that's even worse.
    - StillBored 8y ago
      Well that is the fault of the #1 union in the center of the north American continent... The US federal government, which is there to represent "We the People" not the corporations, or political parties, k-street lobbies, or any of that other nonsense.
      - philipov 8y ago
        I think you deeply misunderstand the way the US government functions. Let's start with: it's not a Trade Union. That's some audacious spin.
        StillBored 8y ago
        How it functions, or how its suppose to function, or rather how the elites want it to function? Or maybe its all nonsense because repeatedly people in the US have shown a susceptibility to propaganda and a willingness to vote against their own best interest? Or for that matter to vote for politicians that refuse to take stances which deviate from the party talking points.
        philipov 8y ago
        The way it actually functions is to reward those who are able to organize, and repeatedly that has been overwhelmingly those with money and resources to devote to such organization. That means wealthy elites and corporations, who have lobbyists and PR firms working for them. Individuals who are not able to organize at scale are not represented. The PR war against trade unions is part of the effort to suppress the influence of those lacking large bank accounts or leisure time.
        StillBored 8y ago
        To reply to the later bit about spin... Fundamentally, the us government is there to represent the interests of the citizens. Or if you go back far enough the states, which in turn are there for the citizens. Unless you buy into the idea that really the representative nature of the government is to represent the interests of the wealth elite and make it appear that the people have a say by electing their representatives. Something that I think the 17th amendment/etc tries to clear up... Labor unions are there to represent the interests of labor. Given that the majority of voting age people in the us, fall into the labor category there is a fairly large crossover of common interests between labor unions and general government when it comes to economic issues.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    That's not how it works for actors, though...
HillRat 8y ago
In Hollywood that’s ... complex. There’s nothing stopping you from filming a production with non-IATSE (or any other union) labor, but you wouldn’t be able to get union labor or “above the line” union talent (actors, writers, directors, etc). (In practice, it’s not quite that simple, especially given the ubiquity of international shoots and that many indie filmmakers see even the ultra-low budget SAG-AFTRA sheets as unrealistic, but the basic rule holds.) So, in the video game industry a “global rule one” scenario would see a nonconforming studio unable to hire experienced and unionized programmers, artists, QA, or even SAG-AFTRA actors or AFM musicians. This wouldn’t be so much an issue for indie developers, but it would do a number on studios who depend on high-profile vocal talent as well as experienced developers, let alone tie-in games that trade on actors’ likenesses.
- StillBored 8y ago
  Given the voice talent, maybe the key to this is to get the core artists accepted by the IATSE, or some kind of subunion. That said, its really hard to imagine any union growth given 27 states in the US have right to work laws (aka right-to-get-laid-off laws). Meaning companies will be free to have layoffs like this independent of union wishes to negotiate such actions.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    Companies should be able to freely lay off people independent of what a Union wishes. The other members of the union should just show solidarity and threaten to quit/protest if a company does that.
- hippich 8y ago
  So from reading it appears that there are a lot of folks who want to work for a game company, but they are not considered precious, because there are so many of them (this totally baffles me as what I saw in game dev was really hard). But on the other hand, if you standout somehow (experienced?) - you would not face such issue. So why employer would employ "commodity devs" who are part of the union, and why devs, who standout and have a leverage would option to join union?
cladari 8y ago
You may have heard the term Right to Work state. This is the situation it covers. In a rtw state an employee doesn't have to join the union to work, in a non rtw state you have what are called closed shops. You can't work there without joining the union.
ionised 8y ago
That depends entirely on the union. There are a multitude of ways to organise and run a union.

Unions work by collectively bargaining with the employer to secure terms for the benefit of the group. The terms that get negotiated aren't set in stone: the point is to present a common front in the negotiations so that the employer can't use a divide and conquer strategy against the workers.

chrisseaton 8y ago
The problem is you switch having almost no negotiating power against the employer as an individual... to having almost no negotiating power against the union as an individual. You're just trading masters and you don't get any more say. If you are young for example, and the union wants pay to be by seniority, then the union may be working against your interests and you could be better off negotiating with the company.
- philipov 8y ago
  That is a more fundamental issue than whether or not you have Unions, and that's the out-of-control scaling of the economy. Companies have become so big that individuals are insignificant, period, outside of a few elites. If corporations were kept within healthy limits, unions wouldn't have to be equally huge to keep pace. The law of large numbers demands that individuals get reduced to statistics. Statistics get measured, they don't get to negotiate! Individual misery can be averaged entirely out of the picture. Unions are a response to a shitty situation, and they have flaws. Not having unions, in the face of dwindling individual share in a growing economy, that's even worse.
  - StillBored 8y ago
    Well that is the fault of the #1 union in the center of the north American continent... The US federal government, which is there to represent "We the People" not the corporations, or political parties, k-street lobbies, or any of that other nonsense.
    - philipov 8y ago
      I think you deeply misunderstand the way the US government functions. Let's start with: it's not a Trade Union. That's some audacious spin.
      - StillBored 8y ago
        How it functions, or how its suppose to function, or rather how the elites want it to function? Or maybe its all nonsense because repeatedly people in the US have shown a susceptibility to propaganda and a willingness to vote against their own best interest? Or for that matter to vote for politicians that refuse to take stances which deviate from the party talking points.
        philipov 8y ago
        The way it actually functions is to reward those who are able to organize, and repeatedly that has been overwhelmingly those with money and resources to devote to such organization. That means wealthy elites and corporations, who have lobbyists and PR firms working for them. Individuals who are not able to organize at scale are not represented. The PR war against trade unions is part of the effort to suppress the influence of those lacking large bank accounts or leisure time.
      - StillBored 8y ago
        To reply to the later bit about spin... Fundamentally, the us government is there to represent the interests of the citizens. Or if you go back far enough the states, which in turn are there for the citizens. Unless you buy into the idea that really the representative nature of the government is to represent the interests of the wealth elite and make it appear that the people have a say by electing their representatives. Something that I think the 17th amendment/etc tries to clear up... Labor unions are there to represent the interests of labor. Given that the majority of voting age people in the us, fall into the labor category there is a fairly large crossover of common interests between labor unions and general government when it comes to economic issues.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  That's not how it works for actors, though...

HillRat 8y ago

In Hollywood that’s ... complex. There’s nothing stopping you from filming a production with non-IATSE (or any other union) labor, but you wouldn’t be able to get union labor or “above the line” union talent (actors, writers, directors, etc). (In practice, it’s not quite that simple, especially given the ubiquity of international shoots and that many indie filmmakers see even the ultra-low budget SAG-AFTRA sheets as unrealistic, but the basic rule holds.) So, in the video game industry a “global rule one” scenario would see a nonconforming studio unable to hire experienced and unionized programmers, artists, QA, or even SAG-AFTRA actors or AFM musicians. This wouldn’t be so much an issue for indie developers, but it would do a number on studios who depend on high-profile vocal talent as well as experienced developers, let alone tie-in games that trade on actors’ likenesses.

StillBored 8y ago
Given the voice talent, maybe the key to this is to get the core artists accepted by the IATSE, or some kind of subunion. That said, its really hard to imagine any union growth given 27 states in the US have right to work laws (aka right-to-get-laid-off laws). Meaning companies will be free to have layoffs like this independent of union wishes to negotiate such actions.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Companies should be able to freely lay off people independent of what a Union wishes. The other members of the union should just show solidarity and threaten to quit/protest if a company does that.
hippich 8y ago
So from reading it appears that there are a lot of folks who want to work for a game company, but they are not considered precious, because there are so many of them (this totally baffles me as what I saw in game dev was really hard). But on the other hand, if you standout somehow (experienced?) - you would not face such issue. So why employer would employ "commodity devs" who are part of the union, and why devs, who standout and have a leverage would option to join union?

cladari 8y ago

You may have heard the term Right to Work state. This is the situation it covers. In a rtw state an employee doesn't have to join the union to work, in a non rtw state you have what are called closed shops. You can't work there without joining the union.

ionised 8y ago

That depends entirely on the union. There are a multitude of ways to organise and run a union.