10 ms·

I wish them well, but having family members and friends work in unionized workplaces, it's not something I would ever do. It always seems to degenerate into an

I wish them well, but having family members and friends work in unionized workplaces, it's not something I would ever do. It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? You also end up with this 3rd party involved in everything, creating all kinds of "rules" to make things "fair". Want to go on vacation? To make things "fair", the most senior people get to pick their times first, and the new guys get the not-so-good times. Don't care about the union's bullshit "industrial action" and just want to work and earn some money? Get used to being called a "scab". You get the point - it becomes more about knuckling under to what the union wants than getting work done or having a career.

minikites 8y ago
>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? Every workplace is adversarial, it's you versus the C-suite who profit from the surplus value created by your labor. A union just evens out the bargaining power between you and them.
- ticmasta 8y ago
  >> A union just evens out the bargaining power between you and them. What if you're better than the majority of "us". I can negotiate a better deal for myself than they can get or justify; now I subsidize the group for "the greater good". This is not why unions where created. They were to address the monopoly of power when all employees could offer was their labour. This is definitely not the case in the western white-collar labour market.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Hollywood unions set wage and salary floors and generally focus on work-place conditions. Individuals are allowed to and encouraged to negotiate their salaries above that floor if they're talented enough to have the market power to do so. Programmer unions could copy the Hollywood model--salary floors, with no caps on salary negotiated by so-called "superstar" programmers.
    - fastball 8y ago
      I'm still paying Union dues for a floor I don't come near.
      - dlp211 8y ago
        Unions are not just about wages. They give you an advocate in cases where you would otherwise be on your own.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        Unions also negotiate workplace conditions, like no unpaid on-call duty, guaranteed vacations, etc. Many talent-based unions also provide (optional) retirement funds or health benefits so that members aren't tied to a single employer solely for healthcare.
  - moate 8y ago
    >>What if you're better than the majority of "us". I can negotiate a better deal for myself than they can get or justify; now I subsidize the group for "the greater good". Yes. This is also how insurance works. Also, statistically speaking, most people aren't better than the majority. The union then yolks the top half to make things better for the majority. People see this as unfair because they think they somehow got to be better than the majority solely by themselves and with no gains provided by others in their field. This is a way to help your sector directly. Also, a rising tide lifts all ships, so it's also possible that you earn more in the union model than when employees were pitted against each other. Less money goes to share prices, sucks for them. There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. I would argue that unions aren't as common in the white collar sector because most office workers don't fully understand the unions because they're 2+ generations removed from someone who may have been involved in one.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Even if capital's share of income is increasing (I believe it has increased slightly), it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogenous mass, and gives it a greater share of income, will do anything but increase distortions being imposed on the economy. Interventions need to be more intelligently formulated and targeted than what the simplistic ideological narratives promoted by rent-seeking labor unions advocate.
      - moate 8y ago
        >>As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Such as? >>What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create. Capitalism is based on the idea that this has to happen in order for a business to function. I don't believe this to be the only way. >>it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogeneous mass That does't tend to be how unions work. Some go with specific rates based on seniority, some simply require wage floors or ranges based on title. Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc). Unions are only a blunt tool if you let them be. Collective bargaining is only bad if you feel you're the specialist exceptional boy, which Western culture encourages but statistics point out are rare.
- alasdair_ 8y ago
  >Every workplace is adversarial, it's you versus the C-suite who profit from the surplus value created by your labor. A union just evens out the bargaining power between you and them. I guess it depends on the equity split. Very early engineers with, say 0.1% vested of a unicorn still feel like owners to me, in addition to being workers.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    So you're saying that workers are better off when they are also owners? Interesting idea.
    - solidasparagus 8y ago
      Every software company I've heard of in the US offers equity...
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        Maybe if you only pay attention to tiny startups. It's extremely rare to get equity at an established business.
navigatesol 8y ago
>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? Have you considered that the adversarial workplace is the reason for unionizing in the first place?
- umvi 8y ago
  Or it's just a symptom of the Shirky Principle: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution." Even if the workplace is not adversarial, any union will try to preserve the conditions that necessitate its continued existence. No union ever said "Wow, this new CEO and management are super fair and reasonable. We are no longer necessary, let's dissolve and let them take the reigns."
  - minikites 8y ago
    >No union ever said "Wow, this new CEO and management are super fair and reasonable. We are no longer necessary, let's dissolve and let them take the reigns." Name a company with a CEO and management who are super fair and reasonable (e.g. paying employees the full value of their labor instead of profiting from the surplus value created by the employee)
    - lsaferite 8y ago
      > instead of profiting from the surplus value created by the employee Why wouldn't the employee work for themselves if they expect the full surplus of their value to go to them? I mean, it's not like the company is a charity, right? It's designed to be profitable for it's owners.
      - minikites 8y ago
        Because people aren't the perfectly rational automatons portrayed in most economics lessons, which has implications for both adversaries.
    - 8y ago
Nikkau 8y ago
> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them"
- scotch_drinker 8y ago
  I think this is important. The OP seems to think that management is totally open to just being fair and inclusive with individual employees but that the situation becomes too polarized when a union is implemented. This ignores the fact that it's in management's favor to keep people isolated and unaware of other employees issues. No matter how great your workplace is, it's already us vs them whether you want to admit it or not. That's the nature of the beast.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  And a clear downgrade from "us and them vs our actual competition"
  - Retra 8y ago
    Whose competition? Other companies are not employee's competition, they are potential places to work. They only compete with the company, not the employees.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Kickstarter's prime competition is Indiegogo. Kickstarter employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize, IMO. (The same is true for Kickstarter leadership, of course.)
      - dagw 8y ago
        employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize Suboptimize what? By what metrics? And why are those the primary metrics I should be using to make extremely important life choices?
root_axis 8y ago
This is senior engineer privilege speaking. A union seems strictly worse when dozens of companies are falling over themselves to pay you in the 90th percentile income bracket.
- scrumbledober 8y ago
  I see no reason for any workforces at any of the companies I have worked for as a developer to unionize. In my short career before that, however, I thought it would be very helpful for the valet company I worked at to unionize.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    I certainly have. They were mostly the places where if you weren't perceived as the type who is willing to stay till 8PM a few nights a week peppered with the occasional weekend PR, you were relegated to the "poor work ethic" caste. Unions aren't perfect, but they certainly stomp out this type of abuse and force the company to either hire more people or pay fairer wages.
    - fastball 8y ago
      You're a senior developer and you don't think you're getting paid a fair wage? Ok...
      - root_axis 8y ago
        Huh? I never said that... Are you replying to the correct comment?
      - dlp211 8y ago
        Fair != Good. Fair wages for a given position and circumstance can be anywhere on the spectrum of compensation. I currently wish I had a union because I think I was unfairly evaluated in my current perf cycle, but there is no one to appeal my argument to which includes significant positive peer and managerial feedback. What I currently make has no impact on that.
49531 8y ago
That weird "us vs them" sort of thing is called class consciousness. The adversarial nature exists whether you're conscious of it or not.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  Exactly! Always be suspicious of calls for unity, many times they only serve to paper over divisions which should be addressed and will continue to exist regardless of whether discussion is silenced. I liken this to undeveloped understandings of interpersonal relationships. One is given the impression early in life that all disagreements are bad and must be avoided. This can manifest in pathological conflict avoidance, ending in a blowup. Healthy relationships require explicit communication and prompt discussion of problems, which we can safely assume will inevitably occur. The relationship between you and your employer is not one of family, and if you think of it that way you're setting yourself up for a rude awakening when the layoffs flow.
  - 49531 8y ago
    Yup, families don't downsize when things get hard. It's materially profitable for employers to attempt to erase class consciousness as much as possible, to the detriment of the workers.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  That weird "us vs them" sort of thing is called class consciousness. Both terms are just other ways of saying "groupthink."
moate 8y ago
>>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" Because it literally is after companies become a certain size. You have a small start up of 3-10 people, you might all be friends and working together for the betterment of the whole. You get past that size, and hierarchy happens. And then it is labor vs management. This doesn't mean that the goals can't align, but there are key points where they don't. You think you're special and better than someone else, so you should get to pick whatever time off you want. The union doesn't care and has to create some version of fair because it represents several other people. If you work in a union company without being a part of the union, you're actively undermining the union's ability to assist it's members, and being called a scab is the price you have to pay. You don't seem to understand what the value is that a union provides. They're not perfect. There will again be places where the needs/goals of a single individual will be at odds with the needs/goals of the union. This doesn't make them a net negative. You keep believing in your exceptional nature, that you're better than average and therefor would be dragged down by the (hypothetical) union. Statistically speaking, you're probably wrong.
paulcole 8y ago
> Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? If you're like the vast majority of people working here you get paid a shitload of money and other benefits and have your pick of where to work. Unionized employees often work in fields that aren't quite so rosy.
Dig1t 8y ago
Having worked in a unionized industry before, I completely agree with this. I was so confused and annoyed when I learned that I wasn't allowed to work at this place unless I consented to giving money from every paycheck to a group of people that basically never did anything for me, were impossible to get a hold of, and just generally complacent.
- naravara 8y ago
  >I was so confused and annoyed when I learned that I wasn't allowed to work at this place unless I consented to giving money from every paycheck to a group of people that basically never did anything for me, were impossible to get a hold of, and just generally complacent. Would you have preferred it if that money was never in your paycheck in the first place?
- Frondo 8y ago
  > basically never did anything for me Who can say what workers' conditions were like before the union existed? Without knowing the industry, it's hard to say that they did nothing for you, but knowing capitalists and owners in general, it's really hard to say they did nothing for you.
stcredzero 8y ago
I wish them well, but having family members and friends work in unionized workplaces, it's not something I would ever do. It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Even before this news, half a year ago, I pegged Kickstarter as a company ridden with "ideological possession." The clock is ticking, as far as I can tell.
anth_anm 8y ago
> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing It is "us vs them". They just apparently understand that a lot better than you. > Don't care about the union's bullshit "industrial action" and just want to work and earn some money? Get used to being called a "scab". If all that's happening is you get called a scab then count yourself lucky. That's a sign that things aren't that bad yet.
bsanr2 8y ago
>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? This is akin to criticizing a black protestor for "bringing up race." (And the Award for Thread's Most Inflammatory Analogy goes to...)
Rebelgecko 8y ago
I think it depends on how heavy handed the union is. I've never not been able to take vacation when I wanted to. Theoretically it could be denied if I didn't give enough advance notice, but that has never happened. It doesn't seem any more or less adversarial than a company where you're entirely at the mercy of your management.
drugme 8y ago
It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? Maybe because the employer... made things "adversarial" by creating unhealthy / untenable / inadequately compensated working conditions in the first place? You also end up with this 3rd party involved in everything, creating all kinds of "rules" to make things "fair". If that's your concern, then the solution -- the only solution -- is to provide attractive (or at least reasonable) enough working conditions so that your employees don't even think of unionizing. As if they're just doing it because they're bored and have some unconscious desire for more complication in their lives or something. The implicit message behind your critique is that employees who seek to unionize must be basically kind of stupid for not seeing the downsides to going the unionization route. When in reality... it's just a tradeoff. And a tradeoff they see little resource but to take, in view of the unreasonable working conditions (and essentially, if-you-don't-like-it-then-go-fuck-yourselves) negotiating stances taken by their employers.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  There are lots of reasons people may think unionizing is a good idea. Maybe they think the grass will be greener. Maybe they think it will get the man off their back. Maybe they think they're engaged in some sort of class warfare, and this is their duty. Maybe they are people who focus on what they don't have instead of what they do have. All I know from friends/family is all a union does is put another group of people over you to tell you what to do. Only, these guys don't really have anything to do with the business. Their interests are not aligned with the business or even with yours. As time goes by, they just use their position to further their own other interests and power. These are the lessons we already learned about unions, and why they're so unpopular these days.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    > All I know from friends/family is all a union does is put another group of people over you to tell you what to do… Their interests are not aligned with the business or even with yours. Your employer is already a group of people over you who tell you what to do, whose interests are definitely not aligned with yours. At least your union is ostensibly on your side; your employer is incentivized to wring as much out of you as they can, for as little as they can.

minikites 8y ago

>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? Every workplace is adversarial, it's you versus the C-suite who profit from the surplus value created by your labor. A union just evens out the bargaining power between you and them.

ticmasta 8y ago
>> A union just evens out the bargaining power between you and them. What if you're better than the majority of "us". I can negotiate a better deal for myself than they can get or justify; now I subsidize the group for "the greater good". This is not why unions where created. They were to address the monopoly of power when all employees could offer was their labour. This is definitely not the case in the western white-collar labour market.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Hollywood unions set wage and salary floors and generally focus on work-place conditions. Individuals are allowed to and encouraged to negotiate their salaries above that floor if they're talented enough to have the market power to do so. Programmer unions could copy the Hollywood model--salary floors, with no caps on salary negotiated by so-called "superstar" programmers.
  - fastball 8y ago
    I'm still paying Union dues for a floor I don't come near.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      Unions are not just about wages. They give you an advocate in cases where you would otherwise be on your own.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      Unions also negotiate workplace conditions, like no unpaid on-call duty, guaranteed vacations, etc. Many talent-based unions also provide (optional) retirement funds or health benefits so that members aren't tied to a single employer solely for healthcare.
- moate 8y ago
  >>What if you're better than the majority of "us". I can negotiate a better deal for myself than they can get or justify; now I subsidize the group for "the greater good". Yes. This is also how insurance works. Also, statistically speaking, most people aren't better than the majority. The union then yolks the top half to make things better for the majority. People see this as unfair because they think they somehow got to be better than the majority solely by themselves and with no gains provided by others in their field. This is a way to help your sector directly. Also, a rising tide lifts all ships, so it's also possible that you earn more in the union model than when employees were pitted against each other. Less money goes to share prices, sucks for them. There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. I would argue that unions aren't as common in the white collar sector because most office workers don't fully understand the unions because they're 2+ generations removed from someone who may have been involved in one.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Even if capital's share of income is increasing (I believe it has increased slightly), it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogenous mass, and gives it a greater share of income, will do anything but increase distortions being imposed on the economy. Interventions need to be more intelligently formulated and targeted than what the simplistic ideological narratives promoted by rent-seeking labor unions advocate.
    - moate 8y ago
      >>As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Such as? >>What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create. Capitalism is based on the idea that this has to happen in order for a business to function. I don't believe this to be the only way. >>it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogeneous mass That does't tend to be how unions work. Some go with specific rates based on seniority, some simply require wage floors or ranges based on title. Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc). Unions are only a blunt tool if you let them be. Collective bargaining is only bad if you feel you're the specialist exceptional boy, which Western culture encourages but statistics point out are rare.
alasdair_ 8y ago
>Every workplace is adversarial, it's you versus the C-suite who profit from the surplus value created by your labor. A union just evens out the bargaining power between you and them. I guess it depends on the equity split. Very early engineers with, say 0.1% vested of a unicorn still feel like owners to me, in addition to being workers.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  So you're saying that workers are better off when they are also owners? Interesting idea.
  - solidasparagus 8y ago
    Every software company I've heard of in the US offers equity...
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Maybe if you only pay attention to tiny startups. It's extremely rare to get equity at an established business.

navigatesol 8y ago

>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? Have you considered that the adversarial workplace is the reason for unionizing in the first place?

umvi 8y ago
Or it's just a symptom of the Shirky Principle: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution." Even if the workplace is not adversarial, any union will try to preserve the conditions that necessitate its continued existence. No union ever said "Wow, this new CEO and management are super fair and reasonable. We are no longer necessary, let's dissolve and let them take the reigns."
- minikites 8y ago
  >No union ever said "Wow, this new CEO and management are super fair and reasonable. We are no longer necessary, let's dissolve and let them take the reigns." Name a company with a CEO and management who are super fair and reasonable (e.g. paying employees the full value of their labor instead of profiting from the surplus value created by the employee)
  - lsaferite 8y ago
    > instead of profiting from the surplus value created by the employee Why wouldn't the employee work for themselves if they expect the full surplus of their value to go to them? I mean, it's not like the company is a charity, right? It's designed to be profitable for it's owners.
    - minikites 8y ago
      Because people aren't the perfectly rational automatons portrayed in most economics lessons, which has implications for both adversaries.
  - 8y ago

Nikkau 8y ago

> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them"

scotch_drinker 8y ago
I think this is important. The OP seems to think that management is totally open to just being fair and inclusive with individual employees but that the situation becomes too polarized when a union is implemented. This ignores the fact that it's in management's favor to keep people isolated and unaware of other employees issues. No matter how great your workplace is, it's already us vs them whether you want to admit it or not. That's the nature of the beast.
sokoloff 8y ago
And a clear downgrade from "us and them vs our actual competition"
- Retra 8y ago
  Whose competition? Other companies are not employee's competition, they are potential places to work. They only compete with the company, not the employees.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Kickstarter's prime competition is Indiegogo. Kickstarter employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize, IMO. (The same is true for Kickstarter leadership, of course.)
    - dagw 8y ago
      employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize Suboptimize what? By what metrics? And why are those the primary metrics I should be using to make extremely important life choices?

root_axis 8y ago

This is senior engineer privilege speaking. A union seems strictly worse when dozens of companies are falling over themselves to pay you in the 90th percentile income bracket.

scrumbledober 8y ago
I see no reason for any workforces at any of the companies I have worked for as a developer to unionize. In my short career before that, however, I thought it would be very helpful for the valet company I worked at to unionize.
- root_axis 8y ago
  I certainly have. They were mostly the places where if you weren't perceived as the type who is willing to stay till 8PM a few nights a week peppered with the occasional weekend PR, you were relegated to the "poor work ethic" caste. Unions aren't perfect, but they certainly stomp out this type of abuse and force the company to either hire more people or pay fairer wages.
  - fastball 8y ago
    You're a senior developer and you don't think you're getting paid a fair wage? Ok...
    - root_axis 8y ago
      Huh? I never said that... Are you replying to the correct comment?
    - dlp211 8y ago
      Fair != Good. Fair wages for a given position and circumstance can be anywhere on the spectrum of compensation. I currently wish I had a union because I think I was unfairly evaluated in my current perf cycle, but there is no one to appeal my argument to which includes significant positive peer and managerial feedback. What I currently make has no impact on that.

49531 8y ago

That weird "us vs them" sort of thing is called class consciousness. The adversarial nature exists whether you're conscious of it or not.

ahelwer 8y ago
Exactly! Always be suspicious of calls for unity, many times they only serve to paper over divisions which should be addressed and will continue to exist regardless of whether discussion is silenced. I liken this to undeveloped understandings of interpersonal relationships. One is given the impression early in life that all disagreements are bad and must be avoided. This can manifest in pathological conflict avoidance, ending in a blowup. Healthy relationships require explicit communication and prompt discussion of problems, which we can safely assume will inevitably occur. The relationship between you and your employer is not one of family, and if you think of it that way you're setting yourself up for a rude awakening when the layoffs flow.
- 49531 8y ago
  Yup, families don't downsize when things get hard. It's materially profitable for employers to attempt to erase class consciousness as much as possible, to the detriment of the workers.
stcredzero 8y ago
That weird "us vs them" sort of thing is called class consciousness. Both terms are just other ways of saying "groupthink."

moate 8y ago

>>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" Because it literally is after companies become a certain size. You have a small start up of 3-10 people, you might all be friends and working together for the betterment of the whole. You get past that size, and hierarchy happens. And then it is labor vs management. This doesn't mean that the goals can't align, but there are key points where they don't. You think you're special and better than someone else, so you should get to pick whatever time off you want. The union doesn't care and has to create some version of fair because it represents several other people. If you work in a union company without being a part of the union, you're actively undermining the union's ability to assist it's members, and being called a scab is the price you have to pay. You don't seem to understand what the value is that a union provides. They're not perfect. There will again be places where the needs/goals of a single individual will be at odds with the needs/goals of the union. This doesn't make them a net negative. You keep believing in your exceptional nature, that you're better than average and therefor would be dragged down by the (hypothetical) union. Statistically speaking, you're probably wrong.

paulcole 8y ago

> Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? If you're like the vast majority of people working here you get paid a shitload of money and other benefits and have your pick of where to work. Unionized employees often work in fields that aren't quite so rosy.

Dig1t 8y ago

Having worked in a unionized industry before, I completely agree with this. I was so confused and annoyed when I learned that I wasn't allowed to work at this place unless I consented to giving money from every paycheck to a group of people that basically never did anything for me, were impossible to get a hold of, and just generally complacent.

naravara 8y ago
>I was so confused and annoyed when I learned that I wasn't allowed to work at this place unless I consented to giving money from every paycheck to a group of people that basically never did anything for me, were impossible to get a hold of, and just generally complacent. Would you have preferred it if that money was never in your paycheck in the first place?
Frondo 8y ago
> basically never did anything for me Who can say what workers' conditions were like before the union existed? Without knowing the industry, it's hard to say that they did nothing for you, but knowing capitalists and owners in general, it's really hard to say they did nothing for you.

stcredzero 8y ago

I wish them well, but having family members and friends work in unionized workplaces, it's not something I would ever do. It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Even before this news, half a year ago, I pegged Kickstarter as a company ridden with "ideological possession." The clock is ticking, as far as I can tell.

anth_anm 8y ago

> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing It is "us vs them". They just apparently understand that a lot better than you. > Don't care about the union's bullshit "industrial action" and just want to work and earn some money? Get used to being called a "scab". If all that's happening is you get called a scab then count yourself lucky. That's a sign that things aren't that bad yet.

bsanr2 8y ago

>It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? This is akin to criticizing a black protestor for "bringing up race." (And the Award for Thread's Most Inflammatory Analogy goes to...)

Rebelgecko 8y ago

I think it depends on how heavy handed the union is. I've never not been able to take vacation when I wanted to. Theoretically it could be denied if I didn't give enough advance notice, but that has never happened. It doesn't seem any more or less adversarial than a company where you're entirely at the mercy of your management.

drugme 8y ago

It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial? Maybe because the employer... made things "adversarial" by creating unhealthy / untenable / inadequately compensated working conditions in the first place? You also end up with this 3rd party involved in everything, creating all kinds of "rules" to make things "fair". If that's your concern, then the solution -- the only solution -- is to provide attractive (or at least reasonable) enough working conditions so that your employees don't even think of unionizing. As if they're just doing it because they're bored and have some unconscious desire for more complication in their lives or something. The implicit message behind your critique is that employees who seek to unionize must be basically kind of stupid for not seeing the downsides to going the unionization route. When in reality... it's just a tradeoff. And a tradeoff they see little resource but to take, in view of the unreasonable working conditions (and essentially, if-you-don't-like-it-then-go-fuck-yourselves) negotiating stances taken by their employers.

tomohawk 8y ago
There are lots of reasons people may think unionizing is a good idea. Maybe they think the grass will be greener. Maybe they think it will get the man off their back. Maybe they think they're engaged in some sort of class warfare, and this is their duty. Maybe they are people who focus on what they don't have instead of what they do have. All I know from friends/family is all a union does is put another group of people over you to tell you what to do. Only, these guys don't really have anything to do with the business. Their interests are not aligned with the business or even with yours. As time goes by, they just use their position to further their own other interests and power. These are the lessons we already learned about unions, and why they're so unpopular these days.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > All I know from friends/family is all a union does is put another group of people over you to tell you what to do… Their interests are not aligned with the business or even with yours. Your employer is already a group of people over you who tell you what to do, whose interests are definitely not aligned with yours. At least your union is ostensibly on your side; your employer is incentivized to wring as much out of you as they can, for as little as they can.