4 ms·

I'm not against unions in general or in principle, but some implementations are not great. I suspect like some folks here, my personal (negative) interactions

by yibg 8y ago

I'm not against unions in general or in principle, but some implementations are not great. I suspect like some folks here, my personal (negative) interactions with unions have turned me off of unions in general. I worked at an unionized shop when I first graduated and while I recognize some of the positives the union brought, there were also many downsides. Some examples: - Nepotism. We had an open position we couldn't fill for over a year because one of the union leader's son was graduating soon and that position was reserved for him. - General complacency. Raises and promotions for the most part weren't based on performance, but rather tenure. Many people start off ambitious but end up just doing the minimum over time because there is no reward in trying too much. - Strange (from my perspective) rules. I couldn't have more than one CAD going at one time, and because CAD is backlogged the turn around time was super long. This meant for long stretches of time I couldn't do any work. But I also couldn't leave. I read a lot of wikipedia pages during this time. Eventually I got super bored, didn't see any growth potential and wasn't learning much so I left. I assume not all unions are like this, but I do hear things similar to this from others (many on this thread) quite often as well.

zaksoup 8y ago
> Nepotism. We had an open position we couldn't fill for over a year because one of the union leader's son was graduating soon and that position was reserved for him. I don't know of any industry where this doesn't happen. Certainly in tech there's plenty of anecdata about nepotism in hiring, no unions required. > General complacency. Raises and promotions for the most part weren't based on performance, but rather tenure. Many people start off ambitious but end up just doing the minimum over time because there is no reward in trying too much. Again, this doesn't differ much from non-union industry. Anecdotally (I know) almost every silicon valley tech company seems to have poor ratings in their internal polls for "we fire/retrain low performers". This isn't a problem that is unique to unions, nor can I see any evidence that it's worse in unionized workplaces. Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. [1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf
- plainOldText 8y ago
  > Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. According to the paper you referenced, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in private industries and under the category "Management, professional, and related occupations" employees earned more actually – $35.70/h – compared to workers represented by unions, who earned an average of $32.95/h. I would assume the majority of software engineers work in private industries, thus would fall under the aforementioned category, and as a result would actually earn more by not joining a union. Am I missing something here? Furthermore, it's unclear whether those wages include other types of compensation, such as stock grants and bonuses for example, in which case the difference would be even greater.
  - philipov 8y ago
    I don't know what those numbers mean. As a programmer, I am a salaried employee whose compensation doesn't fluctuate with the amount of time I spend working. Working fewer hours and working from home are direct improvements to my compensation which don't get quantified in my earnings.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    Here's the relevant paragraph. > In private industry, there is a different pattern among workers in this occupational group: those represented by unions earned an average of $32.95 per hour, while those not represented by unions earned $35.70 per hour. The wage advantage for nonunion workers in this occupational group reflects the concentration of union workers in certain relatively low-paying occupations in business and financial operations, such as claims adjusters, accountants, and training specialists.
    - zaksoup 8y ago
      Thank for pointing this out. The 18% figure is from the global average and that analysis of the private industry number certainly suggests that as unions become more prevalent in higher-paying occupations the trend there will reverse.
    - 8y ago
blueboo 8y ago
You don’t need unions to se nepotism, complacency and arbitrary rules ubiquitous in a corporate environment. You do need a union if you want to have a voice in those issues though
mcv 8y ago
This does not sound like what (little, I admit) I know about unions. If the union is in charge of hiring, promotion and even the content of your work, it seems the union is effectively running the company. Dutch unions, as far as I know, negotiate employment contracts, employment standards and general working conditions with employers and the government. A lot of Dutch economic decisions are made in a committee with representatives of the government, employer organisations, and the unions. In many industries there are standards about what someone in a certain position should get paid, but hiring, promotions and bonuses are based on performance. Union membership is also not mandatory, but some employers encourage it, and unions provide services for their members. This seems to me like the right way to do unions, but stories about unions in other countries (the US in particular) often come across as completely nuts.
- repolfx 8y ago
  I'm not sure where you see the big difference. Dutch unions negotiate employment contracts, so it's easy to see how unions end up 'in charge of hiring, promotion and the content of your work'. Union power is ultimately rooted in the threat of striking to bring down the firm: there's no particular area of company policy such an organisation can't take control of. Thus the powers unions obtain not only in the US but also for instance the UK, is entirely predictable - nothing stops them taking over the firm and unions are very frequently run by open communists who see it as a moral imperative to do so. A good example is Unite in the UK, run by Len McCluskey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_McCluskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_McCluskey In a speech at the 2010 Durham Miners' Gala he said political developments in Cuba and Venezuela should be better known, and suggested the reason they were not was because of "the fear of the good example". Not surprisingly when major unions are led by people who think Venezuela is a "good example", people learn that unions are bad news!
  - mcv 8y ago
    Unions have no interest in bringing own the firm. That would be bad for everybody. Unions have an interest in a healthy company. Their job is to represent their members to ensure employees are fairly compensated for fair work. How this works out in practice is that many industries, including the government, have very well-defined rules about compensation, which jobs go with which salary, how healthy working conditions need to be, and under what circumstances you can be fired. People can absolutely be fired, just not arbitrarily on a whim. So yeah, compared to the way some American unions and companies seem to work according to people in this discussion, the difference is very big.

by yibg 8y ago

zaksoup 8y ago

> Nepotism. We had an open position we couldn't fill for over a year because one of the union leader's son was graduating soon and that position was reserved for him. I don't know of any industry where this doesn't happen. Certainly in tech there's plenty of anecdata about nepotism in hiring, no unions required. > General complacency. Raises and promotions for the most part weren't based on performance, but rather tenure. Many people start off ambitious but end up just doing the minimum over time because there is no reward in trying too much. Again, this doesn't differ much from non-union industry. Anecdotally (I know) almost every silicon valley tech company seems to have poor ratings in their internal polls for "we fire/retrain low performers". This isn't a problem that is unique to unions, nor can I see any evidence that it's worse in unionized workplaces. Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. [1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

plainOldText 8y ago
> Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. According to the paper you referenced, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in private industries and under the category "Management, professional, and related occupations" employees earned more actually – $35.70/h – compared to workers represented by unions, who earned an average of $32.95/h. I would assume the majority of software engineers work in private industries, thus would fall under the aforementioned category, and as a result would actually earn more by not joining a union. Am I missing something here? Furthermore, it's unclear whether those wages include other types of compensation, such as stock grants and bonuses for example, in which case the difference would be even greater.
- philipov 8y ago
  I don't know what those numbers mean. As a programmer, I am a salaried employee whose compensation doesn't fluctuate with the amount of time I spend working. Working fewer hours and working from home are direct improvements to my compensation which don't get quantified in my earnings.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  Here's the relevant paragraph. > In private industry, there is a different pattern among workers in this occupational group: those represented by unions earned an average of $32.95 per hour, while those not represented by unions earned $35.70 per hour. The wage advantage for nonunion workers in this occupational group reflects the concentration of union workers in certain relatively low-paying occupations in business and financial operations, such as claims adjusters, accountants, and training specialists.
  - zaksoup 8y ago
    Thank for pointing this out. The 18% figure is from the global average and that analysis of the private industry number certainly suggests that as unions become more prevalent in higher-paying occupations the trend there will reverse.
  - 8y ago

blueboo 8y ago

You don’t need unions to se nepotism, complacency and arbitrary rules ubiquitous in a corporate environment. You do need a union if you want to have a voice in those issues though

mcv 8y ago

This does not sound like what (little, I admit) I know about unions. If the union is in charge of hiring, promotion and even the content of your work, it seems the union is effectively running the company. Dutch unions, as far as I know, negotiate employment contracts, employment standards and general working conditions with employers and the government. A lot of Dutch economic decisions are made in a committee with representatives of the government, employer organisations, and the unions. In many industries there are standards about what someone in a certain position should get paid, but hiring, promotions and bonuses are based on performance. Union membership is also not mandatory, but some employers encourage it, and unions provide services for their members. This seems to me like the right way to do unions, but stories about unions in other countries (the US in particular) often come across as completely nuts.

repolfx 8y ago
I'm not sure where you see the big difference. Dutch unions negotiate employment contracts, so it's easy to see how unions end up 'in charge of hiring, promotion and the content of your work'. Union power is ultimately rooted in the threat of striking to bring down the firm: there's no particular area of company policy such an organisation can't take control of. Thus the powers unions obtain not only in the US but also for instance the UK, is entirely predictable - nothing stops them taking over the firm and unions are very frequently run by open communists who see it as a moral imperative to do so. A good example is Unite in the UK, run by Len McCluskey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_McCluskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_McCluskey In a speech at the 2010 Durham Miners' Gala he said political developments in Cuba and Venezuela should be better known, and suggested the reason they were not was because of "the fear of the good example". Not surprisingly when major unions are led by people who think Venezuela is a "good example", people learn that unions are bad news!
- mcv 8y ago
  Unions have no interest in bringing own the firm. That would be bad for everybody. Unions have an interest in a healthy company. Their job is to represent their members to ensure employees are fairly compensated for fair work. How this works out in practice is that many industries, including the government, have very well-defined rules about compensation, which jobs go with which salary, how healthy working conditions need to be, and under what circumstances you can be fired. People can absolutely be fired, just not arbitrarily on a whim. So yeah, compared to the way some American unions and companies seem to work according to people in this discussion, the difference is very big.