4 ms·

> having one lawyer trying to get the best deal for 5 of his clients, even if one is innocent and the other 4 guilty That's stretching the analogy too far, and

> having one lawyer trying to get the best deal for 5 of his clients, even if one is innocent and the other 4 guilty That's stretching the analogy too far, and adding biasing details to force the impression that unions are bad. Here's another analogy: Going to work without a union is like going to war without any military organization. If your enemy is well-organized, how smart is it for you and your fellow soldiers to attack individually in an uncoordinated way without any overall strategy?

odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
re: lawyer one. I am not biased and I am not against unions, but I live in a country where as some others mentioned, they are basically political tools for some small group (or in public unions, actual political parties). I am pro-union, but I believe that outliers or top-performers will be fucked in a union world. (And low performers will be safer). I make about 7-8 times the average salary for my country, and 5 times the average salary for a senior software developer. This is due to my years of developing connections and the fact I deliver quickly and well. From my experience with unions, I might even be at the top of the scale in their 'grades' but I would never be able to get to the multipliers I am making if I didn't have the power to negotiate my contracts myself. Sure it sucks for others that don't have this possibility, but I won't sacrifice myself for that. That is perhaps a better analogy indeed, but still lacks a bit since each 'soldier' has different goals and capabilities, which may be curtained by if they organise. And the 'enemy' still requires you to cooperate with them at the end, to come to their side and help them achieve their goals, which again, would probably mean you would be fucked if you were fighting alongside, and midway decided that the 'enemy' was actually right and you wanted to work with them.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  I understand and agree with many of those points. I think that if software engineers unionize, there should be a lot of innovation and experimentation in union structure and practices to address them. The other thing is that I see a lot of criticism of some practice or other of some particular union inflated into a critique of unionization in general. I object to that because 1) it often echos management's anti-union propaganda talking points, and 2) it denies the possibly to innovate in the area of worker organization. I think there's a lot of value for workers in worker organization, even for high performers, and I think that needs to be the focus.

odshoifsdhfs 7y ago

re: lawyer one. I am not biased and I am not against unions, but I live in a country where as some others mentioned, they are basically political tools for some small group (or in public unions, actual political parties). I am pro-union, but I believe that outliers or top-performers will be fucked in a union world. (And low performers will be safer). I make about 7-8 times the average salary for my country, and 5 times the average salary for a senior software developer. This is due to my years of developing connections and the fact I deliver quickly and well. From my experience with unions, I might even be at the top of the scale in their 'grades' but I would never be able to get to the multipliers I am making if I didn't have the power to negotiate my contracts myself. Sure it sucks for others that don't have this possibility, but I won't sacrifice myself for that. That is perhaps a better analogy indeed, but still lacks a bit since each 'soldier' has different goals and capabilities, which may be curtained by if they organise. And the 'enemy' still requires you to cooperate with them at the end, to come to their side and help them achieve their goals, which again, would probably mean you would be fucked if you were fighting alongside, and midway decided that the 'enemy' was actually right and you wanted to work with them.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
I understand and agree with many of those points. I think that if software engineers unionize, there should be a lot of innovation and experimentation in union structure and practices to address them. The other thing is that I see a lot of criticism of some practice or other of some particular union inflated into a critique of unionization in general. I object to that because 1) it often echos management's anti-union propaganda talking points, and 2) it denies the possibly to innovate in the area of worker organization. I think there's a lot of value for workers in worker organization, even for high performers, and I think that needs to be the focus.