8 ms·

How Americans can be so anti-union by default is really beyond me when looking at the facts at the ground: * A culture of overwork (especially in the game indu

by jahaja 7y ago

How Americans can be so anti-union by default is really beyond me when looking at the facts at the ground: * A culture of overwork (especially in the game industry). * No vacation. * No parental leave. * No sick leave. * At-will-employment (which inherently causes massive under-reporting of things like sexual harassment in the workplace due to the fear of losing ones livelihood, and please spare me the "actually it's already illegal!", very few people are willing/capable of mounting a messy legal case on their own). ...and so on. What do you actually have to lose?

friendlybus 7y ago
Independence. People work hard in video games because it's one of the last indie friendly industries. Unions can crush that in many different ways.
- ianmobbs 7y ago
  Do you have any sources to back that up? The film industry is one of the most heavily unionized industries in America (if not the most!) and indie films are as popular as ever. The only way I can think of a union hindering independent content is that more people actually enjoy the company they work at and attempt to "strike it out on their own" less often.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    I am a game dev. Disappointing to see this reaction. Here's a direct example of union rules slowing down the little guy in film: https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 Striking out on their own is the benefit I am talking about. I don't understand your perspective of independence.
    - ianmobbs 7y ago
      > Striking out on their own is the benefit I am talking about. So are you saying we should keep employees overworked and underpaid so they're more likely to leave their current employer...?
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        I am saying that running your own show or a show with other people you value working with does not need to be under the thumb of union rules or overarching corporate pressure. There is no scenario in entertainment where unions "keep to themselves". A union started will soak up the entire industry and now my show with people I respect, admire and fair equity shares now has time limits and controls none of us decided or agreed to because a union(s) can excommunicate us from the entire working industry. The industry should self-regulate under threat. Implementing a union will benefit few but the union leaders. The film industry is a prime example of what happens and films like Star Wars barely exist in the face of union pressure. George Lucas hired Irvine Kershner to direct because he knew all about Hollywood, but was 'not Hollywood'. Gary Oldman turned down a SW role due to union rules. The public has no idea how cliquey and regulated the film industry is, thanks in part to the studio model and union rules. I'd sooner call for a tech union and see a whole bunch of engineers get a proper cut of the $100 million+ companies that get sold without them seeing a dime. Game industry artists are very skilled and can get work elsewhere for much easier conditions. They choose to stay and work hard and can choose to negotiate better salaries. I can't comment on mega-corps that there are limits to negotiations, in the independent part there is a lot more leeway. The conditions will always be difficult, timing is the difficulty that we can't control.
        jahaja 7y ago
        > Implementing a union will benefit few but the union leaders. What the heck? This sounds like something out of a movie. Do you think union leaders get a cut of every member's pay or something?
        username90 7y ago
        > Do you think union leaders get a cut of every member's pay or something? Isn't this exactly what happens? You pay the union a percentage of your salary, which is then used to among other things pay union leaders salaries. And just to note, union leaders typically earn a lot more than union members, making this transaction regressive in nature.
- unapologetic 7y ago
  Those people can sign up to carry a wealthy person from place to place and get their independence fix that way.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    The wealthy union leader?
mdszy 7y ago
Nothing, everyone just wants to bootlick their employer and/or has bought into the propaganda.
Kalium 7y ago
> What do you actually have to lose? In some parts of the US, the answer is "Our industry". There are areas where a reasonable argument can be made that overweening unions played a key role in setting up the local economy for cataclysmic failure. Detroit is an example. That said, video games production doesn't look like that right now. It's just perhaps worth considering that people's fears might not be wholly meritless, baseless, and without foundation.
- jahaja 7y ago
  But again. This doesn't hold up to a straight forward comparison to many European countries. If labour costs would be so detrimental to employment we'd still be queuing to the transatlantic ocean liners.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    We could always compare unemployment rates in the US to those in France for a straight forward comparison to a European country. Then we could compare full-time employment rates for another straight forward comparison to a European country. The American experience is that labor can and occasionally has set itself up for massive failure in the past. The idea that there's literally nothing to lose fails a basic sanity check against not-so-distant American history. It may be worth considering the possibility that some people might might legitimately, earnestly, and honestly perceive there to be real risks. A pitch to such people of "You have nothing to lose!" runs the risk of coming across as, optimistically, ignorant. Perhaps such things could be worth considering for a person as informed and thoughtful as yourself?
    - jahaja 7y ago
      > We could always compare unemployment rates in the US to those in France for a straight forward comparison to a European country. Then we could compare full-time employment rates for another straight forward comparison to a European country. Sure, go a head. Historically as well. Furthermore, what kinds of jobs are those actually? What is the quality of the jobs? Do they enable a dignified existence and so on? > The American experience is that labor can and occasionally has set itself up for massive failure in the past. The idea that there's literally nothing to lose fails a basic sanity check against not-so-distant American history. Do you have an example where it was obviously due to unions?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
legitster 7y ago
Americans are very used to switching jobs to take better options and do not suffer bad bosses for long. I would say it is pretty rare to actually have a job with no vacation or leave. Unions in the US can feel stifling, as they only rewarding if you can stick with the same job and position for a long time. It's not a very American mindset to stay with a job and make demands when you can just bounce to a slightly better one. And few people idealize working in the same job for 30 years. Video game workers are probably an exception in that they are willing to agree to terrible terms in order to chase what they perceive is their dream job.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  A union position has immediate reward, if they've negotiated better vacation, sick leave, and job security etc than the alternative.
  - legitster 7y ago
    I have a relative who is a Teamster and pays $16k in Union dues a year. He said the math on his benefits only works out for him if he works for more than 15 years in the same position. Obviously different for different unions, but the vast majority of benefits in most unions go to those with seniority.
    - Symbiote 7y ago
      What!? That is over 60× the membership cost of UNITE (the largest British union). Apparently, comparisons between the US and Europe don't work here either. Maybe this is because "union shops" are allowed in the USA. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids them (the right to free association is taken to provide the right not to associate). https://unitetheunion.org/why-join/join-unite/contribution-rates/ https://unitetheunion.org/why-join/join-unite/contribution-r...
      - Kalium 7y ago
        UAW dues apparently run $70 per month - https://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/12/uaw-dues-increase-biggest-mistake-two-tier https://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/12/uaw-dues-increase-b... Which is still over three times the top rate at UNITE. I don't know what an average US union's dues are though.
bluGill 7y ago
The facts on the ground is most people don't deal with that in their job. We don't have a culture of overwork, we get vacation, parental leave and sick leave. There are exceptions, but those are entry level no skill required jobs. Sexual harassment is treated firmly in every company I've been in - even entry level jobs. There is no fear of retaliation for reporting it. (generally it is impossible to prove so the reporting doesn't go anywhere)
ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
You are making seriously sweeping allegations, could you not? It's hard to have a serious discussion when someone goes generalizing 300 million people and all of their jobs. >* No vacation. >* No parental leave. >* No sick leave. All three of these are provided, I don't have a union. >At-will-employment (which inherently causes massive under-reporting of things like sexual harassment in the workplace due to the fear of losing ones livelihood, and please spare me the "actually it's already illegal!", very few people are willing/capable of mounting a messy legal case on their own). It's 2020, any allegation of sexual harassment is treated incredibly seriously across the board. Yea, I have no doubt it's a major headache. But an accusation of sexual harassment is a serious thing, it shouldn't be something we ever allow to be filled out anonymously, thrown in a complaint box, and assumed as true. It could lead to a firing and possibly criminal charges, lets not try and pretend that's not serious. Part of why your comment bothers me so is that you are generalizing all Americans. The game industry may make sense to have a union, but you simply call out all Americans as being anti-union, as if it's something unfathomable. Different professions have different circumstances, not all of them need a union.
- chobeat 7y ago
  > All three of these are provided, I don't have a union. You said it right, they are provided. In Europe they are not provided: they are your right and it cannot be taken away by your employer. Also an anecdote doesn't invalidate something that is true for a vast majority of the american workforce. But even if it was just a single person, it would still be a tragedy and a problem to solve.
  - ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
    >Also an anecdote doesn't invalidate something that is true for a vast majority of the american workforce. You just love your wide sweeping claims don't you? No it is not true for the vast majority of the american workforce. >You said it right, they are provided. In Europe they are not provided: they are your right and it cannot be taken away by your employer. Can we please not move the goal posts, I thought this was a union discussion? If everyone in the U.S should have 4 weeks vacation, 4 months maternity leave, however much sick leave is deemed appropriate, that can be done at the legal level. You do not need unions to exist to do that!
andrew_ 7y ago
I would point directly to the rampant and historical abuse that has plagued union leadership in the US, in a litany of business sectors as the primary reason. One of the largest in the country, the UAW, is currently going through quite a turnover as multiple layers of leadership are being indicted for everything from fraud to racketeering. Information about historical scandals is very searchable on the Googles.
dragonwriter 7y ago
The US has federally mandated (job-protected, but not necessarily paid) parental leave, and a number of states have mandated paid parental and sick leave. Of course, these are largely a product of lobbying by unions, which don't just do collective bargaining.
- jahaja 7y ago
  "Under the FMLA, most new parents can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without the threat of job loss. That’s most parents, not all parents. Employees qualify for leave under the FMLA when they’ve worked 1,240 hours over 12 months at a company that employs more than 50 people. With part-time workers and small business employees left in the lurch, only about 60 percent of American workers are entitled to leave under the FMLA. The FMLA does not require your employer to pay you while you’re home with your kid. So even if you’re legally entitled to take leave, you might not be able to afford it." This is still very very poor.
  - strbean 7y ago
    Not to mention that with at-will employment this is essentially a moot point. If you qualify for FMLA and take paternal leave, they can still just fire you "just because we felt like it".
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      That's not really true with the civil standard of proof, which is preponderance of the evidence. If you can provide any evidence which tends to suggest that you were fired for an improper reason, the employer must overcome that with greater evidence that the firing was actually made for a reason that is not prohibited. It's not like criminal law where violations have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so merely presenting a plausible alternative consistent with (even if not the most likely conclusion from) the evidence is adequate to avoid liability.
unapologetic 7y ago
> What do you actually have to lose? health care. It's a big problem. This is why many unions are pro-M4A. You start taking away the big things the company can hold over your head in a negotiation. In tech we have those things you mention, mostly. We also have a labour market with massive demand. If that demand falls/supply increases then companies will start cutting costs. When a lot of the people on HN actually experience some uncertainty, their attitudes will probably change.
RHSeeger 7y ago
Unions have both positives and negatives. The less your individual situation gets out of the positives, the more the more you see the negatives.
jdlyga 7y ago
I have a non-gaming software development job * I work 40 hours per week * I have over a month of vacation and sick time, not including holidays * 1 month 100% paid family leave, with 13 weeks at 80% pay and an additional 13 at 50% pay, not including New York City paid family leave. * Sick leave is rolled into paid time off or disability. * At-will employment works both ways. If I get a better offer, I can leave. Vacation, sick, and parental leave policies are not up to European standards yes, but it's a hell of a lot better than most people's 2 weeks of vacation.
yibg 7y ago
I don't think all Americans are inherently anti-union, just not inherently pro-union. Some of the issues you cited are real, and I think some of it can be addressed by unions. However 2 issues I see: 1) Unions aren't appropriate for all places. 2) The currently implementation and behavior of unions in the US are not all that great. For example I'm turned off of unions based on personal experience. So for me, given the choice to vote I'd vote against an union at my current work place.

by jahaja 7y ago

friendlybus 7y ago

Independence. People work hard in video games because it's one of the last indie friendly industries. Unions can crush that in many different ways.

ianmobbs 7y ago
Do you have any sources to back that up? The film industry is one of the most heavily unionized industries in America (if not the most!) and indie films are as popular as ever. The only way I can think of a union hindering independent content is that more people actually enjoy the company they work at and attempt to "strike it out on their own" less often.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  I am a game dev. Disappointing to see this reaction. Here's a direct example of union rules slowing down the little guy in film: https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 https://youtu.be/LRVwlif6th0?t=171 Striking out on their own is the benefit I am talking about. I don't understand your perspective of independence.
  - ianmobbs 7y ago
    > Striking out on their own is the benefit I am talking about. So are you saying we should keep employees overworked and underpaid so they're more likely to leave their current employer...?
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      I am saying that running your own show or a show with other people you value working with does not need to be under the thumb of union rules or overarching corporate pressure. There is no scenario in entertainment where unions "keep to themselves". A union started will soak up the entire industry and now my show with people I respect, admire and fair equity shares now has time limits and controls none of us decided or agreed to because a union(s) can excommunicate us from the entire working industry. The industry should self-regulate under threat. Implementing a union will benefit few but the union leaders. The film industry is a prime example of what happens and films like Star Wars barely exist in the face of union pressure. George Lucas hired Irvine Kershner to direct because he knew all about Hollywood, but was 'not Hollywood'. Gary Oldman turned down a SW role due to union rules. The public has no idea how cliquey and regulated the film industry is, thanks in part to the studio model and union rules. I'd sooner call for a tech union and see a whole bunch of engineers get a proper cut of the $100 million+ companies that get sold without them seeing a dime. Game industry artists are very skilled and can get work elsewhere for much easier conditions. They choose to stay and work hard and can choose to negotiate better salaries. I can't comment on mega-corps that there are limits to negotiations, in the independent part there is a lot more leeway. The conditions will always be difficult, timing is the difficulty that we can't control.
      - jahaja 7y ago
        > Implementing a union will benefit few but the union leaders. What the heck? This sounds like something out of a movie. Do you think union leaders get a cut of every member's pay or something?
        username90 7y ago
        > Do you think union leaders get a cut of every member's pay or something? Isn't this exactly what happens? You pay the union a percentage of your salary, which is then used to among other things pay union leaders salaries. And just to note, union leaders typically earn a lot more than union members, making this transaction regressive in nature.
unapologetic 7y ago
Those people can sign up to carry a wealthy person from place to place and get their independence fix that way.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  The wealthy union leader?

mdszy 7y ago

Nothing, everyone just wants to bootlick their employer and/or has bought into the propaganda.

Kalium 7y ago

> What do you actually have to lose? In some parts of the US, the answer is "Our industry". There are areas where a reasonable argument can be made that overweening unions played a key role in setting up the local economy for cataclysmic failure. Detroit is an example. That said, video games production doesn't look like that right now. It's just perhaps worth considering that people's fears might not be wholly meritless, baseless, and without foundation.

jahaja 7y ago
But again. This doesn't hold up to a straight forward comparison to many European countries. If labour costs would be so detrimental to employment we'd still be queuing to the transatlantic ocean liners.
- Kalium 7y ago
  We could always compare unemployment rates in the US to those in France for a straight forward comparison to a European country. Then we could compare full-time employment rates for another straight forward comparison to a European country. The American experience is that labor can and occasionally has set itself up for massive failure in the past. The idea that there's literally nothing to lose fails a basic sanity check against not-so-distant American history. It may be worth considering the possibility that some people might might legitimately, earnestly, and honestly perceive there to be real risks. A pitch to such people of "You have nothing to lose!" runs the risk of coming across as, optimistically, ignorant. Perhaps such things could be worth considering for a person as informed and thoughtful as yourself?
  - jahaja 7y ago
    > We could always compare unemployment rates in the US to those in France for a straight forward comparison to a European country. Then we could compare full-time employment rates for another straight forward comparison to a European country. Sure, go a head. Historically as well. Furthermore, what kinds of jobs are those actually? What is the quality of the jobs? Do they enable a dignified existence and so on? > The American experience is that labor can and occasionally has set itself up for massive failure in the past. The idea that there's literally nothing to lose fails a basic sanity check against not-so-distant American history. Do you have an example where it was obviously due to unions?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

legitster 7y ago

Americans are very used to switching jobs to take better options and do not suffer bad bosses for long. I would say it is pretty rare to actually have a job with no vacation or leave. Unions in the US can feel stifling, as they only rewarding if you can stick with the same job and position for a long time. It's not a very American mindset to stay with a job and make demands when you can just bounce to a slightly better one. And few people idealize working in the same job for 30 years. Video game workers are probably an exception in that they are willing to agree to terrible terms in order to chase what they perceive is their dream job.

Symbiote 7y ago
A union position has immediate reward, if they've negotiated better vacation, sick leave, and job security etc than the alternative.
- legitster 7y ago
  I have a relative who is a Teamster and pays $16k in Union dues a year. He said the math on his benefits only works out for him if he works for more than 15 years in the same position. Obviously different for different unions, but the vast majority of benefits in most unions go to those with seniority.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    What!? That is over 60× the membership cost of UNITE (the largest British union). Apparently, comparisons between the US and Europe don't work here either. Maybe this is because "union shops" are allowed in the USA. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids them (the right to free association is taken to provide the right not to associate). https://unitetheunion.org/why-join/join-unite/contribution-rates/ https://unitetheunion.org/why-join/join-unite/contribution-r...
    - Kalium 7y ago
      UAW dues apparently run $70 per month - https://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/12/uaw-dues-increase-biggest-mistake-two-tier https://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/12/uaw-dues-increase-b... Which is still over three times the top rate at UNITE. I don't know what an average US union's dues are though.

bluGill 7y ago

The facts on the ground is most people don't deal with that in their job. We don't have a culture of overwork, we get vacation, parental leave and sick leave. There are exceptions, but those are entry level no skill required jobs. Sexual harassment is treated firmly in every company I've been in - even entry level jobs. There is no fear of retaliation for reporting it. (generally it is impossible to prove so the reporting doesn't go anywhere)

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago

You are making seriously sweeping allegations, could you not? It's hard to have a serious discussion when someone goes generalizing 300 million people and all of their jobs. >* No vacation. >* No parental leave. >* No sick leave. All three of these are provided, I don't have a union. >At-will-employment (which inherently causes massive under-reporting of things like sexual harassment in the workplace due to the fear of losing ones livelihood, and please spare me the "actually it's already illegal!", very few people are willing/capable of mounting a messy legal case on their own). It's 2020, any allegation of sexual harassment is treated incredibly seriously across the board. Yea, I have no doubt it's a major headache. But an accusation of sexual harassment is a serious thing, it shouldn't be something we ever allow to be filled out anonymously, thrown in a complaint box, and assumed as true. It could lead to a firing and possibly criminal charges, lets not try and pretend that's not serious. Part of why your comment bothers me so is that you are generalizing all Americans. The game industry may make sense to have a union, but you simply call out all Americans as being anti-union, as if it's something unfathomable. Different professions have different circumstances, not all of them need a union.

chobeat 7y ago
> All three of these are provided, I don't have a union. You said it right, they are provided. In Europe they are not provided: they are your right and it cannot be taken away by your employer. Also an anecdote doesn't invalidate something that is true for a vast majority of the american workforce. But even if it was just a single person, it would still be a tragedy and a problem to solve.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  >Also an anecdote doesn't invalidate something that is true for a vast majority of the american workforce. You just love your wide sweeping claims don't you? No it is not true for the vast majority of the american workforce. >You said it right, they are provided. In Europe they are not provided: they are your right and it cannot be taken away by your employer. Can we please not move the goal posts, I thought this was a union discussion? If everyone in the U.S should have 4 weeks vacation, 4 months maternity leave, however much sick leave is deemed appropriate, that can be done at the legal level. You do not need unions to exist to do that!

andrew_ 7y ago

I would point directly to the rampant and historical abuse that has plagued union leadership in the US, in a litany of business sectors as the primary reason. One of the largest in the country, the UAW, is currently going through quite a turnover as multiple layers of leadership are being indicted for everything from fraud to racketeering. Information about historical scandals is very searchable on the Googles.

dragonwriter 7y ago

The US has federally mandated (job-protected, but not necessarily paid) parental leave, and a number of states have mandated paid parental and sick leave. Of course, these are largely a product of lobbying by unions, which don't just do collective bargaining.

jahaja 7y ago
"Under the FMLA, most new parents can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without the threat of job loss. That’s most parents, not all parents. Employees qualify for leave under the FMLA when they’ve worked 1,240 hours over 12 months at a company that employs more than 50 people. With part-time workers and small business employees left in the lurch, only about 60 percent of American workers are entitled to leave under the FMLA. The FMLA does not require your employer to pay you while you’re home with your kid. So even if you’re legally entitled to take leave, you might not be able to afford it." This is still very very poor.
- strbean 7y ago
  Not to mention that with at-will employment this is essentially a moot point. If you qualify for FMLA and take paternal leave, they can still just fire you "just because we felt like it".
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    That's not really true with the civil standard of proof, which is preponderance of the evidence. If you can provide any evidence which tends to suggest that you were fired for an improper reason, the employer must overcome that with greater evidence that the firing was actually made for a reason that is not prohibited. It's not like criminal law where violations have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so merely presenting a plausible alternative consistent with (even if not the most likely conclusion from) the evidence is adequate to avoid liability.

unapologetic 7y ago

> What do you actually have to lose? health care. It's a big problem. This is why many unions are pro-M4A. You start taking away the big things the company can hold over your head in a negotiation. In tech we have those things you mention, mostly. We also have a labour market with massive demand. If that demand falls/supply increases then companies will start cutting costs. When a lot of the people on HN actually experience some uncertainty, their attitudes will probably change.

RHSeeger 7y ago

Unions have both positives and negatives. The less your individual situation gets out of the positives, the more the more you see the negatives.

jdlyga 7y ago

I have a non-gaming software development job * I work 40 hours per week * I have over a month of vacation and sick time, not including holidays * 1 month 100% paid family leave, with 13 weeks at 80% pay and an additional 13 at 50% pay, not including New York City paid family leave. * Sick leave is rolled into paid time off or disability. * At-will employment works both ways. If I get a better offer, I can leave. Vacation, sick, and parental leave policies are not up to European standards yes, but it's a hell of a lot better than most people's 2 weeks of vacation.

yibg 7y ago

I don't think all Americans are inherently anti-union, just not inherently pro-union. Some of the issues you cited are real, and I think some of it can be addressed by unions. However 2 issues I see: 1) Unions aren't appropriate for all places. 2) The currently implementation and behavior of unions in the US are not all that great. For example I'm turned off of unions based on personal experience. So for me, given the choice to vote I'd vote against an union at my current work place.