12 ms·

Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two masters.

by proc0 7y ago

arrosenberg 7y ago
That's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord. In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. With a good union you are serving yourself in a far more significant way than without the union.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    > Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude. > I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". I have no first-hand experience with German unions, so I won't comment beyond observing that in either case, the issue comes down to a lack of a meritocratic reward structure. Unions are neutral on that front, it all comes down to the laws and culture. American unions were born out of capitalist greed run amok, so they tend to be pretty antagonistic and confrontational. I get the impressions that German unions are more of a cooperative with capital to ensure work stoppages are minimized. > Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss. I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological, and I don't personally feel an ideological bent toward unions. I wouldn't personally join one because I don't need it, but a union would benefit most of the developers I know from a practical standpoint. Getting on the bad side of the union is no different than getting on the bad side of an executive - at least with a union you have 2 centers of gravity to pull on instead of one.
    - jariel 7y ago
      "certainty of servitude" -> "I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological" Have the self-awareness to concede that describing 'a job' particularly in high tech which can pay quite well and has great conditions, is tantamount to servitude is effectively ideological.
      - arrosenberg 7y ago
        Why do the salary and conditions matter? Either you are ownership or you serve their interests in exchange for money. There is nothing ideological about calling a thing what it is.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude. I don't think there is servitude in high tech jobs, so there's no certainty either in my view. The issue I have with the theoretical approach is that it often falls short in the real world and you end up with a mess where everybody involved is surprised. I'd like to see those well-run unions (or republics, or corporations etc etc) before believing in them. So far, my impression is that they only exist on paper or on very small scales, but as soon as they grow to significant size, the usual processes set in and you end up with a problematic organization. Sure, one can say those aren't well-run, but that sounds too much like No-True-Scotsman to me.
- jariel 7y ago
  "pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord." And 'serving a corporate overlord' is not 'pessimistic'? You have skills, you work with others to make something hopefully productive, you get paid, and that's the deal. The company usually takes on most of the risk and the bigger chunk of the upside. That's the deal, it works well in most cases.
  - proc0 7y ago
    I can see unions being useful in some situations, however in my opinion the worse part of a typical job, is the fact that you work for someone else. No matter how nice your boss, you still have to follow orders. Joining a union is just duplicating this dynamic, because now you have to also follow union rules. I can see in many cases that this is worth it because the type of job has extremely low mobility. However for any position that has market options, joining a union seems pointless as your bargaining rights are simply leaving and joining another company because you can (and any successful company would recognize successful employees, thereby giving you bargaining rights via the market).
totaldude87 7y ago
>>you are basically serving two masters. Though technically the truth, the inherent understanding is that at-least at the union side , you can have your voice heard, a.k.a a minimal guarantee that you will be heard by one of those masters.
zpallin 7y ago
Agreed, completely. I support unions, but I see the best way forward to both increase equality and reduce corporate corruption is the Mondragon model of worker-owned cooperative federations. Unions are not an advance in this direction at all, merely a check on corporate ownership. It's better than nothing, but it's not the end-all to worker protections.
qtplatypus 7y ago
If I am paying the union and the union leaders are elected by me. Then the union is serving me, not the other way around.

Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two masters.

by proc0 7y ago

Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two masters.

arrosenberg 7y ago

That's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord. In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. With a good union you are serving yourself in a far more significant way than without the union.

luckylion 7y ago
> In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  > Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude. > I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". I have no first-hand experience with German unions, so I won't comment beyond observing that in either case, the issue comes down to a lack of a meritocratic reward structure. Unions are neutral on that front, it all comes down to the laws and culture. American unions were born out of capitalist greed run amok, so they tend to be pretty antagonistic and confrontational. I get the impressions that German unions are more of a cooperative with capital to ensure work stoppages are minimized. > Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss. I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological, and I don't personally feel an ideological bent toward unions. I wouldn't personally join one because I don't need it, but a union would benefit most of the developers I know from a practical standpoint. Getting on the bad side of the union is no different than getting on the bad side of an executive - at least with a union you have 2 centers of gravity to pull on instead of one.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "certainty of servitude" -> "I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological" Have the self-awareness to concede that describing 'a job' particularly in high tech which can pay quite well and has great conditions, is tantamount to servitude is effectively ideological.
    - arrosenberg 7y ago
      Why do the salary and conditions matter? Either you are ownership or you serve their interests in exchange for money. There is nothing ideological about calling a thing what it is.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude. I don't think there is servitude in high tech jobs, so there's no certainty either in my view. The issue I have with the theoretical approach is that it often falls short in the real world and you end up with a mess where everybody involved is surprised. I'd like to see those well-run unions (or republics, or corporations etc etc) before believing in them. So far, my impression is that they only exist on paper or on very small scales, but as soon as they grow to significant size, the usual processes set in and you end up with a problematic organization. Sure, one can say those aren't well-run, but that sounds too much like No-True-Scotsman to me.
jariel 7y ago
"pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord." And 'serving a corporate overlord' is not 'pessimistic'? You have skills, you work with others to make something hopefully productive, you get paid, and that's the deal. The company usually takes on most of the risk and the bigger chunk of the upside. That's the deal, it works well in most cases.
- proc0 7y ago
  I can see unions being useful in some situations, however in my opinion the worse part of a typical job, is the fact that you work for someone else. No matter how nice your boss, you still have to follow orders. Joining a union is just duplicating this dynamic, because now you have to also follow union rules. I can see in many cases that this is worth it because the type of job has extremely low mobility. However for any position that has market options, joining a union seems pointless as your bargaining rights are simply leaving and joining another company because you can (and any successful company would recognize successful employees, thereby giving you bargaining rights via the market).

totaldude87 7y ago

>>you are basically serving two masters. Though technically the truth, the inherent understanding is that at-least at the union side , you can have your voice heard, a.k.a a minimal guarantee that you will be heard by one of those masters.

zpallin 7y ago

Agreed, completely. I support unions, but I see the best way forward to both increase equality and reduce corporate corruption is the Mondragon model of worker-owned cooperative federations. Unions are not an advance in this direction at all, merely a check on corporate ownership. It's better than nothing, but it's not the end-all to worker protections.

qtplatypus 7y ago

If I am paying the union and the union leaders are elected by me. Then the union is serving me, not the other way around.