6 ms·

Can we just unionize against _this one topic_ and not the other baggage that unions bring?

tehjoker 5y ago
I think you'll find that unions are defined as democratic organizations of workers and so they will be whatever you and your colleagues want them to be. There is also a legal framework established to keep labor peace, but you don't have to be peaceful (in the sense of not resisting) if you don't want to.
- gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
  Something that gets lost in the US is that the Union is made up of members. Many Americans appear to have the idea that the Union is the HR department for the employees. As a result, members often stop attending meetings, advocating for policies, etc. The unions devolve into a corrupt body because the lax democratic oversight allows a populist leader to provide just enough bread and circus to member while lining his or her own pocket.
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    The problem union advocates in America have is whenever things don't go their way, they immediately resort to calling the workers idiots. The workers aren't idiots. When they perceive that unions aren't listening to them, it's usually because that's true. The union corruption and contempt for workers is the cause, not the consequence, of workers giving up on unions.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      But union heads are elected by union members, aka workers. If the latter consider the former to be corrupt, they have the power to change that.
      - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
        Voting in a union like the teamsters might as well be pissing into the wind. The ability of any individual worker to change the way things work is academic at best, particularly in the big unions. Practically speaking, the most choice a worker has is to vote against the union in their shop, since their shop is much smaller than the union itself. Suppose you've got a shop with a hundred workers, and a union representing a million workers wants you to join. In the initial vote of whether or not to join, each worker has a hundredth of the decision making power. After they join, each worker only has one millionth of the decision making power. The only meaningful choice is whether or not to join that union; after you join you're going along for the ride with no real input into it.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      lol what do you think the bosses do when things don't go their way?
      - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
        Get a union and now you have twice as much of that, contempt from your boss and the union. Flagging for disagreement? Nice. Shit like this only makes me dislike unions and their advocates even more. When arguments don't go their way and their tactic of insulting people has already been called out, they resort to silencing tactics. Unfortunate for you that you don't know where I live, so the old classic of "brick through your livingroom window" isn't an option for you!
- wyager 5y ago
  > I think you'll find that unions are... whatever you and your colleagues want them to be This is not a realistic model at all. The kind of people who tend to accumulate power in unions, especially more white collar unions, do not tend to be the same kind of person or have the same personal or political goals as the people they nominally represent. Fledgeling tech unions in particular seem terrible here; I don't get the sense that they represent my interests as a tech worker at all, but rather that they come with a ton of political baggage and they only want my membership as a pretense for demanding random crap that I don't care about and doesn't benefit me. For example, the (unpopular) Alphabet Union "aims to stop Google from allowing its social media platforms such as YouTube to function as a hub for right-wing extremism and white supremacy". It has nothing to do with improving the material working conditions of union members.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    I suspect that you and I disagree on the politics, but it sounds to me that the unions haven't found the right issue yet that is broadly appealing enough. This issue of surveillance might be one.
    - wyager 5y ago
      My non-political normative belief is that unions should represent the interests of their members in their capacity as an employee working under the union. Stopping employers from spying on employees would definitely fall under this description. Again, I just haven't seen any tech unionization efforts in the US that legitimately seem to care about workers instead of using them as a pretense to accumulate power towards some other end.
      - tehjoker 5y ago
        Well, I do agree they should represent their members' interests. I will aver that fighting alongside your fellow workers builds class consciousness and progressive values, but that's up to you and your colleagues.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
sli 5y ago
Nope. I'd much rather unionize for better wages, better conditions (that includes this topic), collective bargaining, and to wrench some of the power back to the people doing the actual work. Not every software developer is making six figures working for FAANG, some of them have to put up with some awful conditions, and the whole "just get another job, it's not that difficult" attitude is a bubble that a lot of HN lives in. In short, I want democracy to extend to the workplace. The line we've drawn is artificial and one-sided.
- melony 5y ago
  It is people like you that drive high earners away from unions. Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. If you cannot get enough high income workers to buy-in, then your plan is dead on arrival. Bernie will be proud. Not everyone cares about the social justice issue du jour, most people just want more money. Ultimately, any union plan must show clear benefits and right now if you are earning more than 6 figures, unions are nothing but a waste of time and money. You have yet to demonstrate that an upper class union can go beyond crabs in a bucket gatekeeping.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. It's just not particularly valuable.
- derekp7 5y ago
  The problem people have with unions is that many of them elevate the lower performers by pushing down the higher performers. The higher performers have leverage already without a union. Of course this only works when there are more positions open that benefit from high performers than there is supply of high performing workers. Many tech workers believe this will be the case for some time to come. What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.
  - 5y ago
arcticbull 5y ago
Countries with high union participation rates have not seen nearly the divergence between wage growth and productivity growth over time that the US has. There's tons of data on this. Unions are good, union participation is good.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  This statistic isn't enough to say whether unions are good or bad, even if you assume there's causation. How do you know they don't do that by slowing down productivity growth, rather than by speeding up wage growth?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

I think you'll find that unions are defined as democratic organizations of workers and so they will be whatever you and your colleagues want them to be. There is also a legal framework established to keep labor peace, but you don't have to be peaceful (in the sense of not resisting) if you don't want to.

gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
Something that gets lost in the US is that the Union is made up of members. Many Americans appear to have the idea that the Union is the HR department for the employees. As a result, members often stop attending meetings, advocating for policies, etc. The unions devolve into a corrupt body because the lax democratic oversight allows a populist leader to provide just enough bread and circus to member while lining his or her own pocket.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  The problem union advocates in America have is whenever things don't go their way, they immediately resort to calling the workers idiots. The workers aren't idiots. When they perceive that unions aren't listening to them, it's usually because that's true. The union corruption and contempt for workers is the cause, not the consequence, of workers giving up on unions.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But union heads are elected by union members, aka workers. If the latter consider the former to be corrupt, they have the power to change that.
    - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
      Voting in a union like the teamsters might as well be pissing into the wind. The ability of any individual worker to change the way things work is academic at best, particularly in the big unions. Practically speaking, the most choice a worker has is to vote against the union in their shop, since their shop is much smaller than the union itself. Suppose you've got a shop with a hundred workers, and a union representing a million workers wants you to join. In the initial vote of whether or not to join, each worker has a hundredth of the decision making power. After they join, each worker only has one millionth of the decision making power. The only meaningful choice is whether or not to join that union; after you join you're going along for the ride with no real input into it.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    lol what do you think the bosses do when things don't go their way?
    - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
      Get a union and now you have twice as much of that, contempt from your boss and the union. Flagging for disagreement? Nice. Shit like this only makes me dislike unions and their advocates even more. When arguments don't go their way and their tactic of insulting people has already been called out, they resort to silencing tactics. Unfortunate for you that you don't know where I live, so the old classic of "brick through your livingroom window" isn't an option for you!
wyager 5y ago
> I think you'll find that unions are... whatever you and your colleagues want them to be This is not a realistic model at all. The kind of people who tend to accumulate power in unions, especially more white collar unions, do not tend to be the same kind of person or have the same personal or political goals as the people they nominally represent. Fledgeling tech unions in particular seem terrible here; I don't get the sense that they represent my interests as a tech worker at all, but rather that they come with a ton of political baggage and they only want my membership as a pretense for demanding random crap that I don't care about and doesn't benefit me. For example, the (unpopular) Alphabet Union "aims to stop Google from allowing its social media platforms such as YouTube to function as a hub for right-wing extremism and white supremacy". It has nothing to do with improving the material working conditions of union members.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  I suspect that you and I disagree on the politics, but it sounds to me that the unions haven't found the right issue yet that is broadly appealing enough. This issue of surveillance might be one.
  - wyager 5y ago
    My non-political normative belief is that unions should represent the interests of their members in their capacity as an employee working under the union. Stopping employers from spying on employees would definitely fall under this description. Again, I just haven't seen any tech unionization efforts in the US that legitimately seem to care about workers instead of using them as a pretense to accumulate power towards some other end.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      Well, I do agree they should represent their members' interests. I will aver that fighting alongside your fellow workers builds class consciousness and progressive values, but that's up to you and your colleagues.
- kmonsen 5y ago

sli 5y ago

Nope. I'd much rather unionize for better wages, better conditions (that includes this topic), collective bargaining, and to wrench some of the power back to the people doing the actual work. Not every software developer is making six figures working for FAANG, some of them have to put up with some awful conditions, and the whole "just get another job, it's not that difficult" attitude is a bubble that a lot of HN lives in. In short, I want democracy to extend to the workplace. The line we've drawn is artificial and one-sided.

melony 5y ago
It is people like you that drive high earners away from unions. Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. If you cannot get enough high income workers to buy-in, then your plan is dead on arrival. Bernie will be proud. Not everyone cares about the social justice issue du jour, most people just want more money. Ultimately, any union plan must show clear benefits and right now if you are earning more than 6 figures, unions are nothing but a waste of time and money. You have yet to demonstrate that an upper class union can go beyond crabs in a bucket gatekeeping.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. It's just not particularly valuable.
derekp7 5y ago
The problem people have with unions is that many of them elevate the lower performers by pushing down the higher performers. The higher performers have leverage already without a union. Of course this only works when there are more positions open that benefit from high performers than there is supply of high performing workers. Many tech workers believe this will be the case for some time to come. What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.
- 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

Countries with high union participation rates have not seen nearly the divergence between wage growth and productivity growth over time that the US has. There's tons of data on this. Unions are good, union participation is good.

josephcsible 5y ago
This statistic isn't enough to say whether unions are good or bad, even if you assume there's causation. How do you know they don't do that by slowing down productivity growth, rather than by speeding up wage growth?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]