7 ms·

Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than

Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome. > At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.

approxim8ion 5y ago
At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.
- eru 5y ago
  Careful. You are fighting a strawman here. First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'. Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences. > [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves. Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation. Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.
- kemotep 5y ago
  What if labor rights and regulations provided nearly all the same benefits as unions but across the board to everyone, union member or not? Union membership could still be something you could choose to do, but the better working conditions be legislated so everyone in the country, no matter what job, had fair working conditions? I’m someone who is not necessarily pro-union but understand that working conditions could be improved. A great example is 40 hour work weeks. I have never been in a union but because there are laws regulating a standard work week and mandating overtime if you go over, I have benefited from that. We could all collectively as a country lobby for this instead of each individual workplace fighting the same battle one thousand times over. Not every anti-union argument is based on the one you are postulating.
snowwrestler 5y ago
Tom Brady, the greatest quarterback of all time, with a professional agency to negotiate on his behalf, was in a union. Tom Cruise is in a union. Steven Spielberg is in a union. There may be philosophical reasons to oppose a union, but contracting isn’t generally an issue. If you have more negotiating power than the union, you can just negotiate on top of the union contract, like sports and entertainment stars do.
- limelight 5y ago
  The existence of some unions which don't enforce collective bargaining doesn't negate the fact that most worker unions limit the negotiating power of individuals. In fact, they actively attempt to eliminate it and socially/professionally isolate anyone who prefers to negotiate directly. Most software developers, even top performers, are not brand name celebrities. If the union forces everyone to follow a contract, they will need to comply. Realistically, tech unions will end up looking a lot more like journalist unions than football stars. This is explicitly the goal of the new NYT union: they are looking to "begin negotiations for a contract with management." Some union boss negotiating my employment contract is my worst nightmare. I have friends who work in union companies and they hate the union's policies but are terrified of going against the union bosses.
- icelancer 5y ago
  Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan were not in the union, and they are considered the very best (or top three) in their sport, respectively.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Sports is different. Sports leagues legally collude with each other when hiring. Basketball teams have a salary cap for their entire roster.

approxim8ion 5y ago

At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.

eru 5y ago
Careful. You are fighting a strawman here. First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'. Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences. > [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves. Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation. Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.
kemotep 5y ago
What if labor rights and regulations provided nearly all the same benefits as unions but across the board to everyone, union member or not? Union membership could still be something you could choose to do, but the better working conditions be legislated so everyone in the country, no matter what job, had fair working conditions? I’m someone who is not necessarily pro-union but understand that working conditions could be improved. A great example is 40 hour work weeks. I have never been in a union but because there are laws regulating a standard work week and mandating overtime if you go over, I have benefited from that. We could all collectively as a country lobby for this instead of each individual workplace fighting the same battle one thousand times over. Not every anti-union argument is based on the one you are postulating.

snowwrestler 5y ago

Tom Brady, the greatest quarterback of all time, with a professional agency to negotiate on his behalf, was in a union. Tom Cruise is in a union. Steven Spielberg is in a union. There may be philosophical reasons to oppose a union, but contracting isn’t generally an issue. If you have more negotiating power than the union, you can just negotiate on top of the union contract, like sports and entertainment stars do.

limelight 5y ago
The existence of some unions which don't enforce collective bargaining doesn't negate the fact that most worker unions limit the negotiating power of individuals. In fact, they actively attempt to eliminate it and socially/professionally isolate anyone who prefers to negotiate directly. Most software developers, even top performers, are not brand name celebrities. If the union forces everyone to follow a contract, they will need to comply. Realistically, tech unions will end up looking a lot more like journalist unions than football stars. This is explicitly the goal of the new NYT union: they are looking to "begin negotiations for a contract with management." Some union boss negotiating my employment contract is my worst nightmare. I have friends who work in union companies and they hate the union's policies but are terrified of going against the union bosses.
icelancer 5y ago
Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan were not in the union, and they are considered the very best (or top three) in their sport, respectively.
scarface74 5y ago
Sports is different. Sports leagues legally collude with each other when hiring. Basketball teams have a salary cap for their entire roster.