4 ms·

Unions are good for lazy employees because it makes them harder to fire. Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for th

Unions are good for lazy employees because it makes them harder to fire. Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired. As someone who works hard I definitely would never want a union.

yohannparis 4y ago
This is an interesting opinion. The fact that an employees as to make up for another colleagues is weird. If your manager is unloading on you, you have a bad manager, nothing to do with your "lazy" colleague.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  Its just the reality of how many jobs are. It makes sense for managers to structure the work in this way, using an informal system of what amounts to group punishment if the team as a whole performs poorly. That way the team manages itself, lazy employees will be peer pressured into getting improving or quitting. Is it unfair? yes. Is it highly prevalent in jobs? Also yes.
  - jfghi 4y ago
    - knappe 4y ago
      Look, I don't agree with the parent's viewpoint either but this comment is entirely unhelpful and borderline a person attack. Can we not?
      - lovich 4y ago
        It is a personal attack but I don’t know what one would expect when the OP opened up with characterizing everyone wanting a union as lazy
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - yohannparis 4y ago
    In that case you have two lazy employees, your colleague and your manager.
NickC25 4y ago
You should go talk to the railway workers who are about to strike. Your perspective might change.
- harlequinn77 4y ago
saxonww 4y ago
I strongly agreed, until I started seeing things like my company 'laying off' a few hundred people and then that afternoon telling everyone left "we're hiring!" Or my favorite "this office is no longer able to host this job function, we really want to keep you but you have to move to this higher cost of living area within 90 days - sorry, we can't make compensation adjustments at this time - or we'll have to let you go." Or, seeing someone paid vastly more or less than I am for the same work; if you think a peer is doing good work and they are paid a lot less than you are, that's not you whining about not making enough money. It's absolutely true that there are people who toe the line with respect to doing the minimum they can get away with and keep their job. I've seen it, and I'm sure other people have seen it. It's absolutely true that (in the US at least) union leadership is not immune to leaders who think leadership is about being in charge of others or building a fiefdom. I don't think these negatives are exclusive to unions, though, and I think it's a bit dangerous to let businesses convince you that they are.
tibbon 4y ago
I'm a coder, and now in a union. I'm happy about this. No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address. I'm also not just concerned about myself and my own compensation, I greatly care about my team overall. Sure, I can muscle my way up through performance reviews and such but not everyone has the same background or privilege I do. I'm happy to have a union to represent everyone, and not be happy with a few people having a lot of leverage. Caring about others... who would have thought?
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  Sorry but Im not a charity worker. Its great that you are priveleged enough that you are in a position where you can be, but I cant afford to accept working harder to make up for less competent/lazier workers.
  - kbenson 4y ago
    > less competent/lazier workers That's an extremely naive view of the people a union is intended to protect. Even a minimal amount of research, or even some simple pondering of the situations your fellow employees might find themselves in that benefit from a stronger work contract would lead to many other cases where a union has benefit. That's not to say a union is right for every company or job, but to think it only benefits those you outlined is just plain silly when any thought it put into it. If you really need some help in figuring out a beneficial case, consider what purpose insurance often serves, and also consider power imbalances when you have a bunch of individuals against one large unified opponent (when any negotiation can be considered adversarial under these conditions).
    - ericb 4y ago
      > less competent/lazier workers Not the op, but that isn't naive. Did a short stint in a union shop. The day had more breaks than it did work in it. Me and the other new guy started cranking on our task list, and were told by our manager to "slow down or you'll work yourself out of a job."
devmor 4y ago
You are already making up for lazy workers without a union. It's just that they're your bosses, not your co-workers. You are working harder than you need to so more money goes to shareholders and executives can hire less and delegate less. A union doesn't solve or make that problem worse, it just gives you more power in the relationship.
bwestergard 4y ago
My coworkers and I were all illegally fired in retaliation for forming a union a few years ago. The federal agency that investigates violations of labor law found the employer to be obviously at fault, and we settled for cash. As part of the federal investigation it came out that the employer had drawn up a list of employees they wanted to keep if at all possible. I was on that short list; but once it became clear I was pro-union, they fired me anyway. Contrast that with the actual union contracts coverings software devs being bargained at places like the New York Times or Kickstarter. I'll take my peers' idea of a fair process over the employer's any day.
kej 4y ago
This argument assumes that non-union jobs are all magically perfect meritocracies and that unions provide no benefits other than protecting lazy people. Neither of those things have been true in my experience.
systemvoltage 4y ago
> Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired. Yea, and without any upside, so they'll eventually leave. Union power will then sort of get in a chinese finger trap situation, continually defending malaise and bankrupting the company. Unions are destructive IMO. They're an indication of the current times. The entire society is getting into "insurance" mode because we don't have any definite ideas anymore.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> bad for the hard workers Some industries resist unionization, not through management being dicks, but because the talented workers start a competitor that wins market share. Most industries aren't like that, however, and to the degree they are, it's a transient state.
kristopolous 4y ago
You sound like a pro police kinda person. You know they're all unionized right? As well as the sheriffs. Maybe you watch Fox news or listen to Sinclair. They're all union too... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Broadcasters_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Broadcasters_... Just like the multi-million Park Avenue penthouses all being co-ops, when it comes to the rich and powerful it's "unions and coops for me, landlords and bosses for thee" Curious...

yohannparis 4y ago

This is an interesting opinion. The fact that an employees as to make up for another colleagues is weird. If your manager is unloading on you, you have a bad manager, nothing to do with your "lazy" colleague.

unknownaccount 4y ago
Its just the reality of how many jobs are. It makes sense for managers to structure the work in this way, using an informal system of what amounts to group punishment if the team as a whole performs poorly. That way the team manages itself, lazy employees will be peer pressured into getting improving or quitting. Is it unfair? yes. Is it highly prevalent in jobs? Also yes.
- jfghi 4y ago
  - knappe 4y ago
    Look, I don't agree with the parent's viewpoint either but this comment is entirely unhelpful and borderline a person attack. Can we not?
    - lovich 4y ago
      It is a personal attack but I don’t know what one would expect when the OP opened up with characterizing everyone wanting a union as lazy
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- yohannparis 4y ago
  In that case you have two lazy employees, your colleague and your manager.

NickC25 4y ago

You should go talk to the railway workers who are about to strike. Your perspective might change.

harlequinn77 4y ago

saxonww 4y ago

I strongly agreed, until I started seeing things like my company 'laying off' a few hundred people and then that afternoon telling everyone left "we're hiring!" Or my favorite "this office is no longer able to host this job function, we really want to keep you but you have to move to this higher cost of living area within 90 days - sorry, we can't make compensation adjustments at this time - or we'll have to let you go." Or, seeing someone paid vastly more or less than I am for the same work; if you think a peer is doing good work and they are paid a lot less than you are, that's not you whining about not making enough money. It's absolutely true that there are people who toe the line with respect to doing the minimum they can get away with and keep their job. I've seen it, and I'm sure other people have seen it. It's absolutely true that (in the US at least) union leadership is not immune to leaders who think leadership is about being in charge of others or building a fiefdom. I don't think these negatives are exclusive to unions, though, and I think it's a bit dangerous to let businesses convince you that they are.

tibbon 4y ago

I'm a coder, and now in a union. I'm happy about this. No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address. I'm also not just concerned about myself and my own compensation, I greatly care about my team overall. Sure, I can muscle my way up through performance reviews and such but not everyone has the same background or privilege I do. I'm happy to have a union to represent everyone, and not be happy with a few people having a lot of leverage. Caring about others... who would have thought?

unknownaccount 4y ago
Sorry but Im not a charity worker. Its great that you are priveleged enough that you are in a position where you can be, but I cant afford to accept working harder to make up for less competent/lazier workers.
- kbenson 4y ago
  > less competent/lazier workers That's an extremely naive view of the people a union is intended to protect. Even a minimal amount of research, or even some simple pondering of the situations your fellow employees might find themselves in that benefit from a stronger work contract would lead to many other cases where a union has benefit. That's not to say a union is right for every company or job, but to think it only benefits those you outlined is just plain silly when any thought it put into it. If you really need some help in figuring out a beneficial case, consider what purpose insurance often serves, and also consider power imbalances when you have a bunch of individuals against one large unified opponent (when any negotiation can be considered adversarial under these conditions).
  - ericb 4y ago
    > less competent/lazier workers Not the op, but that isn't naive. Did a short stint in a union shop. The day had more breaks than it did work in it. Me and the other new guy started cranking on our task list, and were told by our manager to "slow down or you'll work yourself out of a job."

devmor 4y ago

You are already making up for lazy workers without a union. It's just that they're your bosses, not your co-workers. You are working harder than you need to so more money goes to shareholders and executives can hire less and delegate less. A union doesn't solve or make that problem worse, it just gives you more power in the relationship.

bwestergard 4y ago

My coworkers and I were all illegally fired in retaliation for forming a union a few years ago. The federal agency that investigates violations of labor law found the employer to be obviously at fault, and we settled for cash. As part of the federal investigation it came out that the employer had drawn up a list of employees they wanted to keep if at all possible. I was on that short list; but once it became clear I was pro-union, they fired me anyway. Contrast that with the actual union contracts coverings software devs being bargained at places like the New York Times or Kickstarter. I'll take my peers' idea of a fair process over the employer's any day.

kej 4y ago

This argument assumes that non-union jobs are all magically perfect meritocracies and that unions provide no benefits other than protecting lazy people. Neither of those things have been true in my experience.

systemvoltage 4y ago

> Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired. Yea, and without any upside, so they'll eventually leave. Union power will then sort of get in a chinese finger trap situation, continually defending malaise and bankrupting the company. Unions are destructive IMO. They're an indication of the current times. The entire society is getting into "insurance" mode because we don't have any definite ideas anymore.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> bad for the hard workers Some industries resist unionization, not through management being dicks, but because the talented workers start a competitor that wins market share. Most industries aren't like that, however, and to the degree they are, it's a transient state.

kristopolous 4y ago

You sound like a pro police kinda person. You know they're all unionized right? As well as the sheriffs. Maybe you watch Fox news or listen to Sinclair. They're all union too... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Broadcasters_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Broadcasters_... Just like the multi-million Park Avenue penthouses all being co-ops, when it comes to the rich and powerful it's "unions and coops for me, landlords and bosses for thee" Curious...