3 ms·

Hard pass. I can do better without a union than with one, and I refuse to subsidise those who can't.

• millzlane 3y ago
  In this system, who would you subsidize?
  • nxm 3y ago
    Likely the terrible/slacking developers
• hospitalJail 3y ago
  The goal isnt to strike or anything, its to raise money, lobby the government, and give ourselves some sort of regulatory capture. Look at the medical cartels for the playbook. Make it illegal to outsource work, make the barrier to entry high, etc... Sure its terrible for the nation, but everyone else is doing it. We don't want to be last.
• BowBun 3y ago
  It's a lot like insurance - you might be fine right now, and you may be fine for your whole life, but what if you aren't? There are so many scenarios where you can fall out of favor and where collective bargaining is the only lever you have to pull against a large company. The chances are relatively small for an individual, but with the # of people involved, it happens a lot (we see HN post about workplace retaliation and employment litigation all the time). And then, of course, there's the argument that those that truly need the unions could be your kids, your relatives, people you care about. I don't think you need to be so concerned about subsidizing others; we all already benefit from that. This stance of being so protective of your labor should be reserved for employers and the Capital class, not weaponized against fellow workers to throw them under the bus.
• anildash 3y ago
  So what you really want to do is subsidize _managers_ who can't?