5 ms·

I hate unions and everything about them. You don't like working conditions in the company - leave. You don't like conditions in your industry - switch specialt

I hate unions and everything about them. You don't like working conditions in the company - leave. You don't like conditions in your industry - switch specialty, go elsewhere. Too lazy to switch or too gifted to leave? Well, sure, OK, let's instead arm-twist and blackmail employer. Given, there are circumstances when you can't leave or switch. Say, if you are a miner in a small mining town. One employer, one skill set, no possibility of re-training. But unions are essentially an artifact of the 19th century.

knieveltech 14y ago
The very concept of work/life balance is an artifact of unionization. You hate everything about unions? Fascinating. How many have you worked for? Edit: upon reflection my original comment left a lot on the floor so I'm circling back to pick some of it up. Here's what a "typical" union experience looks like: The union hall staffs individuals that find work for you. The bulk of back-office paperwork and other hassles (including wage negotiation) are handled on your behalf by the hall. When you first hire on it's typically as a pre-apprentice (no prior experience) or apprentice (some applicable experience to the trade). OJT and training/certification materials are provided for you. Your coworkers are trained, experienced craftsmen. All applicable safety guidelines are rigidly enforced. From day 1 you are presented with the kind of benefits package that is no longer available to your average worker. In addition to credible health insurance this includes pension, annuity, on the job training and certification, and death benefits. In addition to your wage you are guaranteed additional compensation for overtime and hazardous work. By way of comparison, working in the trades for a non-union shop is at best a crapshoot. There's no guarantee SS and other taxes are being taken out correctly or at all. I've known several subcontractors who've gotten royally screwed by the IRS come tax time when they found out that they (unexpectedly) owed thousands in taxes. Safety guidelines are routinely ignored, it's nothing to get shorted on your paycheck (or go weeks without pay), benefits are typically non-existent, no guarantees of overtime, and you're working sink or swim with whoever the boss could scrape together to form a crew, typically for less money than you'd make in a union shop and that's after dues. General contractors also tend to maintain a good-ol-boy network, so you go rocking the boat about substandard pay or unsafe working conditions and it's a very real possibility that you could find yourself blackballed in your area. TL;DR: Union: guaranteed pay, safe working conditions, training provided for career advancement, benefits, retirement plan. Non-union: good luck, buddy. Full disclosure: I worked in the trades (both union and non-union) for several years before changing career tracks to become a programmer. I do not regret my time with the Union and would go back in a heartbeat if for some reason coding was no longer a viable career option.
- TheCapn 14y ago
  Based on anecdotal experiences mine were nearly the opposite. Now I was never a trades worker but I did work for a unionized company. Up to a few months ago before leaving for private sector. Union: - Everyone is complacent with work, majority of time is spent faking work or finding ways out of work (pay raises are not tied to performance) - Net pay below average for industry (Below 50th percentile) - Under-skilled workers protected by the union from being let go. - Successes & Failures of the company are shared amongst the entire employee base. As a result there is no motivating drive to work harder to push better products out faster because there is no direct feedback resulting from it - Training is provided on a seniority basis Non-Union: - Identical benefits (or at the very least negotiable) but higher base wage - Skilled workers who are hired based off of recommendation of trusted employees exclusively - Strong motivating factor to produce more deliverable work as it is a direct correlation to the business's success and therefore yours (profit sharing) - Pay raise is tied to performance - Training provided on an as needed basis -> The new guy might get training before the 10 year vet because he/she is the one going to be working with that particular skill set in the short time frame ---- Shared amongst those is equal work/life balance and safety. Labour laws have protected the workforce from shady practices you experienced (arguably an isolated incident). I'm thankful for what unions of the last few centuries have brought for us, but speaking in the majority of cases I've heard of, (anecdotal: take it as you will) they are now power hungry bodies that are corroding industry from the inside out.
  - knieveltech 14y ago
    I can't speak to your experiences other than to say it's disgusting mismanagement if true. I've heard similar stories involving non-trades union companies. I've also heard amazing success stories involving companies bought out of bankruptcy by their employees and turned into financial success stories. Guess it depends on the people involved. One thing I can address is this: " Labour laws have protected the workforce from shady practices you experienced (arguably an isolated incident)" In manufacturing and trades (especially trades) this isn't even slightly accurate. Laws don't protect people, they provide a theoretical framework for compensation or punitive action after the fact. In practice a private citizen has almost no chance against a corporate lawyer in court, so it's almost impossible to prove workplace safety violations. On the rare ocassion that something does stick in court companies caught violating worker safety laws typically get a slap on the wrist, meanwhile whistleblowers better have a spare career up their sleeves or line up a settlement big enough to retire on because they won't be working for any outfits in their industry once they pull the trigger on a court case. Good luck proving the last company you interviewed you didn't hire you because you blew the whistle on your last employer. :/
namdnay 14y ago
The problem is that the employee-employer relationship is imbalanced: you only have one employer (in the vast majority of cases) but you have many employees. If for example you are in an area with only one company in your field, you're very vulnerable: quitting would mean having to move yourself, your spouse, your children, sell your house etc... Some will use that to exploit you. Unions are a way to redress the imbalance. Think of union membership as a mutual defence agreement. You shouldn't evaluate the worthiness of unions based on the average HN situation of a young professional with relatively little debts/commitments working in a specialised and in-demand field. What I do find outrageous is the way certain unions start getting heavily involved in politics. They should stick to protecting employees from abusive action by specific companies.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  If there's only one company in your field, you likely have chosen the wrong field. You are trying to fight a non-competitive labor market with anti-wage-competition tactics. If there is only one company in your field, it is likely they are a niche, which can only expand payroll (as a percentage of earnings) to a certain degree before they damage investment return and collapse the capitalization of their enterprise.
debacle 14y ago
Your comment is at odds with itself. On the one hand, you say that if you don't like the working conditions, leave, on the other hand you point to one of the most unskilled and exploited labor positions (mining) as a good use for a union. Which union do you think has more power: The AMA or a union for miners? In one, the employees are scarce, limited, and irreplaceable. In the other, the employees are numerous, easy to train, and very replaceable. Why would you try to justify a union for one and not the other when it's clear that there's no value in dealing with a mining union - it's cheaper to just bring in new employees.
- wnight 14y ago
  Exactly, that was the point. Miners need unions more because it's easier for them to be exploited. They probably need legal protections because they aren't coming from positions with many valid choices. On the other hand, tech workers aren't in a commonly harmful, let-alone fatal, profession and we enjoy pretty good mobility. We don't need unions half as much as we need to take a principled stand and vote with our feet.
dredmorbius 14y ago
Please turn in your 40 hour work week, 2 day weekend, paid vacation, overtime, paid holidays, medical benefits, prohibitions against child labor, minimum wage, and unemployment insurance. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/05/148930/top-five-things-unions/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/05/148930/top-five... Thank you.

knieveltech 14y ago

The very concept of work/life balance is an artifact of unionization. You hate everything about unions? Fascinating. How many have you worked for? Edit: upon reflection my original comment left a lot on the floor so I'm circling back to pick some of it up. Here's what a "typical" union experience looks like: The union hall staffs individuals that find work for you. The bulk of back-office paperwork and other hassles (including wage negotiation) are handled on your behalf by the hall. When you first hire on it's typically as a pre-apprentice (no prior experience) or apprentice (some applicable experience to the trade). OJT and training/certification materials are provided for you. Your coworkers are trained, experienced craftsmen. All applicable safety guidelines are rigidly enforced. From day 1 you are presented with the kind of benefits package that is no longer available to your average worker. In addition to credible health insurance this includes pension, annuity, on the job training and certification, and death benefits. In addition to your wage you are guaranteed additional compensation for overtime and hazardous work. By way of comparison, working in the trades for a non-union shop is at best a crapshoot. There's no guarantee SS and other taxes are being taken out correctly or at all. I've known several subcontractors who've gotten royally screwed by the IRS come tax time when they found out that they (unexpectedly) owed thousands in taxes. Safety guidelines are routinely ignored, it's nothing to get shorted on your paycheck (or go weeks without pay), benefits are typically non-existent, no guarantees of overtime, and you're working sink or swim with whoever the boss could scrape together to form a crew, typically for less money than you'd make in a union shop and that's after dues. General contractors also tend to maintain a good-ol-boy network, so you go rocking the boat about substandard pay or unsafe working conditions and it's a very real possibility that you could find yourself blackballed in your area. TL;DR: Union: guaranteed pay, safe working conditions, training provided for career advancement, benefits, retirement plan. Non-union: good luck, buddy. Full disclosure: I worked in the trades (both union and non-union) for several years before changing career tracks to become a programmer. I do not regret my time with the Union and would go back in a heartbeat if for some reason coding was no longer a viable career option.

TheCapn 14y ago
Based on anecdotal experiences mine were nearly the opposite. Now I was never a trades worker but I did work for a unionized company. Up to a few months ago before leaving for private sector. Union: - Everyone is complacent with work, majority of time is spent faking work or finding ways out of work (pay raises are not tied to performance) - Net pay below average for industry (Below 50th percentile) - Under-skilled workers protected by the union from being let go. - Successes & Failures of the company are shared amongst the entire employee base. As a result there is no motivating drive to work harder to push better products out faster because there is no direct feedback resulting from it - Training is provided on a seniority basis Non-Union: - Identical benefits (or at the very least negotiable) but higher base wage - Skilled workers who are hired based off of recommendation of trusted employees exclusively - Strong motivating factor to produce more deliverable work as it is a direct correlation to the business's success and therefore yours (profit sharing) - Pay raise is tied to performance - Training provided on an as needed basis -> The new guy might get training before the 10 year vet because he/she is the one going to be working with that particular skill set in the short time frame ---- Shared amongst those is equal work/life balance and safety. Labour laws have protected the workforce from shady practices you experienced (arguably an isolated incident). I'm thankful for what unions of the last few centuries have brought for us, but speaking in the majority of cases I've heard of, (anecdotal: take it as you will) they are now power hungry bodies that are corroding industry from the inside out.
- knieveltech 14y ago
  I can't speak to your experiences other than to say it's disgusting mismanagement if true. I've heard similar stories involving non-trades union companies. I've also heard amazing success stories involving companies bought out of bankruptcy by their employees and turned into financial success stories. Guess it depends on the people involved. One thing I can address is this: " Labour laws have protected the workforce from shady practices you experienced (arguably an isolated incident)" In manufacturing and trades (especially trades) this isn't even slightly accurate. Laws don't protect people, they provide a theoretical framework for compensation or punitive action after the fact. In practice a private citizen has almost no chance against a corporate lawyer in court, so it's almost impossible to prove workplace safety violations. On the rare ocassion that something does stick in court companies caught violating worker safety laws typically get a slap on the wrist, meanwhile whistleblowers better have a spare career up their sleeves or line up a settlement big enough to retire on because they won't be working for any outfits in their industry once they pull the trigger on a court case. Good luck proving the last company you interviewed you didn't hire you because you blew the whistle on your last employer. :/

namdnay 14y ago

The problem is that the employee-employer relationship is imbalanced: you only have one employer (in the vast majority of cases) but you have many employees. If for example you are in an area with only one company in your field, you're very vulnerable: quitting would mean having to move yourself, your spouse, your children, sell your house etc... Some will use that to exploit you. Unions are a way to redress the imbalance. Think of union membership as a mutual defence agreement. You shouldn't evaluate the worthiness of unions based on the average HN situation of a young professional with relatively little debts/commitments working in a specialised and in-demand field. What I do find outrageous is the way certain unions start getting heavily involved in politics. They should stick to protecting employees from abusive action by specific companies.

sageikosa 14y ago
If there's only one company in your field, you likely have chosen the wrong field. You are trying to fight a non-competitive labor market with anti-wage-competition tactics. If there is only one company in your field, it is likely they are a niche, which can only expand payroll (as a percentage of earnings) to a certain degree before they damage investment return and collapse the capitalization of their enterprise.

debacle 14y ago

Your comment is at odds with itself. On the one hand, you say that if you don't like the working conditions, leave, on the other hand you point to one of the most unskilled and exploited labor positions (mining) as a good use for a union. Which union do you think has more power: The AMA or a union for miners? In one, the employees are scarce, limited, and irreplaceable. In the other, the employees are numerous, easy to train, and very replaceable. Why would you try to justify a union for one and not the other when it's clear that there's no value in dealing with a mining union - it's cheaper to just bring in new employees.

wnight 14y ago
Exactly, that was the point. Miners need unions more because it's easier for them to be exploited. They probably need legal protections because they aren't coming from positions with many valid choices. On the other hand, tech workers aren't in a commonly harmful, let-alone fatal, profession and we enjoy pretty good mobility. We don't need unions half as much as we need to take a principled stand and vote with our feet.

dredmorbius 14y ago

Please turn in your 40 hour work week, 2 day weekend, paid vacation, overtime, paid holidays, medical benefits, prohibitions against child labor, minimum wage, and unemployment insurance. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/05/148930/top-five-things-unions/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/05/148930/top-five... Thank you.