7 ms·

I have pretty mixed feelings on unions. I spent most of my early career as a non-union blue collar worker embedded into mixed teams (union + non-union members).

I have pretty mixed feelings on unions. I spent most of my early career as a non-union blue collar worker embedded into mixed teams (union + non-union members). The general experience I walked away with was that unions seemed to attract the worst employees. I remember one individual in particular who, having worked with him for two years, never once actually did any work. He was actually one of my first mentors and I vividly recall riding in the truck with him as he explained "the game" to me about how to make good money while basically doing no work, and how it was "unfortunate" I couldn't play because I was "working for the man." This might not seem so annoying, but in the Bay Area where I worked, the unions had lobbied to secure work that could _only_ be done by union members. For example, I was a controls technician, and I legally couldn't wire a 12v controller because it was considered protected work. Which means I had to try to convince the same people who were not incentivized to be productive to help me. So yeah, after a few years of that, I left with a pretty sour taste in my mouth. That being said, philosophically I like the idea of unions. I've had my own share of experiences being abused by "the man." The retirement plans offered in particular were always alluring. But, despite being invited to join, I never felt compelled because I just couldn't find myself enjoying working with the people they attracted.

phil21 5mo ago
Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all. But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. Not my thing. At all. One should be able to be rewarded for hard work and productivity when you are expending more effort than the guy clocking in and doing everything possible to avoid it. I’ve often thought you solve this via old fashioned guild based systems. The guild trains and provides labor while guaranteeing skills, quality, and honesty. They vet their members and cull the losers - a poor performing member should be seen as a liability for the rest of the pool of labor and very quickly corrected or removed from the guild. That way employers know that even if they are paying more than they would like, at least the labor being supplied is going to be top tier and the job will done done to a high standard and on time. Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. There are some trades unions in local chapter formats that work somewhat like this today. I’d just like to see more of it and more formalized with local competition between different union groups.
- aliasxneo 5mo ago
  Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience. > Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.
  - Muromec 5mo ago
    Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better? On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others. The thing is real, but so are the people. Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recognise this thing at work.
    - mc32 5mo ago
      There should be disincentives for poor performance, options to improve performance (training, counseling, etc.) and incentives for good performance (better raises, perks, etc.) to incentivize good employees.
    - aliasxneo 5mo ago
      > Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? The union should help them find roles they can be successful in. It should offer them more specialized training, mentorship programs, and other ways to help build up their skills. If they refuse to take any of these seriously, they should be fired. To me, that's the difference between poor performing and intentional laziness.
WillAdams 5mo ago
The experience which I had which sums up the negatives about unions was when I was working at the then 4th largest printer in the U.S., and the largest privately owned print shop, when I pulled up in my then several years old Chevy Cavalier and parked next to a one year newer one --- an erstwhile union rep then pulled up in a brand new Lincoln Town Car and got out and asked me if I was interested in unionizing the company --- I pointed to the car I was parked next to and stated, "That car belongs to the owner of the company, it's the first new car he ever purchased, previously having driven company vans which had such high mileage that the company auctioned them off. Why would I give money to someone who is driving an even nicer car?" The flip side was when the company owner retired from active management to the board of directors, and a management consultant was brought in to make the company more profitable --- he opened the curtains of the boardroom where he was making his pitch, pointed out at the parking lot filled with nice cars and trucks in good repair and stated, "You're paying too many people too much money." An uncle of mine in the coal region of the northwestern Virginia mountain once noted that a local union organizer was noted for having 3 things in his trunk: - a mimeograph - a fifth of whiskey - a sawed-off shotgun Any discussion of unions needs to include a history of the Pinkertons.
- HappMacDonald 5mo ago
  My name is Jesse James and I would like to know more about the history of the Pinkertons 8I
  - salawat 5mo ago
    A group of private investigators and strike breakers engaged by the wealthy to quell the rabble. When you hear someone talking about it being cheaper to pay 10% of the working class to keep the other 90% down, shit like the Pinkertons is always the answer as to how. https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-pinkertons https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-pinkertons https://daily.jstor.org/how-steelworkers-stopped-a-paramilitary-movement/ https://daily.jstor.org/how-steelworkers-stopped-a-paramilit... Not hard to find.
    - 5mo ago
infecto 5mo ago
Similar mixed opinions. I think labor absolutely has an ability to make collective decisions but I also believe business should have the ability to fire at will and I am not convinced that unions should be protected from that. I have only been exposed to unions like dock workers where who you know or the color of your skin matter more than your ability to execute on the job.
Jcampuzano2 5mo ago
This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon. Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall. Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore. Additionally most companies arguments against unions make the assumption that EVERYONE wants to be part of that top percentage, that everyone is extremely motivated to move up the ladder, etc. Also they bank on convincing everyone they could be part of that top percentage that moves up. But statistically only so many can, and there is no universe where everyone can be that top worker who is successful because only so many can move up anyways. Edit: Adding that this is from my perspective on US views of unions. I don't know much about how it differs elsewhere since many point out it seems to be done differently here vs elsewhere.
- perfmode 5mo ago
  Squid Game
- chii 5mo ago
  equality of outcome is unnecessary, only equality of opportunity is required.
  - oblio 5mo ago
    So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?
    - chii 5mo ago
      why isnt it fair? Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).
throwaway27448 5mo ago
It'a worth noting shareholders also provide no value. We need to fix both ends of the equation to move forward as a society.
- MattDamonSpace 5mo ago
  they literally provide value Shareholders are investors who give valuable resources to business
  - throwaway27448 5mo ago
    We certainly don't need private investment to develop an economy. I, for one, am tired of supporting lazy parasites whose only contribution is money, and who don't know how to invest it for the rest of us. It's a completely broken model.
  - miltonlost 5mo ago
    No, they provide capital. It's the workers who provide value to the company.
    - missedthecue 5mo ago
      It's hard to explain why entrepreneurs want capital so much if it provides zero value. They're all stupid and doing something they ought not to?
      - faidit 5mo ago
        So they can hire workers. Without whom more capital can't be produced
        Jensson 5mo ago
        And why can money hire workers? Its because that money lets them get goods that was produced by previous investments. Without the investor class you wouldn't get large new projects organized. The alternative to private investments is communism, and we all know how that works out, it results in politicians hogging all the wealth and generally making even worse decisions with that money than the greedy capitalists does. People prefer working for greedy capitalists since it generally pays better than working for the government.
Balvarez 5mo ago
Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into the dirt, I'm likely right. Also let me be clear, I'm not attacking your comment but what sort of comment would be most-likely amplified by anti-union forces.
- xur17 5mo ago
  Maybe, but I have heard the exact same experience from my Dad and others that have worked with unions. It unfortunately seems to attract people trying to take advantage of the system. Personally if I were offered similar jobs, one with a union, one without, I'd take the one without.
- izacus 5mo ago
  Yep, this is textbook unionbusting propaganda.
  - ericd 5mo ago
    Rein in the worst excesses, and you won't have the general population spreading these stories as a response to their own experiences with unions. Living in NYC and observing union workers was enough to fully convince me that union regs weren't promoting efficiency in the workplace, no need for shady capitalists to try to convince me. And a lot of times, those people were working for public dollars, so it was hurting all of us.
- aliasxneo 5mo ago
  Well, I'm the sole provider in a single income family with several dependents. My assumption is that would make me the natural fit for a union given how much my employment means my family stays off the street. That's why I have mixed feelings. The idea of a union aligns with my living situation. The reality, however, always left a sour taste in my mouth.
- 5mo ago
pasquinelli 5mo ago
i like my union because they force the management to actually take care of our equipment. every non-union job i've had involves a lot of making fucked up shit kind of work. that's what i want from a union, tangible benefits to my working conditions. it's not a social club, and i'm not one to be worried about the caliber of people i associate with.
tristor 5mo ago
Very similar experiences here. My first job was in a union shop, but you could not be forced to join. Whether you joined or not, though, you had dues taken from your pay. I refused to join initially because I could choose to join at any moment, it wasn't a locked decision. I immediately had people trying to convince me to join, while within months of working there I realized how little pride or effort anyone took in their work. I worked at that company for three years and never joined the union, which apparently made the management think I wanted to be in management because they kept trying to promote me. I never wanted to be in management (then). I was easily 6x as productive as anyone else there, and I saw lots of really ridiculous petty corruption take place amongst the union members. Really soured me on unions, despite the general high level idea being something I agree with. I can't imagine ever joining a union.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo ago
Your anecdote is useful and will be upvoted
vlan0 5mo ago
It feels like a systems problem. It seems like the same theme that we see in for say, startup to corporate transformation. I think ultimately it comes down to size. They become too big and the power consumes. And they become what they once fought.
FatherOfCurses 5mo ago
The same behavior displayed by union workers occurs at a level where people can hide behind a title (Vice President, department head, whatever). Yet people rarely look as critically at senior management as they do at union workers. I also find it that people who are critical of union workers never seem to be critical of police or fire fighters, both of whom are unionized. My dad was a union worker for 19 years and I don't think ever displayed any of the negative characteristics assigned to unionized workers.
- HappMacDonald 5mo ago
  ACAB largely exists due to the police union, and I always hear people astutely bring this up. Firefighters unions I know less about, but I've also only ever heard about volunteer firefighters and scarcely enough about them either..
regularization 5mo ago
> never once actually did any work I work at a company creating wealth, and heirs who own stock collect dividends from the company. What work did they do? You're talking about the guy sitting near you who you don't feel is working hard enough, and nothing of the parasitic heirs expropriating the product of unpaid surplus time of those working and creating wealth. Which unions are formed to rest control back from.
mc32 5mo ago
Another issue with unions is that they should be symbiotic but often transition to parasitic. What I mean is there are times despite it being obvious the demands will drive companies into either re-org or bankruptcy proceedings they’ll go full steam. The demands also at time accelerate offshoring or sending some of the work over-seas. Obviously all these scenarios are detrimental to the future of the workforces they represent.
dfxm12 5mo ago
It's rather arbitrary to monolithlize "union members" based on this limited experience.
desmoulins 5mo ago
I had similar experiences as a former unionized worker. Unions definitely solve some problems, but they're not a panacea, and a lot of company BS just gets replaced by an equivalent amount of union BS. The most miserable people I've ever worked with were people at my former union with 10+ years on the job (I remember one lady was in the process of suing the company AND the union, lol); they couldn't leave without losing all their seniority and benefits, couldn't be fired, but still had a long way to go before retirement.
oldnetguy 5mo ago
My wife is in a Union and she has been getting info that has nothing to do with her job. Some unions cross pollinate with whatever cause someone in the union is interested in. She wants a raise but can't because of collective bargaining, but the union isn't doing anything about that. However they are talking about other political issues. So her dues are not helping her but whatever political issue is being promoted.
arh5451 5mo ago
My first job out of college was a government union job (optional to join). I was pretty appalled by the behaviour I saw from older colleagues and the union reps. Government unions should be illegal in my opinion. Becoming the head of these unions is insane money, the union fees can run up to $50-$100 per month per member and if you look at the union salaries it mostly goes to the leadership sometimes earning $100-$200k or more on their part-time job on top of their actual job. Also the union organisers make pretty solid money setting it up. I think if you have more competition and more competing companies than wages stay competitive and employers have to be good to attract labor, it’s probably the best option. Humans are too dishonest to be trusted with such organisations. Invisible hand forces are harder to manipulate.
keybored 5mo ago
Typical HN war story about how one’s coworkers are incompetent or chronically lazy. I guess this is the HN version of hard-hatters being vehemently against immigrant labor. Meanwhile the concern for being abused by people with actual power is just an emotionless throwaway scare quote. “The man”.
honkycat 5mo ago
There are a lot of people who are not in unions who do no work. It is a plague in the programming field. Not having unions is not a silver bullet for that problem. So maybe it is a false attribution/bias on your part
- faidit 5mo ago
  This. 100%. The absolute irony of techies getting paid big bucks while doing zero work, just posting on their phone on HN during the "workday", complaining about ... union fat cats getting paid too much and doing no work. Maybe there's actually some wisdom to it. like "Uh oh.. if the people at the bottom figured out their own scams and aren't working either.. this whole house of cards I'm on top of might collapse!"
faidit 5mo ago
There were many tech companies I've worked at where lifers got paid top dollar to sit around and do nothing. And had to be convinced to do any work or help you. I remember non union non tech jobs where the entire workforce were lazy and useless too. Seems like an American thing or a human thing. Not a union thing.
davkan 5mo ago
I’ve had just one job where I was in a union and it was the only time in my life where the boss had ever had to bend to me on anything. The only place I’ve ever had a shred of power beyond my ability to walk out the door. I’ll take all the downsides that come with it over the feeling of being in the palm of management’s hand.

phil21 5mo ago

Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all. But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. Not my thing. At all. One should be able to be rewarded for hard work and productivity when you are expending more effort than the guy clocking in and doing everything possible to avoid it. I’ve often thought you solve this via old fashioned guild based systems. The guild trains and provides labor while guaranteeing skills, quality, and honesty. They vet their members and cull the losers - a poor performing member should be seen as a liability for the rest of the pool of labor and very quickly corrected or removed from the guild. That way employers know that even if they are paying more than they would like, at least the labor being supplied is going to be top tier and the job will done done to a high standard and on time. Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. There are some trades unions in local chapter formats that work somewhat like this today. I’d just like to see more of it and more formalized with local competition between different union groups.

aliasxneo 5mo ago
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience. > Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.
- Muromec 5mo ago
  Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better? On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others. The thing is real, but so are the people. Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recognise this thing at work.
  - mc32 5mo ago
    There should be disincentives for poor performance, options to improve performance (training, counseling, etc.) and incentives for good performance (better raises, perks, etc.) to incentivize good employees.
  - aliasxneo 5mo ago
    > Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? The union should help them find roles they can be successful in. It should offer them more specialized training, mentorship programs, and other ways to help build up their skills. If they refuse to take any of these seriously, they should be fired. To me, that's the difference between poor performing and intentional laziness.

WillAdams 5mo ago

The experience which I had which sums up the negatives about unions was when I was working at the then 4th largest printer in the U.S., and the largest privately owned print shop, when I pulled up in my then several years old Chevy Cavalier and parked next to a one year newer one --- an erstwhile union rep then pulled up in a brand new Lincoln Town Car and got out and asked me if I was interested in unionizing the company --- I pointed to the car I was parked next to and stated, "That car belongs to the owner of the company, it's the first new car he ever purchased, previously having driven company vans which had such high mileage that the company auctioned them off. Why would I give money to someone who is driving an even nicer car?" The flip side was when the company owner retired from active management to the board of directors, and a management consultant was brought in to make the company more profitable --- he opened the curtains of the boardroom where he was making his pitch, pointed out at the parking lot filled with nice cars and trucks in good repair and stated, "You're paying too many people too much money." An uncle of mine in the coal region of the northwestern Virginia mountain once noted that a local union organizer was noted for having 3 things in his trunk: - a mimeograph - a fifth of whiskey - a sawed-off shotgun Any discussion of unions needs to include a history of the Pinkertons.

HappMacDonald 5mo ago
My name is Jesse James and I would like to know more about the history of the Pinkertons 8I
- salawat 5mo ago
  A group of private investigators and strike breakers engaged by the wealthy to quell the rabble. When you hear someone talking about it being cheaper to pay 10% of the working class to keep the other 90% down, shit like the Pinkertons is always the answer as to how. https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-pinkertons https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-pinkertons https://daily.jstor.org/how-steelworkers-stopped-a-paramilitary-movement/ https://daily.jstor.org/how-steelworkers-stopped-a-paramilit... Not hard to find.
  - 5mo ago

infecto 5mo ago

Similar mixed opinions. I think labor absolutely has an ability to make collective decisions but I also believe business should have the ability to fire at will and I am not convinced that unions should be protected from that. I have only been exposed to unions like dock workers where who you know or the color of your skin matter more than your ability to execute on the job.

Jcampuzano2 5mo ago

This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon. Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall. Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore. Additionally most companies arguments against unions make the assumption that EVERYONE wants to be part of that top percentage, that everyone is extremely motivated to move up the ladder, etc. Also they bank on convincing everyone they could be part of that top percentage that moves up. But statistically only so many can, and there is no universe where everyone can be that top worker who is successful because only so many can move up anyways. Edit: Adding that this is from my perspective on US views of unions. I don't know much about how it differs elsewhere since many point out it seems to be done differently here vs elsewhere.

perfmode 5mo ago
Squid Game
chii 5mo ago
equality of outcome is unnecessary, only equality of opportunity is required.
- oblio 5mo ago
  So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?
  - chii 5mo ago
    why isnt it fair? Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).

throwaway27448 5mo ago

It'a worth noting shareholders also provide no value. We need to fix both ends of the equation to move forward as a society.

MattDamonSpace 5mo ago
they literally provide value Shareholders are investors who give valuable resources to business
- throwaway27448 5mo ago
  We certainly don't need private investment to develop an economy. I, for one, am tired of supporting lazy parasites whose only contribution is money, and who don't know how to invest it for the rest of us. It's a completely broken model.
- miltonlost 5mo ago
  No, they provide capital. It's the workers who provide value to the company.
  - missedthecue 5mo ago
    It's hard to explain why entrepreneurs want capital so much if it provides zero value. They're all stupid and doing something they ought not to?
    - faidit 5mo ago
      So they can hire workers. Without whom more capital can't be produced
      - Jensson 5mo ago
        And why can money hire workers? Its because that money lets them get goods that was produced by previous investments. Without the investor class you wouldn't get large new projects organized. The alternative to private investments is communism, and we all know how that works out, it results in politicians hogging all the wealth and generally making even worse decisions with that money than the greedy capitalists does. People prefer working for greedy capitalists since it generally pays better than working for the government.

Balvarez 5mo ago

Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into the dirt, I'm likely right. Also let me be clear, I'm not attacking your comment but what sort of comment would be most-likely amplified by anti-union forces.

xur17 5mo ago
Maybe, but I have heard the exact same experience from my Dad and others that have worked with unions. It unfortunately seems to attract people trying to take advantage of the system. Personally if I were offered similar jobs, one with a union, one without, I'd take the one without.
izacus 5mo ago
Yep, this is textbook unionbusting propaganda.
- ericd 5mo ago
  Rein in the worst excesses, and you won't have the general population spreading these stories as a response to their own experiences with unions. Living in NYC and observing union workers was enough to fully convince me that union regs weren't promoting efficiency in the workplace, no need for shady capitalists to try to convince me. And a lot of times, those people were working for public dollars, so it was hurting all of us.
aliasxneo 5mo ago
Well, I'm the sole provider in a single income family with several dependents. My assumption is that would make me the natural fit for a union given how much my employment means my family stays off the street. That's why I have mixed feelings. The idea of a union aligns with my living situation. The reality, however, always left a sour taste in my mouth.
5mo ago

pasquinelli 5mo ago

i like my union because they force the management to actually take care of our equipment. every non-union job i've had involves a lot of making fucked up shit kind of work. that's what i want from a union, tangible benefits to my working conditions. it's not a social club, and i'm not one to be worried about the caliber of people i associate with.

tristor 5mo ago

Very similar experiences here. My first job was in a union shop, but you could not be forced to join. Whether you joined or not, though, you had dues taken from your pay. I refused to join initially because I could choose to join at any moment, it wasn't a locked decision. I immediately had people trying to convince me to join, while within months of working there I realized how little pride or effort anyone took in their work. I worked at that company for three years and never joined the union, which apparently made the management think I wanted to be in management because they kept trying to promote me. I never wanted to be in management (then). I was easily 6x as productive as anyone else there, and I saw lots of really ridiculous petty corruption take place amongst the union members. Really soured me on unions, despite the general high level idea being something I agree with. I can't imagine ever joining a union.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo ago

Your anecdote is useful and will be upvoted

vlan0 5mo ago

It feels like a systems problem. It seems like the same theme that we see in for say, startup to corporate transformation. I think ultimately it comes down to size. They become too big and the power consumes. And they become what they once fought.

FatherOfCurses 5mo ago

The same behavior displayed by union workers occurs at a level where people can hide behind a title (Vice President, department head, whatever). Yet people rarely look as critically at senior management as they do at union workers. I also find it that people who are critical of union workers never seem to be critical of police or fire fighters, both of whom are unionized. My dad was a union worker for 19 years and I don't think ever displayed any of the negative characteristics assigned to unionized workers.

HappMacDonald 5mo ago
ACAB largely exists due to the police union, and I always hear people astutely bring this up. Firefighters unions I know less about, but I've also only ever heard about volunteer firefighters and scarcely enough about them either..

regularization 5mo ago

> never once actually did any work I work at a company creating wealth, and heirs who own stock collect dividends from the company. What work did they do? You're talking about the guy sitting near you who you don't feel is working hard enough, and nothing of the parasitic heirs expropriating the product of unpaid surplus time of those working and creating wealth. Which unions are formed to rest control back from.

mc32 5mo ago

Another issue with unions is that they should be symbiotic but often transition to parasitic. What I mean is there are times despite it being obvious the demands will drive companies into either re-org or bankruptcy proceedings they’ll go full steam. The demands also at time accelerate offshoring or sending some of the work over-seas. Obviously all these scenarios are detrimental to the future of the workforces they represent.

dfxm12 5mo ago

It's rather arbitrary to monolithlize "union members" based on this limited experience.

desmoulins 5mo ago

I had similar experiences as a former unionized worker. Unions definitely solve some problems, but they're not a panacea, and a lot of company BS just gets replaced by an equivalent amount of union BS. The most miserable people I've ever worked with were people at my former union with 10+ years on the job (I remember one lady was in the process of suing the company AND the union, lol); they couldn't leave without losing all their seniority and benefits, couldn't be fired, but still had a long way to go before retirement.

oldnetguy 5mo ago

My wife is in a Union and she has been getting info that has nothing to do with her job. Some unions cross pollinate with whatever cause someone in the union is interested in. She wants a raise but can't because of collective bargaining, but the union isn't doing anything about that. However they are talking about other political issues. So her dues are not helping her but whatever political issue is being promoted.

arh5451 5mo ago

My first job out of college was a government union job (optional to join). I was pretty appalled by the behaviour I saw from older colleagues and the union reps. Government unions should be illegal in my opinion. Becoming the head of these unions is insane money, the union fees can run up to $50-$100 per month per member and if you look at the union salaries it mostly goes to the leadership sometimes earning $100-$200k or more on their part-time job on top of their actual job. Also the union organisers make pretty solid money setting it up. I think if you have more competition and more competing companies than wages stay competitive and employers have to be good to attract labor, it’s probably the best option. Humans are too dishonest to be trusted with such organisations. Invisible hand forces are harder to manipulate.

keybored 5mo ago

Typical HN war story about how one’s coworkers are incompetent or chronically lazy. I guess this is the HN version of hard-hatters being vehemently against immigrant labor. Meanwhile the concern for being abused by people with actual power is just an emotionless throwaway scare quote. “The man”.

honkycat 5mo ago

There are a lot of people who are not in unions who do no work. It is a plague in the programming field. Not having unions is not a silver bullet for that problem. So maybe it is a false attribution/bias on your part

faidit 5mo ago
This. 100%. The absolute irony of techies getting paid big bucks while doing zero work, just posting on their phone on HN during the "workday", complaining about ... union fat cats getting paid too much and doing no work. Maybe there's actually some wisdom to it. like "Uh oh.. if the people at the bottom figured out their own scams and aren't working either.. this whole house of cards I'm on top of might collapse!"

faidit 5mo ago

There were many tech companies I've worked at where lifers got paid top dollar to sit around and do nothing. And had to be convinced to do any work or help you. I remember non union non tech jobs where the entire workforce were lazy and useless too. Seems like an American thing or a human thing. Not a union thing.

davkan 5mo ago

I’ve had just one job where I was in a union and it was the only time in my life where the boss had ever had to bend to me on anything. The only place I’ve ever had a shred of power beyond my ability to walk out the door. I’ll take all the downsides that come with it over the feeling of being in the palm of management’s hand.