But could you imagine if we spoke about corporations in this manner? "I've worked for corporations and they are a mixed bag. In practice, they often abuse their employees. I've personally witnessed bosses who contributed nothing for years and just played politics."
For some reason we hold unions to an incredibly high standard of "no problems, ever" but this is never used to discourage all participation in the labor force because employers are often shitty.
Unions are democratically controlled worker organizations. Like democratic nations, they can contain abusers, they can be inefficient, and they can fail to solve problems effectively. But like democratic nations, they provide a powerful resistance to authoritarian abuse and on balance improve the quality of life for their people.
We definitely talk about corporations in this way. All the time, in fact!
Edit: I would like to reiterate that I am pro-union. I am just saying that unions are optional, but businesses (or the government as some have pointed out) are more necessary from the standpoint you don’t usually form a union and then start a business. I like unions, but they are technically optional and I think that fact is what leads to people being more critical of them. When businesses/government sucks, there’s kind of a “well that’s how it is I guess.” When a union sucks, there’s a “why even do this then?”
Who doesn't talk about corporations in this manner? Doesn't everyone?
> Unions are democratically controlled worker organizations. Like democratic nations, they can contain abusers, they can be inefficient, and they can fail to solve problems effectively. But like democratic nations, they provide a powerful resistance to authoritarian abuse and on balance improve the quality of life for their people.
Democracy doesn't make sense in every situation. It makes sense for countries because we are born into citizenship. If you dislike a company you can just leave.
In situations where you can't "just leave," unions may make sense. Google is not an example of this. Everyone who works at Google could leave and find a job elsewhere tomorrow.
Because they are democratic institutions. They can be held to a no-problems standard because every time a problem occurs then those involved can be sacked and replaced. The level of acceptable corruption is set by the membership. Rules should therefore focus on openness and member participation in leadership selection. Everyone who hates unions because of X or Y, to them I say join the leadership and run the union the way you think it should be run. Tearing down the system doesn't fix anything.
A lot of people view corporations in a justifiably negative light (very few people say that corporations are an unalloyed good, and I have never heard anyone wish that they could work for an LLC). But a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly and for the most part companies do make money (when they fail to make money, they cease existing and the general consensus is 'good riddance').
A union on the other hand is chartered to advocate for the rights and needs of workers. The standards and expectations for a union are fundamentally different than for a corporation. It depends on the union, but a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no consequences for this failure. Given that Unions claim a democratic mandate to advocate for labor, people are justifiably upset when they see their union doing nothing to represent their interests.
One Slight Difference - Corporations are supposed to serve their owners' financial interests. Unions are supposed to serve their members. How 'bout we speak just as harshly of mission-failure unions as we do of mission-failure corporations?
OTOH, I certainly agree with your 4th para - "...Like democratic nations, they can contain abusers, they can be inefficient, and they can fail...".
My ability to negotiate salaries with my boss is one of them.
The scope of my job (some unions get to decide what you are allowed to do).
Who should get fired (teachers unions make it impossible for bad teachers to be fired, so students are forced to put up with them)
If you should be allowed to work. Some unions forbid you to work during strikes. Often by force and by threat. Some unions manage to lobby for regulations that make it harder to get into a job. Then you need certifications and/or degrees to even consider a job.
Unfortunately many use the "democratic union" argument to control your ability to make personal decisions. Unions that get to channel power from the government (commonly through regulations) can easily abuse their power. When unions are not voluntary they easily become HOAs for jobs
That's not the standard. The standard is "are unions worth the trouble they cause?". I've worked in industries, as a union employee doing manual labor, where I would say yes. I don't think unions are worth the trouble for tech workers.
> But like democratic nations, they provide a powerful resistance to authoritarian abuse and on balance improve the quality of life for their people.
The fact that I can easily switch employers is a more effective protection against an abuse than a union ever could be.
Because not working is not a viable option for any significant number of people. But you can certainly work without union representation.
There are approximately 93 million adults (civilian noninstitutional population) that don't work[0]. I'm sure it's not all because of the employers themselves, but surely a lot don't want to deal with the politics and culture imposed on them by managerial talent [maybe some study on this portion of the population's reason for not working would be useful].
0: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm (Men, 20 years and over->Not in labor force + Women, 20 years and over->Not in labor force)
Unions fundamentally redistribute the value that's been captured. That's not universal -- there's unions that make workers happier and result in more productivity, unions that are not adversarial and take on an HR function that's more in tune with employees -- but it is fundamentally why there can be successful companies with no unions, but of course no successful unions with no companies. Arguably, U.S. unions are more adversarial than European unions, and in many manufacturing, automobile, shipping industries have prevented their parent companies from adopting new technology, rolling out new practices, etc. to the extent that said parent companies were no longer competitive.
No, most people are holding them to reasonable standards. Just like people hold medical doctors to not kill people by their negligence. Some might say it is incredibly high standard as well but I do not think so. I am afraid employers are shitty so union can be shitty is not a great advertisement for unions.
> Unions are democratically controlled worker organizations...
It would interesting to understand why these shining democratic organization don't directly provide work to people. Overall wouldn't it be much better than working for grubby capitalists. May be not in USA but other countries can eliminate the concept of corporations/companies and just simply have unions.
If unions had the same internal checks against abuse: Financial compliance, ability and desire to fire corrupt officials, ability to fire abusive members as well as management, were active in progress (rather than protect against progress), and acted as an arbiter for the best interest for all parties (worker, employer, self (union), and economy at large) I think I’d have a better experience with them. As they are they are parasitic to a significant degree.
That’s in no way turning a blind eye to the reforms they enabled in the first half of the XX century.
They are now like the non-profit whose original reason to be ceased to exist but now want to continue existing for the sake of the management structure who find themselves with an evaporated mission.
What's to say that founders, managers and execs bleeding people dry isn't also something equally "tired" given that in today's labor market, any such leadership will bleed out talent that will vote with their feet for greener pastures?
As a sibling comment said, unions have their pros and cons.
Me and my co-workers create wealth, a portion of which is sent off in dividends, the majority of which is going to heirs who have never worked a day in their life. I am more concerned about that than that the guy working next to me isn't killing himself more to fill that heir's pockets.
Organized labor is made up of the people working and creating wealth. Of course you don't mention the indolence of the idle class expropriators who the people doing the work are organizing to combat.
I love how people have an easier time imagining colonies on mars than giving labor a platform to express their interests.
Employees like that exist everywhere.
I've seen union stewards padding their own pockets with members dues through lavish "retreats" to five-star resorts.
Managers like that exist everywhere.
None of your complaints/experiences are about unions specifically, but rather they're about dishonest people who use unions for their own gain. Unions are certainly a mechanism that people can abuse to get away with being lazy or greedy, but let's not pretend that people who aren't unionized don't do that as well. If you include business owners who exploit workers then it's likely that it happens far more outside of unions than inside.
In practice, that's what power often does in any situation. So the question often boils down to "who do you want to benefit from the 'abuse, stagnation and corruption'?" because someone will.
> I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team to team and even promoted because it was too complex and costly to fire them.
And there are tons of examples of hardworking non-union employees getting shafted, so the do-nothing shareholders can collect more profits.
In almost all settings, shareholders are the group that contributes the absolute least to an organization (e.g. most didn't really even invest anything, they just bought a share that's long circulated in the stock market), yet their interests are the ones that are prioritized. A lot of people who are strongly against the mythically-large do-nothing union employee seem to have no problem with do-nothing shareholders.
Another railway union, the TSSA had a generally "no strike" policy but would still provide support for any disagreements with management.
I guess, as always, be careful for what you wish for, you might not be able to afford to go on strike for something you don't feel very strongly about because the union says so and if you don't strike, well, good luck continuing to work there.
This is anecdotal, but it reminds me on one of the main ISPs here, one of the union heads even gets a free house from the company and doesn't like even work. They just try to keep him happy to avoid causing trouble.
Unions don't make sense in tech because everyone owns the means of production (a computer) and have widely different levels of output. 10x engineers are a thing. Plus tech workers have high leverage, high pay (top 5%? 1%?), can easily get a new job, or can start their own tech company by themselves with their laptop.
Trying to enforce a union structure in tech is counterproductive, extractive and entirely unnecessary.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/google-apple-wage-suppression...
I would rather have a system where a small percentage of the workers can be shitheads and lose their giant mega corporation employer money than a system where the company can just exploit ALL of its workers in any way it wants to.
My father, who did not finish high school, was able to earn a living as a construction worker that afforded us a computer in the 90’s. That is how I started programming which paved the way for to make $500k the last year I choose to work. This is absolutely survival-ship bias, but it’s my only experience with unions.
Disclaimer: My personal view is that union can work for private organizations, but unions of government employees are absolutely evil. The reason is that a private company can die, so the power of its unions is naturally limited. On the other hand, government won't die (or die slowly), so its unions can issue all kinds of unreasonable demand.
P.S., If we assume that an employer is "bad" because it opposes union, isn't it the typical case of attacking one's motive? Scott Adam calls it mind reading. To me, it's one of the most dangerous fallacy in mankind. Read the history of self-claimed do-gooders such as Chinese/French/Cambodian committing genocide, and we can see the progressives in those countries all started with attacking their political opponents' motive.
It's like when you're a kid and you win some sweets, and your parents decide you have to share them with your little brother. There may be a desire to do so, but does he get half your sweets?
Look at the unions for professional athletes or for Hollywood writers for examples where unions are mostly doing very good work on behalf of their members.
Which is just too say that a healthy organization is hard. There are no panaceas.
I'm mixed on unions, all told. I don't like the dichotomy they enforce between management and workers. This often exists anyway, so I can't blame unions. And it is also true that individuals don't have the leverage for negotiation that groups do, such that it makes sense on why they can get better conditions when just between company and group.
Unions sound to me like just another layer of bureaucracy, with its own mind and interests. Any extra bureaucracy increases corruption and inefficiencies.
Why? I likewise have mixed feelings about unions, but I have repeatedly noticed this pattern in countries with strong (typically: constitutionally-protected) unions.
It talks about other forms of worker representations in an company. I think it's provides a couple of decent alternatives to just having unions and their pros and cons
Corporations are (according to M.Friedman) Sociopaths guided by attorneys who define what's strictly legal, who's sole goal is to maximize profits.
I guess that means there are people in corporations too? Does the transitive property apply?
PS! If you work at google, don't pay the dues: ever. Give the money to domestic violence shelters instead. Put that receipt into your union due. Fuck unions.
“Oh unions can be good but those Americans don’t know their downsides…”
Or
“Unions are great but it’s awful people can be forced to join them!”
I’m just saying Google’s money was well spent.
I want to add that I agree with some of AWU political stands. For example, they opposed Project Dragonfly, a censored version of Google Search intended for the Chinese market. They opposed Google contracts with the DoD and CPB. I think these are all worthy causes and I hope that employees continue to agitate against them! But I am under no illusions that AWU would represent my interests as an employee. Primarily, they are a political action committee set up by and for an extremely vocal minority of Google's employees.
I'd assume this is why they've been allowed to exist.
In fact, unfortunately, this sounds like it could be working well for Google. If this organization is calling itself a "union" without doing actual union work or representing employees, it can help create an apathetic environment towards unions at the company. It also sounds like this organization is doing product work, and with the right maneuvering this sort of momentum can be used to allow controversial changes you'd be willing to try, but would rather not take the blame for.
I’m uncomfortable with companies constantly trying to influence their employees opinions. It’s marketing turned inwards. I’m not so naïve to be surprised, but I would never work at a business who employed tactics like this.
I believe the word for this is propaganda:
prŏp″ə-găn′də
noun
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.I think the sentiment here is that hiring "union-busting" consultants clearly implies strong anti-union sentiment by management and an equally strong desire to quell rising union sentiment within the company.
Companies, especially big tech companies, like to seem friendly to employees and make them feel like they're in charge, and the company is "run by them". They like to keep a facade of being "benevolent" dictators ultimately motivated by being the best they can for users.
In reality, they're corporations, and they'll do what's best for their bottom-line, wether that aligns with their employees' and users' interests interests or not.
In this case, that involved retaliating against employees involved with the Google Walkout, which on top of challenging this benevolent image, is illegal. Of course, Google won't admit it was retaliation. They want to seem unbothered by the fact there's union sentiment within its ranks, and will tolerate the Alphabet Workers Union's existence. Hiring a union-busting consultancy clearly conveys this is not the case.
There's a lot of reason to criticize union-busting in general too; it usually employs misinformation and scare tactics; this has happened at Amazon, for example [1]. Regardless of wether this has been the case at Google, it's clear they're not as indifferent to the organization of their workers as they claim they are.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8&feature=emb_titl...
AWU is not a traditional workers' union. It is a political advocacy organization. AWU's mission statement is explicitly and emphatically not to further full-time employee's interests. Rather, it is organized primarily as a vehicle for achieving a broader political end ("social justice", as that term is construed by AWU's organizers), potentially at employees' expense. Almost none of AWU's projects have focused on Googlers' work conditions or pay. Instead, they have focused nearly exclusively on modifying Google's products and policing its contracts, often in ways I find extremely objectionable. For example, they have lobbied heavily for Google to increase censorship of YouTube and Search, and to demonetize "problematic" content creators. They consistently advocate increasing institutional support for DEI efforts, and it was their efforts which led to the creation of Alphabet's Chief Diversity Officer position. They agitated on behalf of ex-employee Timnit Gebru against Google's ML work, which is obviously a threat to the hundreds of Google workers whose jobs depend on the models that Gebru's research criticized. Why should ordinary Google workers support such a "union"?
I want to add that I agree with some of AWU political stands. For example, they opposed Project Dragonfly, a censored version of Google Search intended for the Chinese market. They opposed Google contracts with the DoD and CPB. I think these are all worthy causes and I hope that employees continue to agitate against them! But as a former employee of Google, I am under no illusions that AWU would have represented my interests as an employee. Primarily, they are a political action committee set up by an extremely vocal minority of Google's employees to further those employees' political goals.
1. https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-h...
2. https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20983053/google-fires-fo...
The US seems to have almost wiped out this history and few people know who died for these movements and few people realize we have had bloody battles, I never really learned it in school but it's pretty darn American to have unions and die for your rights.
Sure there is corruption but literally every system does, that doesn't make people stop using it. If we had better union power we would not see the poor treatment of Amazon workers, or game testers, or retail works. Heck, one day we may make a requirement to have a vacation day, imagine how crazy that would be if vacation time was written into a work law! Almost imagine that Russia, South Africa and many other countries have literally better labor laws then America not to mention the EU. I was quite shocked how bad our labor laws were when I looked into it further because I assumed a lot, makes it hard to be human in the US. At will employee with literally no time off is perfectly legal here, but I hope one day paid vacations (even just a few days) are requirement for all full time employees at least.
So the thing which is "unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights" is not what the heirs did, but what the workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth did. No questions about the province of the heirs. You're dealing with both these groups but questioning the paternity of only one of them, the ones actually doing all the work and creating all the wealth.
Miners extract resources from someone's else land, using someone's else tools to be sold by someone else via someone's else logistical chains. And that high valuation of a natural resource that keeps mine operational? Miners had nothing to do with it. What miners do here is spend their time to add value to existing resource. In most cases this is done voluntarily and with a fair compensation.
I can name dozens of corporations who have used their profits not to increase worker compensation, but instead to lobby directly against their workers. And the workers have no vote or voice in the matter. Google in the article, for instance. But think of all the other dubious lobbying corporations engage in. It's never discussed in this context because your pay check doesn't include a line item for "lobbying fees".
You are badly misinformed about what "right to work" is. In a union shop, the unionized "coerce" all employees in their bargaining units to participate, even in "right to work" states! Everyone is covered by the same contract! That's the whole point! Even in "right to work" states, everyone in the unit is coerced into participation by your understanding.
The only thing "right to work" offers is that people covered by the contract may choose not to pay dues (or choose to forgo some portion of the dues).
In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.
If anything, right to work is more unethical because it allows people to receive the benefits of union coverage without the input. Of course, that's the point: starve out the unions by making it so no one has an incentive to pay into the union.
It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!
It often came up in the company Q&A, and it was often ignored or glossed over with an answer by Sheryl detailing how contractors "actually had it pretty good". That is, unless there was recent public press coverage how they in fact did not "have it pretty good" in which case the answer was your usual "we're working with our outsourcing partners to make sure every contractor has what they need to do their best work", etc.
I am an engineer. I might've been more difficult to hire, but I wasn't doing work that was nearly as important or taxing as content moderation contractors, for example. Revert my work and some obscure internal metric somewhere is a little worse. Revert a content moderation contractor's work, and thousands get exposed to suicide, CSAM, graphic violence, etc.
I know the value of an employee at companies like this is determined by how difficult they are to replace and how their work affects company profits; "anyone" can respond to content reports but not "anyone" has the technical knowledge I do. I just think it's wrong that people working on something so vital to Facebook have it so much worse than the rest do. Facebook could and should do a better job rewarding and protecting the people doing the hard, dirty work— it definitely has the means to.
Unions are only a major benefit for work where you can't excel and talent and skill are less of a differentiator.
1. It disproportionally affects those who have no other option. There's hero stories of pregnant woman outperforming up until the day they deliver, but this is hard to achieve and there's even a factor of "luck" involved.
Some pregnancies are more tranquil, others are riddled with visits to the doctor, morning sickness, aches, pains, allergies, sleep problems, emotional swings, rashes, etc. It's hard to be "top of your field" when there's another human growing inside you.
2. This argument assumes skills are perfectly measured and employee benefits are based solely on skills. Even in the most objective companies there's subjectivity and politics. Not everyone has the skills or time to bargain. Not everyone shares hobbies or values with the boss, and wants to create a close relationship with them.
3. If the base compensation for all employees in a field rises, the compensation for out-performers will likely rise too. One can't assume "only" benefits those who "can't excel" at their job.
If a contractor isn't happy with the work or conditions then they should move on to the next job.
Maybe that’s the only decent job they could find? I know tech employees live in a bubble where jobs are plentiful and well laid but that’s not the world most people live in. And having lived through the aftermath of the .COM crash things can change for tech people very quickly too.
In Hollywood they have SAG (Screen Actors Guild) so a large union for high paying jobs isn't unheard of in America.
*Note that support/opposition to Unions is often form from petty core experiences (first hand and family relations). For me it is a contest between a 2 minute promotional video, three years of my professional life, and 25 years of my uncle's work experience. Given these forces, you would be pretty hard pressed to change my thoughts on the matter in the abstract (particulars are what matter here).
The 'American Factory' documentary has a great example of what this looks like in real life. Hearing that Amazon or Google or whoever else worked to convince employees to vote against unionizing is one thing, seeing what that effort is like on the ground is altogether more eye-opening.
Enjoy https://github.com/line/armeria from a unionized tech company of South Korea!
Edit: if you want to learn more, here is a news article titled "Samsung Electronics concludes its first collective bargaining" (Maeil Business, 2021-08-12) https://news.v.daum.net/v/20210812160601200
> #1 game company (Nexon)
Aren't Startcraft and League of Legends more popular? Being the #1 game company in South Korea doesn't imply you make the #1 games there.
What?
Personally I don't think "stable labour policy" is more important than allowing people to ask for higher wages and receive or leave, but if I did I'd be more hostile to wage bargaining via collective threats to withdraw labour than individual ones...
There are plenty of companies that know this, and it is the primary source of their antagonism towards unions.
If you're a stellar technician specialised in fixing stuff in the only employer in the only industry in town, sure, the company knows you need that job even more than they need you and so you're poorly paid just like all the other technicians. If you're a stellar software developer and your bosses know it, not so much. You can, individually, take your 10x-more-productive skillset to loads of other high paying companies, and that gives you a much better individual negotiating position than "everyone deserves a raise", especially since your colleagues won't go on strike to help you get a new top salary band at a large multiple of what they're earning even if you really deserve it.
Look at any professional sports contract. Players usually get bonuses for hitting predetermined stat goals on the field. Look at any teacher contract. Teachers get bonuses for attaining higher education and certifications, or simply taking on leadership roles.
Furthermore, on the topic of compensation, Hollywood has unions and yet top actors still manage to make 10s of millions of dollars per movie.
And of course, we all assume we're far above average high-performers.
Everybody earns much more than minimum wage, and someone (hopefully the high performers, but don't count on it) even more than that. Pushing low compensations against minimum wage limits is simply not plausible, and paying high performers less than market value is a recipe for talent drain.
Collective bargaining is important for working hours, safety, vacation, healthcare, and other important worker rights.
If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors, as the quality talent will leave $BIGCO for better opportunities in the smaller companies.
Seniority-based promotion isn't the standard. I'm unionized and any job opening in my workplace must be advertised publicly. Anyone who wants it must apply, qualify, and interview for the position.
> If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors
Accurate or not, this really sounds like a win all around!
As soon as a lot of people leave a team or location in Google, Google responds by giving everyone bonuses. When a bunch of people started quitting from the Boulder office a few (5?) years back, they offered to send everyone on a trip to Hawaii.
Google's Do No Evil has been gone for a long while, but people stick around because they are making so much goddamn money.
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/01/16/37...
All the "finding a common middleground", reasonable unions have been eradicated by anti-union policies. And yes, there are lots of unions like that in the countries that I can speak for (Denmark, Germany).
It is sad to see e.g. police unions being used as an argument against unions in general now.
Police break labour strikes, not join them.
Over here, jobs are not favorably handed out to union members just for being a union member. It's completely irrelevant if you're a union member. Not only does it not directly favor you in getting in, you also don't get any individual protection.
What a union over here does instead:
- Collective bargaining of salary increases, yearly. Mostly based on the macro trend of the economy. It's not even the goal to maximize the increase, above all the goal is maintain purchase power. So it aims to compensate inflation, and will leave the rest to markets and individuals.
- Protection is only collectively, for example when a mass firing of workers is pending. Or when terms are suddenly dramatically worsened for all workers at once. Here a union may step in. And it will engage in a large number of steps before going to the absolute last resort: a large strike. Which are rare. Even strikes are regulated and bound to federal terms.
The American version sounds like a bad movie.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2021/02/10/amazon-alabama-union-bus...
In the case of Google specifically, what problems or grievances would be addressed by unionizing?
The propaganda has been very successful it seems with certain segments of the population.
1. No protection for incompetent people
2. No seniority based pay or privileges
3. Narrow focus on comp and quality of life
Any of these would be a deal breaker for me. And I just don't see it happening. The people who seem to be into unions are the type of people that can't STFU about politics at the office. And if I hear one word about pronouns instead of a raise, I'm out.
I don't really see how this is related to the post.
Unfortunately way too much, some of the people who advocate for them the loudest are very political people of a particular polarization that makes a big deal about pronouns. Take this Google union I found from another comment here: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/. Take a look at what they have at the top of their homepage. The forth word is "BIPOC," towards the middle it says "believe in social justice." Those are polarizing political shibboleths.
Frankly, unions will not get off the ground without solidarity across worker political factions, and injecting polarizing ideology not strictly necessary for unionization does the same union-busting job as Google's consultants.
If a union is incompetent (e.g. protecting lazy workers, is corrupt, is more focused on political ambitions rather than the workers), then the workers can simply vote to kill the union. A five-year lifespan on unions would put pressure on unions to meet their lofty claims rather than the current state of things where it is universally known that unions are a permanent haven for the lazy.
It is called blasphemy and made into an absolute scandal and people get stoned/fired for simply saying the word immediately.
Any non-unionized company would like to remain that way. It is in their best interest to do so. I would expect them to act like it. Way back in the day when I worked retail, there were training videos and at least one or two of them were pretty much "unions suck".
And this isn't to say that unions are good or bad overall. But I would expect any large corporation to do at least something to resist unions or other sort of collective bargaining units. Because whether or not unions are good for employees, they're always a negative for employers. Because at the very least, unions take some of the power away from the employer.
> Two employees who helped organize the 2018 walkout later left the company, saying they were facing retaliation
is the same as
> letting employees to hear both sides of the argument
I've worked in a place that had a unionization effort underway and, let me tell you, the company certainly did not let people hear the union side of things. They'd make sure to schedule our lunches async so the employees couldn't talk to each other; they banned chatting about non-work stuff during work time; etc
Is it wrong to belief that unions aren't all ponies and rainbows?
If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then I don't see a problem here.
If you're actually worried about national security: consider the fact that many of the police forces in the US are in "unions" that menace your local elected representatives and openly subvert the justice system they belong to when it attempts to prosecute cops[1].
[1]: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trou...
We have studies showing how different software engineering is, where some workers vastly outperform others, some workers are interchangeable, some are specialists, and some underperform.
This is exactly the wrong type of work that benefits from collective bargaining and gatekeeping.
Unions help subpar workers. They do not help anyone else (other than their power structure that they themselves carve out using other workers wages).
Do we? Please, show these studies. Obviously, we can only accept peer-reviewed replicated studies. Not some study which was never replicated (there are a few) or even worse some blog post by someone stating they personally know 10x engineers or whatever.
>. Obviously, we can only accept peer-reviewed replicated studies
> This is non-sense. There's no rule that says collectively bargained contracts can't include rewards or incentives for higher-performance. In fact, many do.
> Look at any professional sports contract. Players usually get bonuses for hitting predetermined stat goals on the field. Look at any teacher contract. Teachers get bonuses for attaining higher education and certifications, or simply taking on leadership roles.
At a different company, a union worker actually aimed a forklift at me, apparently because I was in IT.
Unions historically served an important role, but they're an anachronism in the U.S. -- especially for coders at Google who are literally in the 1% of top earners.
Google SWE's complaining they're not making enough is just breathtaking hubris. There's so much money sloshing around that they could, and should, go work for another startup or start their own, especially as an ex-Googler.
That (huge) company actually completely moved overseas. The second (also huge) company moved 100% of their manufacturing to Mexico.
In another place that I worked at fresh out of college, they actually covered their signage on trucks because the truckers were being beat up in truck stops and getting their tires slashed. One of the truckers told me that he made top of the industry wages and he was happy with management and didn't see any need to join a union, but that he was worried about getting beat up if he didn't vote to join.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
A bit of context, I come from a region in which unions are looked at fondly from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, as they can help avoid the meat grinder and can make shaky jobs stick for longer and have better pay/benefits. However, as you educate yourself and can land better jobs, unions start being more redundant as the jobs are the ones trying to get you to stay for longer and compete with better pay and benefits. Our labor laws are very strong so ideally you don't even need unions, just knowing what your rights are.
All that being said, unions have this undercurrent of mafia going on where politically connected unions have the power to shut down an entire sector of the economy and their leaders use this power to wring money out of big companies, you can call it union donations or extortion but its quite common around here. There's allegations of being affiliated to narco guys, ties to Venezuela and Cuba (their leaders travel there frequently, and all have been photographed with Maduro and Diaz-Canel), and some other stuff related to hiding millions of dollars in their leader's homes (why does a union have this kind of capital? 1M USD is a ridiculous amount of cash here). Some of them follow up this questionable life by straight up becoming senators, on the lists of bigger, more popular left-leaning politicians.
This worries me, it doesn't help that they all seem to look like Richard Stallman after climbing a flight of stairs and have a terrible attitude to boot.
So, you've heard me, now I want to hear you. How are unions seen in your country? Are they worth it, in your opinion?