Hacker News Reader

Comment by geezerjay | Hacker News Reader

> I think you're oversimplifying again. Many workers who vote "no" and reject union representation believe that unions create problems for workers including the problem of jobs being moved elsewhere.

You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary.

> Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues

That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself, and it represents only your own imagination.

> Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs.

That's your strawman. You somehow made up this argument that having someone at your side helping you out on your negotiation will somehow force a company to stop hire people to fill the positions they've just opened. Meanwhile, agents are a thing, and having third-party help in your negotiations didn't brought the end to western civilization.

View on HN

>You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary.

Well, the Seattle union is "closed shop" at Boeing which makes union membership mandatory for employment.

>That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself,

The GM union dues are ~$957.[1] The Ford amount is ~$693. The estimated union dues were ~$800 for Nissan workers who voted "no" to union representation. For all 3 examples, the union dues are not static -- they are expected to increase.

We can use the lower $693 figure if you wish. Can you see that many workers don't agree with you that $693 is "no impact"?

https://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php...

> The GM union dues

Somehow, you've turned a blind eye to the fact that your own source states that the US national average for union dues are $377 per year.

Let that sink in for a minute. The average union within the US receives only $377 per year.

That's about $32 a month.

So, the median wage for workers in the United States is around $3400 per month. And somehow a $32/month fee is made out to be a deal breaker?

Is that what's stopping you from being repeatedly screwed over by employers who spend more on professional services dedicated to screw employees over than adjusting salaries?

>And somehow a $32/month fee is made out to be a deal breaker?

Yes, it is _if_ workers believe it makes their economic situation worse.

I'm stating that workers weigh the balance of both the positives and the negatives of union representation. You are only stating one side: the positives.

Yes, even $377 can be too much money to pay especially if it has the unwanted effect of incentivizing the company to move somewhere else. Since workers are concerned about this bad outcome, you can't just handwave it away as if their fears are just imaginary.

Perception is an issue. I had a non-unionized coworker claim that union dues were high when I suggested unionizing. When I told her what I payed, she was stunned at how low they are. People often miss the point that unions are about more than exerting power. They also much more efficient at representing workers. (Organizations benefit from that as well, but they are far more concerned with the average worker gaining negotiating power.)

He's using hyperbole, but his arguments are valid in explaining the rationale that some workers feel when considering a union.

Some unions are so hawkish that they impose hiring blacklists on affected employers, making membership mandatory instead of voluntary. Additionally, in the rank and file, there's a common fear of union corruption.

> Some unions are so hawkish that

That hypothetical problem is anecdotal, and assumes that a job seeker has no say in how he is represented.

Meanwhile, the whole world is packed with examples of how unions do in fact work for the interests of their associates. For instance, there are companies in Sweden that inform job seekers right at the start of the job application process that they should contact union representatives to help them during the hiring process. This offer is presented to anyone, whether they pay union quotas or not, and anyone decides if they even want to contact the union or not.

Do you believe this is a draconian measure imposed by unions on unsuspecting job seekers, or that this is remotely against the best interest of any worker?

A union is what you make it out to be. Right now, workers are getting screwed over to the point where HN receives a constant scream of posts on how workers should improve their negotiation skills. Hell, if that's so important then why isn't everyone doing the smart thing to do and delegate that activity to a dedicated third-party representing the worker's best interests and specialized in negotiating job offers and working conditions? It's simply stupid to assume that everyone can pick up an O'Reilly-type book on negotiating job offers and suddenly be able to go head-to-head with a professional negotiator paid to drive down your wage.

> That hypothetical problem is anecdotal

If it's anecdotal - that is, it happened at least once, so there's an anecdote of when it happened - then it's not hypothetical.

And, in fact, it's not hypothetical. It happens. It has happened. Instances have been cited in this thread. It may not be the statistically most likely outcome, but it does happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com