Hacker News Reader

My only interaction with unions directly has been when I was an underpaid wage slave in high school, before I got into the professional workforce. The union steward at the store I worked at stole from the company and did drugs /at work/. I was forced to pay union dues even though I firmly rejected membership, as they were taken from my paycheck regardless of my membership and I was harassed by the steward and other union workers for not wanting to join the union. As far as I could tell the only benefit offered was a guaranteed $0.25/hr raise every year I stayed at a company where I was not intending to remain employed any longer than necessary, and the downside was they effectively took $0.17/hr off my wage to cover the union dues.

I'm sure if I'd planned to work at a grocery store until I was 40, the union would have been of great benefit, but since I had an intention to go into tech as soon as possible and leave the small town I grew up in, it wasn't of much benefit to me. Meanwhile, I was exposed to the grift, drug use, theft, corruption, and underhanded tactics that the union members used, sometimes in direct furtherance of stated union objectives. Based on the hearsay of family experiences with unions, this seems commonplace, at least in the US. Unions had mob ties back in the day, and they still exist primarily as racketeering organizations, but on more legal footing.

I don't consider them anything like an insurance company and my relationship to them as an employee would be nothing like my relationship to an insurance company as a customer.

Nothing I am saying here in any way defends Amazon's heinous actions. I believe that employees absolutely have a right to unionize and that unions can also provide necessary and essential functions to protect workers. But they are not perfect, and it's not hard for me to imagine the experiences others have had. You asked why so many people dislike unions... well there's why I dislike unions and would never join one myself.

>I'm sure if I'd planned to work at a grocery store until I was 40, the union would have been of great benefit

This is an important point to consider, the malfeasance (which is a feature of poorly-run enterprises of all kinds, and not particular to nor characteristic of all unions) aside. Some people DO intend to continuously work jobs that are menial, but basic and necessary to the functioning of a community. The American economy has changed much in the past 50 years, 100 years, 150 years. Wrt your example, one thing has not: the necessity of human labor in the "last mile" of distributing food to consumers. That is to say, it has been possible for several generations to spend one's entire productive life in a such a role. Note here that we're not talking about protecting inefficient businesses or even specific jobs; we're talking about protecting the people who are happy to fill a necessary role without moving "up or out." We shouldn't have a problem with that in a country where we cut individuals - not their businesses - millions in tax credits. And in regards to change in the business environment as economies and technologies evolve: much as techies are loathe to admit it, successful and healthy change must happen on a human scale, without leaving people behind. Unions help to avoid the socialization of the costs of abrupt change.

Based on your argument against unionizing yourself, which is that you won't benefit $0.25 yearly raise, I think you're actually arguing in favor of the insurance comparison. For example, if the only people who paid into national health insurance were the people needed it, and only then when they needed it, the national health insurance would be pointless.

Well, many people have had issues with unions creating an environment where most employees 'soldier' (work slowly and uncreatively), by protecting the unproductive, and preventing the productive from being rewarded.

Another issue is that unions seem to 'strangle' marginal, unprotected (by tariff) industries; they drive up the employer's costs, which can kill a business if prices can not be adjusted to compensate (because of foreign competition). In cases where domestic companies are protected, the unions tend to try acting as a cartel and raising the whole industry's cost structure (e.g. auto manufacturing 1940-1970).

Lastly, unions have been known to use violence and intimidation, generally in one-on-one situations (against managers and anti-union employees) rather than the large scale that the Pinkertons (and the like) were known for.

"preventing the productive from being rewarded" plays strongly to the Amazon model of competitive warehouse labour. I get what you're saying but this also is a reflection of what piece rate, and "fire the bottom 10%" does to the nature of work.

The strangling of marginal industries: Yes, I also see this. The problem is that around 2 in 3 startups and small enterprises fail, and oftentimes, amongst the losers are unpaid workers. Small companies starting on unrealistic expectations need to balance asking workers to do "more" for "less" and meeting legal minimums. If the employer really only worked off their family labour, and had no basis to hire for pay, then has the union really been the reason for failure, or just the trigger? It could have been the public health board, the bank, or any of the other creditors: If the cost of labour was the sole reason, then there's something to talk about here but it goes to the VC funding, and where money flows in small enterprise.

The last one, Look I get get, I know these things happen. They happen in construction labour, wharfside labour, in the print unions in the UK (News Ltd 1970s)_and coal mining. They don't seem to happen in garment work, in office work, clerical, health, banking, ICT. It's not a charactersistic of unions per se, as of .. a generation of specific unions, in physically intense labour, or protecting a very small circuit of rights.

The wharfies basically lost. Intermodal carriers won. The miners lost. Construction labour unions usually lose in the longer run. Gang infestation of construction unions in Australia has been a huge problem, and mega-union mergers fed this to some extent.

I don't have "rebuttal" to what you say. Except to note, Those are not predominant features of what unionisation "is" worldwide. This isn't the experience of unions in most of Europe, or Asia.

Look at what public sector unions have done in the US - they protect the work and harm the citizen. They fight school choice, fight to keep terrible laws, protect police from any accountability, and that doesn't even begin to describe the damage they're doing the civic finances through unfunded pension liabilities.

Sorry? you blame the union for the unfunded pension liability?

How can that be the unions fault?

I'm not in America, I can't speak to what influence the union has in the civil service. This is simply not my experience of unions in Britain or Australia. The reverse in fact.

Police unions are an abberration, but teachers are treated much better and schools are higher quality in States with real teachers unions.

My southern state had a teacher's union, but since the law forbids teachers from collective bargaining, I'm not sure it counts.

>> the unions tend to try acting as a cartel

At least on this, the calculus may change if the company is a monopoly or cartel.

> Well, many people have had issues with unions creating an environment where most employees 'soldier' (work slowly and uncreatively), by protecting the unproductive, and preventing the productive from being rewarded.

> Another issue is that unions seem to 'strangle' marginal, unprotected (by tariff) industries; they drive up the employer's costs, which can kill a business if prices can not be adjusted to compensate (because of foreign competition). In cases where domestic companies are protected, the unions tend to try acting as a cartel and raising the whole industry's cost structure (e.g. auto manufacturing 1940-1970).

Regarding the question of raising the industries cost structure, isn't this the same as software engineers currently asking for very high salaries? Why should workers not use their bargening power to negotiate higher salaries?

> Lastly, unions have been known to use violence and intimidation, generally in one-on-one situations (against managers and anti-union employees) rather than the large scale that the Pinkertons (and the like) were known for.

So what is your take on corporations?

> Well, many people have had issues with unions creating an environment where most employees 'soldier' (work slowly and uncreatively), by protecting the unproductive, and preventing the productive from being rewarded.

What union has prevented an employer from raising an employees salary? I find it hard to believe that any union has ever done that.

> In cases where domestic companies are protected, the unions tend to try acting as a cartel and raising the whole industry's cost structure (e.g. auto manufacturing 1940-1970).

Germany has much stronger unions than the US. Especially in the automotive industry and German car makers doesn't seem to be doing that badly.

Almost every collective bargaining agreement precludes any employee being rewarded beyond its terms.

> I am interested in the amazing number of people who seem motivated to say how negatively they feel about unions

Unions turn a relationship that I want to be 1-1 into 1-many. I don't want that for myself and won't work where they have them but support the right for others to push for union adoption and don't have many other opinions on them in a general sense. I think people make it more than what it has to be, I just want things to be simple more than I want some fuzzy sense of fairness. If I think I'm treated unfairly I'll just ask them to change it and if they won't I quit, problem solved.

I'm interested why you say the relationship with your employer is a 1 to 1 relationship. In the vast majority of cases (i.e. if you don't work for a 2 person company) wouldn't that be a many to 1 relationship?

As a follow up, why do you not want your relationship be a "1 to many" relationship. To pick up the OP original question, why do you have an issue for with your employment being a 1 to many, but not the dealings after a car accident?

1-1 in the sense that there's 1 company and me. Not 1 company and all of the employees, that somehow have to agree, or accept what previous employees decided or whatever. On my end of the contract, I want only me.

> To pick up the OP original question, why do you have an issue for with your employment being a 1 to many, but not the dealings after a car accident?

I didn't give my opinion on my preferences on car accidents, of which I've had a few so you're just assuming I don't have a problem with that either. I don't see what car accidents have to do with employment contracts, and the parents point was about insurance and it was a terrible parallel. People are free to chose whichever insurance company they want and do not have to negotiate terms based on what others want, I can call them up and ask for a discount or shop around until I get one, regardless of what other customers pay, the same way I can negotiate my salary when there's no unions around.

> 1-1 in the sense that there's 1 company and me. Not 1 company and all of the employees, that somehow have to agree, or accept what previous employees decided or whatever. On my end of the contract, I want only me.

That is a pretty arbitrary distinction. If you argue that it's 1 company, you might as well argue that it's 1 union, so that is a 1-1 relationship as well.

Sorry I don't want to be dismissive, but I'm really trying to understand your argument and to me saying you want 1-1 instead of 1-many is simply restating you don't want a union. There is no reasoning that I can understand.

>> To pick up the OP original question, why do you have an issue for with your employment being a 1 to many, but not the dealings after a car accident?

>I didn't give my opinion on my preferences on car accidents, of which I've had a few so you're just assuming I don't have a problem with that either. I don't see what car accidents have to do with employment contracts, and the parents point was about insurance and it was a terrible parallel. People are free to chose whichever insurance company they want and do not have to negotiate terms based on what others want, I can call them up and ask for a discount or shop around until I get one, regardless of what other customers pay, the same way I can negotiate my salary when there's no unions around.

I somewhat agree that the insurance example is not the greatest analogy (none typically are great), but from the rest you write I understand that you feel that if there is a union you can not negotiate pay? Most of the places I'm aware of still let you negotiate pay even if there are unions. Another question, is this a matter of principle, or do you believe you can negotiate a better deal than the union? If so why?

I don't care about a better deal, I care about being personally responsible for the outcome of my life. I put way more value in being responsible for my own outcome, even if it'd be worse, than to have someone else do it for me or to feel like I'm part of a package deal with others. You don't have to feel the same way, but the same I way I support other's rights to unionise I think you should allow for people that have a different value system than yours.

I would be skeptical of a union for 3 reasons:

1 - seniority hierarchy

2 - protection of incompetent employees

3 - having more rules to follow and 2 bosses to please

That said, I have never been in a union, but this is the reputation.

I work a white collar union job in the US where there is no seniority hierarchy. I assume in most professional type union environments this is the case aside from experience requirements for senior job titles (and, to be fair, these would tend to be more strict than in the nonunion world; if the job spec says 10 years experience, you need 10 years).

To chime in on number 2, again my personal experience is the opposite: incompetence needs to be documented and proven to an arbitrator in the worst case. You can't be "incompetent" because of stack ranking or your boss doesn't like you.

On 3, I can only laugh. Union leadership and my shop steward have no say in my day to day work whatsoever other than as a backstop if management isn't following the contract. Even in this case the expectation is typically do whatever the boss says and grieve it later. Exceptions for safety or serious ethical concerns and that's about it.

Does every single one of these things not already apply to regular business scenarios? Dealing with people who get ahead by playing the people game is already a thing. As is seeing the sometimes incompetent get promoted. As to having a second boss, if you want to look at it like that, then I think you have a very strange concept about what collective bargaining is supposed to achieve, and what the actual dynamic between workers and company owners actually is.

I have never worked for a union but recently spoke with a friend who was very upset with with his union because they didn't feel like it represented their interests.

It represents all the workers at his firm, including desk engineers and field technicians. The desk workers wanted to work from home and management was on board but the union killed it. The union leadership wanted all workers to work from home 2 days a week or none at all. Management said that is crazy because the literal job of field workers requires to be in the field.

I don't have a mandatory life insurance and my state mandates only liability car insurance, which is much less than my current coverage. Not only that, but I can choose among many different providers. If I don't like something in my insurance policy it takes a phone call to switch to another provider.

If unions had been like insurance then nobody cared what union you joined. The lack of choice, both in joining/staying out and in which union to join, is what makes me anti-union.

Plain old propaganda. Company owners have the loudest voices. Newspapers and TV stations will cater to their owners' needs.

Unions make only sense for companies like Amazon, even if you think your benefits are good.

What I dislike about those that tried to form in the US was their direction. Unions aren't to make your workplace welcoming or a safe space (only real safety) or about diversity and all that teenage advertising soft crap or rescuing the climate.

It is about plain benefits and compensation and about unifying the interests of workers towards a company that has much more leverage. If unions would focus on that, I think they would be much more successful.

Unions reward and protect unproductive employees at the cost of productive and prospective employees. For the employer, this results in subpar capital allocation and fragility to future market forces.

To follow on your point, it's interesting how much people take the results of unionization for granted.

Do people not enjoy two day weekends? 8 hour workdays? Workplace safety regulations? Prohibitions on child labor? It wasn't unbridled capitalism that gave us those things, it was organized labor. Union membership strongly correlates with a healthy middle class.

Some people want to work for companies that foster competitive environment and reward employees who are motivated to go and/or perform above and beyond what is expected of them. Unions seldom help to create such environment.

Union is fine as long it's voluntary. If I can keep doing my job and choose whether I join one or not, there's no problem as far as I'm concerned. But does that happen? Unions typically move to mandate that everyone has to be their member, typically making bullshit argument that everyone benefits from their presence, so everybody has to be their member.

Anything that's not voluntary is wrong. You don't force your friend to be your friend. You don't force your wife to be your wife. Why would you force people to join your club if they don't want it?

US law says no one can be forced to join a union. Unions are forced to represent non members. Most states force unions to do it for free if a non member chooses. The others force non members to pay for the services the union is forced to provide.

I may not understand something...In such case why is there a vote? If union is a voluntary organization, then why can't people who are for unionizing just open an organization and join it at will? Who prevents them, it's their own private club, there is no need to vote. People open unions when they choose without asking anybody for permission, why can't these folks?

Membership is voluntary. Representation isn't.