[IanDrake]

No, the other questions are:

1) Does your union represent you as talent or just by your seniority?

2) How much more (or less if you're talented) do you make now because you're unionized?

3) How much are you forced to PAY to the union for the privilege of having your job?

[tptacek]

How much are you forced to PAY your employer when they choose to pay you $120,000/yr instead of $130,000/yr? Those kinds of decisions get made collectively (and often arbitrarily) by employers all the time, and you have no recourse other than to the market for a better job.

The right way to think of a union is as a force with similar (but radically reduced) power over your work conditions, but one with different incentives and for which you have some (depending on how healthy the union is) representation.

Unions can obviously be a bad thing! But the idea that they're intrinsically coercive is a little overwrought. All of employment is coercive; the median union simply peels off some of the coercive forces that apply to your job and hands them to the employees as a collective to manage.

[IanDrake]

Just curious if you’ve ever worked in a union job?

I have and my experience was that you will never get paid what you’re worth - if you’re talented.

So if you want to argue that people with less talent can make more money with unions, I would agree... in the short run.

Eventually talent will seek other means and leave the unionized industries. The brain drain will have two negative results, reduced overall productivity and a union demanding more and more for its members who produce less and less.

Ultimately, the company produces worse product and recieves less revenue. Less money to pay the hungry union members who demand even more.

Finally the company says fuck this and moves its production to another country where people will work harder for less.

The whole thing will be blamed on corporate greed and will be used as a rallying call to socialism. ‘Cause that’ll fix it.

[tptacek]

Just curious, have you ever worked in a non-union job?

I have and my experience was that you will never get paid what you're worth --- unless you're ruthless and prioritize gaming review systems over working with your team.

So if you want to argue that people who work exclusively to maximize their short-term outcomes without developing skills or, for that matter, any actual software can make more money without unions, I would agree... in the short run.

Am I fairly characterizing corporate jobs? About as fairly as you're characterizing collective bargaining, is what I think.

[IanDrake]

I take it that’s a no for you.

I’ve only ever had one union job (at a young age) and that told me everything I need to know about unions.

Ultimately if you’re not getting paid what you’re worth, that’s on you. Or you’re wrong about what you’re worth.

I guess our difference is that I’d rather myself to blame for poor negotiating than some union boss, making twice what I make, telling me what I’ll be getting with no ability to negotiate.

[tptacek]

"I’ve only ever had one union job (at a young age) and that told me everything I need to know about unions" pretty nicely sums this unproductive subthread up, doesn't it?

[IanDrake]

And you’ve never had one, ever.

So mock my limited, yet actual, experience while you arm chair philosophize about how many people unions have helped in your imagination.