[chasing]

> Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that.

I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty."

Unions are a tool. That tool can be misused! But it can also be used well for great effect.

Sorry your union isn't working well for you.

[cgriswald]

The fact that "shitty unions are shitty" implies that unions represent both cost and risk that must be weighed against current and potential future states-of-affair. Those who have experienced the downsides of those costs and risks are informed by those experiences and unsurprisingly more likely to be cautious about unions in the future.

[hoaw]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, I do think your perspective is somehwat wrong however. The ultimate goal of a union is of course to improve the state of affairs. But the larger reason reason to have a union is because it is a right to be able to affect your own future.

There are shitty unions, but there are also shitty companies and you only have the right to affect one. If people say shitty things, should you abandon free speech or should you engage in the free speech you believe in? Most people would say the latter because they think free speech is an important right. I guess a similar conclusion would be that worker participation is too important to be left to shitty unions.

[Apocryphon]

Their feedback is desirable because again, they can help others build better unions. A 2.0 version, if you will.

[docker_up]

The people high up on the union food chain have no desire to fix a broken system. Just like any other system.

[Apocryphon]

That assumes that new unions cannot be created, which is like assuming that new startups cannot be created.

[maxk42]

You're assuming a new union would be immune to the same fate.

You can be as clever as you like but all systems are exploitable.

[Apocryphon]

I would expect a new union to design around some of the pitfalls that have affected unions past.

Your general attitude sounds defeatist and strange on a community that is all about improving from past mistakes and learning to build better systems by breaking existing ones.

[el_cujo]

The poster responded to someone saying “why would anyone not want to unionize” by saying “some unions are shitty”, is that not reasonable? They aren’t even saying it’s a good reason, but a lot of people seem to have this idealistic view of unions and I do think it is healthy to keep in mind that this isn’t the case, just wanting to unionize and handing the reigns over to people who are lazy or greedy can leave you with labor problems AND a bite from your paycheck.

[Apocryphon]

Then isn’t the solution to design and build better unions, not reject the concept entirely?

[marcosdumay]

Designing and building better governance bodies by a democratic process is hard. Very hard.

And may be even impossible depending on the people under its governance.

[Apocryphon]

And yet, is tech not about solving hard problems? Isn’t the supposed vision of this industry to make the world a better place?

[marcosdumay]

Indeed we should try to solve the problem. Tech is already helping (things are much better than just a decade ago), and there are plenty more opportunities to help.

But I'll stick with my point. Creating an union right now is not completely safe, so there are reasons to be wary of people proposing them, and to debate the details. There is even reason to not create one if the details are not right.

[fuzz4lyfe]

What assurances do i have that the tool you are offering me is a good tool and not a bad one?

[asdff]

Your due diligence to research and drive change if needed.

[dandellion]

What a lazy answer when the burden of proof is clearly on you.

[fuzz4lyfe]

Why do I have to do due diligence and drive change for something I don't want or need in the first place?

[chasing]

If your coworkers are unionizing, maybe it would be polite to at least attempt to understand their reasons and goals before dismissing it outright as something you don't want or need.

[vkou]

I don't need 'the collaboration benefits' of having my desk in an open-office hell, but I get them anyways, with no ability to negotiate.

I put up with it because it's a 'take it or leave' it condition of getting a paycheck.

[towelr34dy]

Because you do want it.

Organized labor has introduced customs that you benefit from and take for granted.

All you have to do is look at the difference in quality of life that came before and after the changes we obtained from organized labor in the 1800s/early 1900s.

Most people don't appreciate the extreme asymmetry between those who control capital and those who create the wealth of nations (26 individuals have the same worth as 3.5 Billion individuals)

In fact, just look at the quality of life of a worker in a place with strong labor (say most of the EU) vs say, the US.

[fuzz4lyfe]

>In fact, just look at the quality of life of a worker in a place with strong labor (say most of the EU) vs say, the US.

My wife is from the UK, I've looked into things there. I make 4 times what I would make in the UK, and that's before the additional taxes I'd pay (and before you ask the additional taxes for the NHS exceeds my spend for health insurance + copays). Sure they get about two weeks more vacation but I wouldn't trade that for 3/4ths of my salary why should I be forced to do so?

[lhopki01]

I'd be interested to know what job pays 4 times as much in the US as the UK.

Also the UK is not a good example of a place with strong labor. It's much closer to the US. Look at quality of life in places like Germany or Austria.

[pimmen]

You're already prefacing that you don't need unions, it's impossible to argue against that. If you don't need or want a union membership, don't get one, nobody is saying anything else. The argument is that you will know whether or not the tool is useful if you do some research.

I posit that if the market of the labor you're offering isn't very advantageous to you anymore, and if you're being mistreated by an employer when you're in a position where you can't use your financial means or time to fight back for whatever reasons, you will feel the need of someone else to fight for you because you can't just find an employer that will shower you with money two blocks away. And when I say "mistreated" I mean that everything you are entitled to in your contract is not something you can count on, so no severance, and when I say you're not in a financial position to fight back I mean that you don't have the means or the time to sue, even if you're 100% in the clear legally.

If you believe that will never happen, you're likely correct. I don't think my apartment will be on fire without me noticing too, it's a very low risk of that ever happening in my life, but I still want a smoke detector. I just can't take the risk. Same thing with union membership for me, I can't take the risk of being treated the same way my ex-wife was treated when she was simultaneously struggling with depression (and wouldn't have gotten anything she was entitled to from her employer during her medical leave if someone else hadn't fought for her).

[fuzz4lyfe]

> If you don't need or want a union membership, don't get one, nobody is saying anything else.

That is incorrect, in the US if my workplace decides to unionize I'm forced to pay union dues. I am fully in my right to criticize unions as they can be foisted upon me without my consent.

[pimmen]

Wow, what a weird and counterproductive way to implement unions. In Sweden, that's not even remotely how unions work, they're voluntary. That's a pretty messed up system you have, would you be more interested if they're fully voluntary?

[pseudalopex]

Federal law forces unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. You can choose not to pay anything in most states. In the rest, you are forced to pay an "agency fee" for the services the union is forced to provide you.

[tivert]

> That is incorrect, in the US if my workplace decides to unionize I'm forced to pay union dues. I am fully in my right to criticize unions as they can be foisted upon me without my consent.

Why all the hostility? If there are changes at your employer that you don't agree with, like unionization, just quit and take a different job. There's approximately zero unionization in the software development field right now, so you'll have tons of choices. No one's going to force you to stay in a union job if you don't want to.

[oh_sigh]

You're recommending everyone unionize, even though some unions are shitty and may end up being a net negative for people. But, aren't some businesses or sectors not shitty? Why unionize in nonshitty sectors or businesses?

[egypturnash]

Unionizing in a non-shitty sector will give the workers a way to help ensure that the sector continues to not be shitty, both by maintaining a baseline for what a union shop looks like, and by contributing money to politicians who will work to pass laws that help keep the sector free of shittiness.

[oh_sigh]

But the sector is already doing a good job of being non-shitty without a union. And what about the case where you're in a non-shitty sector, but end up with a shitty union, resulting in a net negative for the employees? Do you just say "Oh well, it was for the greater good. Someone else somewhere has a union which is non-shitty, just in case some day the sector becomes antagonistic with employees"?

[Apocryphon]

Isn’t the whole point of the OP about how shitty the video game sector is

[oh_sigh]

OP is saying that they don't understand why any workers would not unionize, not just workers in the video game industry.

[mac01021]

You can always unionize later. Ununionizing might be a much bigger challenge.

[chimeracoder]

> You can always unionize later. Ununionizing might be a much bigger challenge.

Deauthorization of a union is much more difficult than forming a union in the first place. It is very difficult to obtain sufficient support for deauthorization without the union leadership hearing about it, at which point they can usually find sufficient reason to expel the member from the union. If there is an exclusive contract with the employer (which is usually the case in the US), this may result in the employee's termination.

Even if there is enough support for deauthorization to require an election, the NLRB has the authority to overturn the results of the election, and it has historically wielded this power quite generously in favor of the union.

[dmazin]

It seems prudent to unionize and protect yourself while the business/sector is employee-friendly rather than have to unionize if the employer is taken over etc.

[darawk]

> I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty."

Yes, but some things have structural properties that lead to shittiness. Some would argue that unions have this property.

[Apocryphon]

What are the structural problems that would cause unions to be inherently bad?