[smallbigfish]

You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them. Call it government, call it whatever but it was an organization fighting on your behalf.

> beyond that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there.

Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

[tathougies]

Really a union fought for my unlimited vacation? I'm not being facetious but this perk is something that IME is unique (or at least originated in) silicon valley startups. Unions fought for more vacation but empirically speaking the free market led to even more.

And before we have the detractors of unlimited vacation coming in. Several of my colleagues take month long vacations, some multiple times a year, withiut reproach. It is objectively superior to my mother's union job

[duxup]

>You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them.

I think that is a bit of a grand statement don't you think?

I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union... I wouldn't associate ALL benefits with a union, nor would that necessitate forming one simply if you thought those benefits were related.

I've worked for some nice people, I do belive they seriously want to provide their people benefits...

>Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

Negotiate what exactly? The Union and corporate relationship generally lays out what the lay of the land is, the the areas that the employer gets to decide are usually pretty obvious and the union isn't likely to call a general strike because an employer made a choice.

[ghettoCoder]

If you think that any of the labour laws, health benefits, vacation days, special leave (bereavement for example) or any of the other things you take for granted as part of your normal work day didn't come from unions continually pushing the envelope of worker's rights then I good luck with that.

The remuneration package offered by a business is typically dictated by the business sector (competitors) so saying "I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union." is faulty logic. If half the shops are union shops or competition for staff is fierce then pay/benefits will reflects.

Unions gave us 40 weeks (as opposed to 60+), no child labour, work place health & safety (maybe not such a big deal in tech but in other industry it's critical), etc... yes, government legislation made them law but unions applied pressure to get it done. While many aspects of unions have, or appear to have, outlived their usefulness they are still a very important tool in the employer-employee relationship.

Look at it this way, if unions were really just about the money then employers wouldn't care so much and attempt to keep unions out of their businesses (sometimes illegally). An employer could just say to the union "this is how much I have to spend on labour, how would you like it budgeted" and call it a day cause at that point it's just deciding on how big your slice of pie is.

I guess I sound like a union fanboy, which I'm not, but we shouldn't discount the very real impact and ongoing influence unions have.

[duxup]

I just don't buy into the idea that because unions have helped generally compared to decades ago ... that means you should consider one as a solution now.