[dspearson]

It's the norm, rather than the exception, here in Europe. My employment contract is set through collective bargaining and I work at one of the largest tech employers in Switzerland. Being represented by a union is just standard fare. I don't understand the hostility to it across the pond.

[buscoquadnary]

Not to argue for or against unions.

But in the US the history of unions often ended up with ties to organized crime. In addition unions seemed to become more interested in serving the needs of the union rather than the well being of the workers. One example is a buddy of mine that had to be party of a bag boys union who had to end up paying basically the entirety of a pay check in union dues each month simply to be employed, without him getting anything from it.

From what I understand there is a literal and figurative ocean of difference between the unions in the EU and the US.

I'll further add that trying to conflate the two is a tactic I've often seen used by dishonest people to manipulate the conversation.

[karpierz]

> But in the US the history of unions often ended up with ties to organized crime.

Organized crime takes root in groups that don't benefit from government protection. Do you think that unions would've turned to organized crime if the authorities and privatized security groups didn't regularly attack them without any intervention by the US government to protect them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

[manuelabeledo]

> But in the US the history of unions often ended up with ties to organized crime.

Is this true, or just another case of historical revisionism based on pop culture?

Not denying that there aren't examples of this, but it does seem a bit like people like to go back to a few famous criminal individuals to justify that unions are "bad".

[cool_dude85]

Your buddy was a bag boy paying "basically the entirety of his pay check" in union dues? Let's be specific here. How much in pay and how much in dues?

[Melatonic]

I highly doubt this - everytime I have heard people complain about this it terns out to be a percentage of their paycheck (which is pretty standard for all unions - rarely it is a flat fee).

What potentially could be a whole paycheck are the payments for healthcare that is provided by the union

[ericd]

That’s pretty bad, though - if I’m in my 20s and in good health, I’d definitely prioritize, say, rent over high-end health insurance.

[pjmlp]

Age doesn't prevent an accident to happen, and then someone has to pay those hospital fees or the recovery months without being able to work.

[Melatonic]

As far as I know it would be optional like any healthcare

[bombcar]

Or the "union signup" fee that is charged on your first paycheck, and eats your paycheck if you're minwage.

[cool_dude85]

I've never heard of a "union signup" fee (that's not to say it doesn't exist) but the person who posted it claims his buddy was paying every month.

edit: Looked it up in my state, they are limited here to $15.

[bombcar]

Apparently they call it an "initiation fee" for some people.

[commandlinefan]

I kind of feel the same way - I think that, in the long run, unionization will be bad for everybody involved... but the employers have really, really, really brought this on themselves. All they had to do was try to be human beings from time to time, but apparently that was too much to ask.

[Melatonic]

There was a huge scandal that basically killed tech unions in the US. Big names like Steve Jobs, George Lucas, etc. It also killed the chance of a VFX union (at the time VFX and tech jobs were basically seen as the same industry).

This is in contrast to the rest of Hollywood which is probably one of the best examples of a union success story the US has. Every single little niche has its own union (Animation Guild, Editors Guild, etc)

This all ended with a huge lawsuit and a (supposedly) massive settlement without a court decision. But the end result was that the tech unions never formed - the assholes won

[egypturnash]

I have friends in VFX and in animation, and the VFX friends are... less happy than the animators. The animators bitch about how the corporations are constantly trying to get one person to do the job of two but the union is constantly pushing back, the VFX people just accept that shit like "oh we didn't get paid for the last month of work because the shop closed up" is normal for them.

[Veserv]

What is the structure of unionized employment where you work?

In particular:

1. Do you have a choice of union?

2. Do you in theory have a choice of union even if in practice there is only one applicable union?

3. Can you leave the union/not engage in collective bargaining via the union if you believe the union is not representing your interests?

4. Can you in theory form your own union if applicable unions do not represent your interests?

From a cursory inspection of the structure of German and Swiss trade unions, I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes, though I do not have any in-depth or firsthand experience indicating the truth of my belief, so it would be helpful to get input from someone with firsthand experience.

In contrast, based on a more in-depth analysis on the nature of legal recognition for unions in the US, in the US the answer to all of these questions is no. I hypothesize this distinction, assuming it is true, is a key reason for the different attitudes towards unions in the US and Europe.

[BlargMcLarg]

It's definitely not the norm in Europe. A few specific countries, maybe.

[wincy]

Serious question though, what’s the pay like for a software engineer in Switzerland? The last time I checked it was something around half or less of what a software engineer can make in a third tier city in the USA. I can deal with not being in a union when I make close to three times the average cost of living in my area and would be very surprised if a union could negotiate a better rate or better working conditions as a software engineer.

[danaris]

So many tech workers bring out this line, that they don't think a union could negotiate a better deal for them.

Really? You really think that you are the best negotiator out of everyone who could join a union local in your area? You really think that by yourself you have more leverage than if you were negotiating alongside everyone else in a similar position within your company?

You look at the amount, and see that it's good, and you make a whole bunch of assumptions founded on stereotypes about unions, and come to the conclusion that you are the specialest person around...and it's a very seductive thing to believe.

But it's just one more way the people making dozens or hundreds of times more than you screw you over.

[JoshTriplett]

> You really think that you are the best negotiator out of everyone who could join a union local in your area?

That's not the sole determining factor. The question is not "can someone else do a better job negotiating for what I want", the question is "will someone else do a better job negotiating for what I want, and will I be able to successfully convince them to do so".

It's valid to ask "does this negotiating body actually represent me". Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. But it's not reasonable to ignore and dismiss people who believe it does not, and who believe they're unlikely to be able to change that.

In the context of the article, it sounds like this organization is quite likely to represent the goals of its members, and I hope that it stays that way.

[kennywinker]

I think it’s just another way of saying they think unions level the pay scale (bring up the bottom, bring down the top) and they believe they’re above the median line.

I’m not sure if that’s actually the effect unions have, but assuming it is - that position is still so incredibly selfish. Even if you are on the high end, you weren’t aways. Hold the door open for the next generation. Lift everybody up. Let everyone get a first helping before you go back for seconds.

[charcircuit]

>Even if you are on the high end, you weren’t a[l]ways

But the past inexperienced me didn't bring as much value as the current me so it makes sense that I made less.

[kennywinker]

1. Are you paid for the value you bring to the company, or are you paid for some function of the value you bring and the market value of your skills? Seems to me the largest portion of your pay is the market value. Collective bargaining is playing with the market value, not the value you bring.

2. "Value you bring to the company" is an odd way to look at most jobs. Like what's the impact on productivity of the 25 engineers in an office if the trash hasn't been taken out in three weeks? Janitorial labor is contributing to the overall income of the company in ways that may not be direct, but ARE real. Same would apply for junior engineering tasks.

3. While I'm a fan of the idea of everyone earning the same hourly wage within a company for above reasons, unions MIGHT flatten the payscale a bhit, but they don't usually result in a FLAT payscale. So you will still earn more based on some ladder - years with the company, title, value you bring, etc.

[charcircuit]

Although you quoted "Value you bring to the company" I did not say that. Your value to the company is separate from the value you bring the company.

If a company has button that when pressed makes them $1M. A person they hired for that role brings them $1M in value assuming they had no one to push the button before. The value of that person is very low since they can easily find a replacement.

[mistrial9]

talk to a twenty year veteran software developer who is systematically passed over due to "bad cultural fit" about your salary survey.

[dghlsakjg]

There are plenty of 50 year old developers I know who are VERY actively pursued by recruiters.

Maybe it’s because he really is a “bad cultural fit”.

Everyone meets an asshole every now and then, if you meet assholes all the time, maybe the problem is that you’re an asshole…

[40yearoldman]

I am over 40, get paid over 700k a year. Just a normal software engineer at a normal company.

Unions would mean I get paid less, and the guy sitting next to me who can’t find his way around a computer would get paid more.

I know you folks like to say it’s a stereotype of unions, but unions really only protect the lazy. If you do your job well companies will fight over you. If you are not so good at your job that union sure does sound like a good idea.

Weren’t police unions why we have bad police?

[bpodgursky]

Like even if this was true in 5% of dysfunctional startups, there's a vast pool of mature tech companies desperate to hire good developers.

And even beyond that, there is an even larger pool of NON-tech companies desperate to hire ANY developer at all.

I don't want to pretend that this doesn't happen, and it sucks, but this does not block any competent developers from software employment.

[ThrowawayR2]

As if twenty years of employment implied any particular level of competence or automatically entitled one to a job. There's plenty of demand out there for anyone halfway decent regardless of age.

[soco]

I make over 140k in Switzerland and I'm definitely no genius yet still in demand at over 50. It can be done.

[thecopy]

Seems to be around 100-200k https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer&c...

[0xbadcafebee]

We have a very long history of killing each other over unions. Union violence has been committed as recent as 2018-2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S... / https://listverse.com/2017/09/14/10-tragic-times-the-us-gove... / https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/themine... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars / https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/219

In the 1970's Reagan ushered in an era of busting unions and they have been declining ever since. Ironic as Reagan in his youth had actually fought for unions.

https://medium.com/the-future-of-labor-unions/ronald-reagans... / https://medium.com/the-future-of-labor-unions/why-has-union-...

[manuelabeledo]

> We have a very long history of killing each other over unions. Union violence has been committed as recent as 2018-2021.

Numbers are really, really low here, if you compare them to owners' lead violence, especially committed by police.

[tmp_anon_22]

Americans love feeling like they're about to be rich (all 300+ million of us), thus unions are bad because they redistribute power to the poor.

[Melatonic]

We are all just "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" after all!

[ThrowawayR2]

In case you didn't know, "More than 8% of American adults are millionaires": https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/more-than-8-percent-of-ameri...

On top of that, the percentage of millionaires on HN is probably closer to 80% than 8% so that hackneyed slogan has little resonance with this audience. Then add in that many, many developers get a massive chunk of their compensation in stock or options, which literally aligns their interests with the owners of the company because they _are_ part-owners of the company, and that slogan is DOA.

[jimbob45]

Is it a feeling of imminent wealth? Or is it a feeling of equal opportunity for everyone? It seems disingenuous to frame it as "those silly Americans thinking they're about to be rich". You might as well frame unions as "protecting the most useless employees from being fired".

[hourago]

> "protecting the most useless employees from being fired"

Unions don't do that, that's pure propaganda. Unions bargain for more free time, better pay, better work conditions (healthier, safer).

[SketchySeaBeast]

It also plays into the whole phenomena where many people for some reason would rather ensure one person is punished than a hundred helped.

[scifibestfi]

> Unions bargain for more free time, better pay, better work conditions (healthier, safer)

They do that AND make it hard to fire useless employees. It's a mixed bag, as all organizational layers are.

[juve1996]

Meh, useless employees will be there either way, union or not. That's just the world.

[jimbob45]

You're right - unions don't do that. They could be incorrectly perceived as doing that though, which is the comparison I'm making to "Americans love feeling like they're about to be rich". That's very clearly not how Americans feel and framing it that way is pure propaganda, as you put it.

[hourago]

Answering to the wrong comment? I never said that.

[kevin_thibedeau]

You might want to look into the practices of police unions. The inability to fire for bad behavior is part of why police forces turn into self serving monstrosities.

[tmp_anon_22]

I'm sure its a complex mix of 200+ years of socioeconomic development that goes well beyond my glib comment. I do really believe there is something to it though and understanding American culture (and politics).

[drc500free]

In the US, unions historically excluded Black labor. Management was able to play the two labor forces against each other when there was a strike.

Eventually the Civil Rights Act passed, forcing government-mandated equality in many places, especially around employment. White labor abandoned the labor party (Democrat) in favor of the anti-government party (Republican).

Since then, the Democrats have been pro-minority, pro-government and at best fairly ambivalent about labor issues. Only the management perspective played in the media, and when Clinton came in to power he brought a strongly anti-labor platform to the Dems.

Americans for the most part have not had a labor party to oppose management narratives, and don't generally even have the common vocabulary to discuss labor issues.

[xen2xen1]

My father worked for a union bridge building company for 33 years. He was very pro union. He retired after 33 years from a massive heart attack, which was alarmingly common for people with his job description. He was still very pro union, as his employer left him with little medical debt after an extremely expensive heart transplant. However, I destincty recall his throwing a magazine across the room published by his union when he vehemently disagreed with the political stance they took. The stance was very liberal, he was very conservative. It's very easy to say it's all about race, but when the blue collar workers don't feel at all represented by their union what do you expect to happen? He didn't feel represented in any way by the national union even when we literally said he'd never work a day non union in his life. The unions lost support at the ground level and never got it back.

[drc500free]

I think that the Dems decided that their other planks (largely racial/identity/cultural) were more important than their labor planks. Simultaneously, union workers decided that their other political beliefs were more important than their labor-related ones. It's hard to pick apart which happened first, if either could be said to happen first, because each magnified the other in a feedback cycle.

The political realignment was rather sudden, and the upshot was that the party that previously represented labor didn't particularly care about "labor vs management" anymore. They cared about equality within the labor force, which is a totally different thing.

[hourago]

> even have the common vocabulary to discuss labor issues.

This was one of the warnings of Orwell. A good example is how communism and socialism are synonymous for many people limiting their capability to discuss social improvements.