[komali2]

> Forcing an existing organization to bend to your will is textbook entitlement.

This is a mischaracterization of what unions do. When have you witnessed a union do this? That must be a remarkably powerful union to be making decisions for the entire organization.

Unions simply negotiate things related to their members, on behalf of their members. There's no "forcing" involved.

If a company doesn't want to meet the union's expectations for the wages and benefits of their members, it can simply fire all the union members or wait for them to strike and hire their replacements. After all, it's just software, how hard could it be to replace the entire team? Surely no harder than a single person simply quitting and building a competitor to Blizzard.

[dahdum]

> If a company doesn't want to meet the union's expectations for the wages and benefits of their members, it can simply fire all the union members or wait for them to strike and hire their replacements.

Not agreeing with OP, but you generally can’t fire striking workers. Replacements are difficult as you still owe the striking workers their positions if they return.

Lots of caveats to all of that, but it’s definitely not simple. If it were there would be very few private unions.

[komali2]

I was mostly being as facetious and dismissive as the op, their take is so old fashioned I honestly wonder if they're doing a bit.

[cowl]

This is a small Union but Unions in general are a political tool and not for the good of their members. In Italy we had a Union outraged that Tech Employees ere not joining it that it "negotiated"(forced) the government to automatically enroll them (meaning they take a fee from the salaries as a tax) if they did not opt-out. that shows you who the unions are working for and their power.

[komali2]

I'm sure just like there's shit companies, there's shit unions. If "just find a different company" or even "just found your own company" is a valid form of anti union criticism, "just find / form a different union" is equally valid.

Regardless, unions are a net positive.

https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-and-well-being/

> We find that, on average, the 17 U.S. states with the highest union densities:

> have state minimum wages that are on average 19% higher than the national average and 40% higher than those in low-union-density states

> have median annual incomes $6,000 higher than the national average

> have higher-than-average unemployment insurance recipiency rates (that is, a higher share of those who are unemployed actually receive unemployment insurance)

[cowl]

Nothing of these applies to The tech Sector and Especially to my example in Italy. where the Labour protection laws afforded to anyone (even without a Union) are enough. That is the way to go, State laws guarantee the job protection not Unions. Unions are a vestige of the past where everyone had the same repetive task/responsability and the employer could exchange Bob for Greg without a thought. Many Jobs today (Especially in the Tech Sector) you can't Exchange Bob For Greg and thus negotiations on "collective minimum Salary" do not make even sense. Protections from Firing and other unemployement assurances must come from the government in equl measure irrespective of whether you are in a union or not.

And Especially "just form your own union" was precisly what this example demonstrated that is not valid. That union had enough political power to Force the State to autoenroll People that did not want to be part of that union because they did not see any benefit.

[komali2]

I don't really know what's going on in Italy in this case but when I met with communists there on a trip my impression is that the State provides not nearly enough labor protections. Sure it'd be nice if the state did that, I don't disagree, but what we've seen historically is that the most you can expect from a government is below the dirt bare minimum - such as a child labor law... Banning child labor for those under 8. Sorry, 12 if it's mine labor. So whatever you're getting from the government probably still isn't even close to what's possible given the level of industrial development and possible surplus.

Anyway in the usa the population at large is utterly allergic to workers rights laws. The most rational way in the usa to ensure better labor rights is to form a Union.

[cowl]

Well Ofcourse if you talk to communists "it's not enough". In Italy it's practically imposible for a company to fire people unless they have very good reasons too. The court system works very well. These protections are so strong that have become detrimental to the workers. For example let's say that Company X has a new project and wants to build something that will take 2 years. Noone in Italy will Hire anymore employees for this because after two years you can't downsize after the bulk of the work is donee. What 90% will do in these cases is hire external consultants, pay even 10 times more than the cost of the emplyees, just because there is no way you can have a Dynamic workforce. So a lot of people are employed in these Body-Rental Companies instead of working directly for the company that needs them and get paid better without the being often the 3rd or 4th link in the chain.

For the Communists, I come from an ex-Communist country. Me and my children are still suffering from those conseguences and the communists in Italy tell me stories how they watched us in the television from their villas and Envied us..., while our govenment gave contributions to the Italian Comunist party and we the people had the moto "We will eat grass if we have to". that's the Disconnect they live in.

[LBJsPNS]

Oh yes, the tech sector. You're special.

You're not replaceable. Those... those workers... They're replaceable. You're special. You negotiated and got a whole dime more for yourself. That makes you better than those... others.

Of course, if you'd joined a union, you'd have got a buck more, and better benefits. But no, you're Speshul.

Solidarity forever.

[MrPatan]

Do unions make people richer, or being richer affords people to have more wealth-destroying unions?