|
|
|
|
|
|
by pnt12
1192 days ago
|
|
|
That's a very one sided opinion: more complexity is necessarily bad, no matter anything else. I'm not particularly pr-union but I'd argue for another dimension: to the company, you're an employee, but to the union you're a customer. If too many people dislike an union, it can dissolve. If too many people dislike a company, things aren't as simple, because they depend on their wages (and in the USA: insurance) to live. |
|
|
I think that's a fair summary of my worldview. I don't like unnecessary complexity in most of my life, and adding an intermediary to an important relationship needs to get over a high hurdle for me to consider it's necessary.
Maybe if there's an example of software development under a union shop that you can point at and say this particular Union improved working conditions for people like me in this particular way, I can say hmmm, maybe that's worth the added complexity. But most of what I've seen from unions is that they add a significant chance of not being able to work because of disagreements between the union and the employer or solidarity in disagreements between other unions and other employers; as well as most often salary rules that are based on time at the job rather than quality of work. Quality of work is hard to measure, but I've been generally happy with the results of that measurement.
Maybe the model of talent unions rather than blue-collar unions is a more appropriate model, but I'm not sure how that works. Do I need to give union dues and hire an agent, too?