[matchbok3]

There are countless counter examples that are obvious. Teacher's unions (hard to fire teachers, poor quality). Transit unions (mandating 2 drivers per subway car, crazy benefits, etc). Auto industry fighting EVs.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.

A union's job is to protect the union. Nothing else.

[qmmmur]

I would be interested to understand more about what you think unions and organisation have done for working rights over the last 100 years.

[matchbok3]

That is an entirely different argument that's not particularly germane to this topic. One can agree that unions, in the past, have helped workers, and also understand that they are not always in the best interest of the general public. It's complex, but possible!

[Cyph0n]

No, that is not a “complex” position at all. On the contrary, it’s a fairly simple position where you take no strong stance but still want to claim the positive aspects from each side.

Are unions universally good? No, because humans are in the loop, and humans can do bad things.

Does that change the fact that the concept of a union is one of the greatest innovations in all of human history? No.

Can unions today help disparate human workers collectively improve their working conditions? Yes, because this is what unions were designed for, and I think is the key outcome the Rockstar folks are betting on.

For a recent example, read up on the Samsung union bargaining for company wide bonuses in the wake of the huge profits made off the surge in demand for memory.

[matchbok3]

The Samsung deal is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not all entirely good. Everyone at Samsung not working in chips got screwed. And those lucky few union members used their power to extract an unfair amount of money from the company. This will cause the company to lean towards other avenues in the future, potentially harming everyone else.

Why are those people getting a huge check? Not because they worked harder. Because AI came along and made their product more valuable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/27/world/asia/samsung-ai-pro...

> But a smaller union associated with workers in the consumer electronics division — which boycotted the negotiations and whose 15,000 members were excluded from the vote — accused the lead union of neglecting their interests, and decried the deal as “discriminatory.” Under the agreement, workers in the consumer electronics division are expected to get payouts that are a fraction of those of their semiconductor division peers.

[Cyph0n]

And how exactly is this situation worse than the unfair allocation of salaries and bonuses in companies today? Even within the same company, people can get paid more based on the org/division they work in (e.g. core AI teams), or even based on their (team or individual) perceived value to higher ups.

At least with the Samsung union, the decision is being made bottom up vs. top down.

[kelnos]

> And those lucky few union members used their power to extract an unfair amount of money from the company.

Why is it an unfair amount, though? Who gets to decide what compensation is fair and what isn't?

[Apocryphon]

Then that is an argument to reform and innovate on unions, not do away with them altogether.

[smsm42]

"Are unions net benefit for the general public" and "whether reforming or abolishing the unions is the best course of action for the general public" are two separate questions. The unions could be beneficial (and still a reform could improve this benefit) or they could be harmful (but a reform could make them beneficial without abolishing them). The original claim was they are beneficial right now, in heir current form, but no actual proof had been provided.

[Apocryphon]

If it’s a matter of proof, these are all links already posted on this site:

https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/union-effect-in-california-...

https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-ri...

https://werd.io/unions-work/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-13/unions...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/19/20727283/u...

[smsm42]

> This is a great example of how unions can really work for their members.

I think this is way different claim than "unions work for the society". Surely, there are a lot of organizations that work very well for their members. Not all of them are beneficial for the society though (criminal gangs aren't, for example). In your third link, there is a power struggle between two sets of people - movie studios and writers. One of them has achieved transferring some money from the other, using the power of unions. But how is it good for the rest of the public? Unclear.

The case in Vox starts with "I liked the union" (the same claim as above) and doesn't get more convincing as it goes. The best the author can do is "When you stack up all the research and look at the broader picture, though, the net effect of unions — bad examples included — is good for the typical worker.". But that, again, is not the question we started with - I am not arguing that the union can be good for those who get more money from the deal. I want to see proof it's also good for those who don't. And the best is something like "reduces income inequality" - which frankly is a very weak evidence, since obviously absolute inequality is bad, and absolute equality is bad, but there are a lot of gray in the middle, and how do we know whether a particular union makes us closer to the good side than to the bad side?

[matchbok3]

Do you think Vox has ever written about how transit unions increase costs by mandating redundant workers and work against technology that could automate trains?

Do you think Box has ever written about how Detroit unions fought EVs and AVs and automation that could result in cheaper cars?

Why do you think that is?

[matchbok3]

Is Rockstar try to ban unions? Or just deciding they don't want to work with one. Those are very, very different things.

[Apocryphon]

I’m not talking about Rockstar, I’m talking about your implied position.

[jayd16]

> Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.

After the first comment this really reads like "only Sith deal in absolutes."