Isn't there a technical solution to this? Something like an outwardly anonymous social network with "proof" of employment from LinkedIn, where you can pledge to unionize once participation reaches critical mass for your workplace. Yes laws are better, but this could be a decent workaround.

I don't think it's achievable without outside help and political organisation.

Traditionally bootstrapping into a situation where union organising could happen safely and peacefully required a period of violence on the picket lines. There used to be quite a lot of this in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

These days it's even harder in some ways; the more "virtual" an organisation is, the easier it is for the company to just disband and restart it and the harder it is to picket. It's not clear if the various strikes against Uber by its workers have achieved anything.

(someone is downvoting you, but it's not me!)

Surely the big Eastern European union success story was Solidarity? Although I can understand how unions would struggle to operate in the post-communist era.

Could you please explain why, in the age of e-mail and Facebook? People in my country have zero problem organising political events on Facebook, attracting several tens of thousands of visitors to their demonstrations.

This reverses cause and effect: in order for unions to receive any legal protection, they have to exist and fight for it (many members paying very high prices.) The unions precede the legal protection, not the other way around.

Can we make it mandatory for everyone that is anti-Union to have to report to work on Labor Day and also they need to work the previous Saturday since it was normally a six day work week before Unions?

I still don't understand American working force's love affair with the filthy rich individuals and corporations. I am constantly told, "This is just how economy works" from my Father-In-law and other "conservatives."

When I mention that we as the working class are getting less and less of the GDP pie and more is going to the corporations and rich. The feeling is this has always been that way. I immediately say "I'm talking percentage" and sadly the average American is stuck at a 4th grade math level and I guess 4th grade doesn't cover the meaning of percentages.

The filthy rich's best warriors are conservative leaning voters right now and I have no idea how that will ever change.

There's precious little mention of this in history lessons.

Bethlehem Steel had a strike, 9,000 workers complaining about the 12 hour work days and the unsafe work conditions. A policeman shot and killed union striker Joseph Szambo while he was drinking a beer and his wife gave birth to their child a few hours later. This caused Congress to get involved and to actually make Bethlehem Steel change their practices and the Labor Union won. http://bethlehem.thelehighvalleypress.com/2012/09/12/bethleh...

Now fast forward to the 1980s and Bethlehem Steel wasted millions in tax dollars on building a huge corporate office and didn't redo their old steel works and had to go out of business. People like to blame the Union but it was Corporate waste of resources that was the demise of the company. https://www.mcall.com/opinion/white/mc-bw-bethlehem-steel-pl...

Do most people want to overturn them? I think you're assuming that start state and it's perhaps not the case.

> I can be fired for any reason

And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.

That's not symmetrical, or if it is, it's symmetrical in the same way as "heads I win, tails you lose." Being fired and quitting both place the entirety of the risk of unemployment on the employee, there is no counterbalance of power or risk on the part of the employer.

If health insurance wasn't tied to employment in the US, or if there were something like UBI, then the dynamics of at-will employment might be at least more symmetrical.

If there is no power or risk on the part of the employer then why do some countries have a law requiring that you give the employer a notice period? It's to reduce their risk.

In my country can sued for their damages if you leave without a notice period - real damages such as having to hire more expensive temporary staff to do your job until they can find someone else permanent. That's their risk.

In the linked article, it's mentioned that Elon felt a constant need to fire people that he sometimes had to be talked down from, so if the employer risk exists, it doesn't seem to be particularly high in most cases. If the risk for employers was significant, then at-will employment laws wouldn't even exist, because the entire purpose of such laws is to make it arbitrarily easy to fire employees.

The only way at-will employment could truly be symmetrical is if I could walk into work and literally fire any of my managers or the CEO with the same ease with which they could fire me.

But of course, actually applying the power dynamic of at-will employment both ways would just be insane wouldn't it?

False dilemma [1]. There's no reason to assume that by giving up at-will employment, you'll also lose the right to resign for any reason. In fact, there are lots of countries where you can resign for any reason, but can't be fired for every reason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I did not say that. You've either mis-read what I said or you're wilfully misunderstanding.

I said that the law is symmetrical. I didn't say the relationship was. I also didn't say that the risk was.

If I run a business and I can't afford you, then I have to continue employing you to the detriment of the rest of the business? One of the guys who reports to me just turned in his 2 weeks notice completely out of the blue. It puts me in a bind because we have more work than people to do it, but I don't harbor any ill will towards him.

I can understand your concern (somewhat), but at the same time, being an at will employee simply isn't something that's even on my radar.

I frequently hear this being trotted out as the reason why at-will employment is a good thing. This is, however, not the reality. You can fire employees for many reasons: Poor performance, breaking the rules, and - yes - lack of money.

What you cannot do is fire people on the spot for any random reason. You can fire people, but you have to follow a process that is designed to protect both the employer and the employee.

I have had to fire people in my employ a few times, and every time I was annoyed at the length and complication of the process I had to follow. I never once thought that at-will employment was a good alternative. As an employer, I strongly believe that the practice is barbaric and uncivilized.

Well, you can also quit for any reason, at any time

And...? If your business is structured in such a way that this situation would pose an existential threat to your business, you have failed as a business manager. If this situation doesn't pose an existential threat to your business, it is just an annoyance - sucks to be you, I guess. As a reward for the risks and hardships of being a company owner, you get to take home your profits.

First, in an at-will state in the US, except for those cases relating to protected classes, you can indeed legally let any employee go for any random reason you desire. Any "complications" involved have been added by your company, in an attempt to protect them from employee lawsuits.

Let me just cut to the chase and say this as simply as I can. I think at-will employment is a good thing. As an employee I like knowing I can simply decide to quit on a whim and I see no reason an employer shouldn't have the same freedom.

> I see no reason an employer shouldn’t have the same freedom

Because its not an equal relationship. Unless the company is very, very small or badly managed, losing an employee or two is much less of a deal for employers than losing their jobs is for the average employee. If the employer really wants rid of the employee for a legitimate reason, they can do so, they just have to jump through a few hoops. If they want to get rid of the person just because, then no, they can’t do that and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed to either. It encourages an abusive or unfair work environment (work longer/harder/more dangerously or I’ll fire you! for example).

For the average person, losing their job is devistating. For the average company, losing an employee barely registers. Remember, that most employees don’t have the same flexibility and job availability that most of us on HN do, yet the laws still apply the same.

What gives you the idea that you cannot leave anytime you want as an employee?

Yet at the same time companies are extremely paranoid about firing people without a good excuse for fear of getting sued. These two sentiments don't really line up.