So yes, unions are one way to try to solve that problem. But if you choose to advocate for that, just be aware that attempting to solve these problems via a union would result in trading one set of problems for another: you'd probably end up with better working conditions, at a cost of new, artificial barriers to entry for all those people who want to work in that industry. Maybe it would be worth it, I don't know, but given the root causes, it definitely seems like this tradeoff would exist.
This actually does hit on the major difficulty in unionizing, which is that people want to make games. It seems fun. It feels rewarding to point to something bringing joy to your friends and family and go "I helped make that!" Because this feeling is so common, it's extremely easy to find someone to to do the job for less. If you're a cost minded manager (instead of a results minded manager) you might be willing to take on 3 dirt cheap juniors to do the work of one really expensive senior dev.
Yes. Often (though not always) by increasing barriers to entry. Either directly, for example by requiring union membership, or indirectly, by increasing the cost of labor, which could mean that companies in the industry will higher fewer people in aggregate.
I see a lot of anti-union talk on HN, I don't think a lot of the criticism of unions I see here is fair.
That's because most people on HN are from the U.S. where a century of propaganda has convinced most people not only that poor people are lazy, but by extension that unions are evil, corrupt and lazy organizations infiltrated by organized crime. While this propaganda has a minority basis in reality in some cases, as all propaganda will have because propaganda can't be 100% fantasy and make-believe, it's an ignorant basis to take when discussing broad and general questions like unions as a concept.
If you ask someone from Spain or Germany about unions and attempt to explain why they're "evil" from the US perspective, I can guarantee you will be met with complete disbelief. Most people in Europe may not actively be a part of a union, but they normally recognize them as beneficial entities in the labor market, and as something that will help balance the scales against employers of normally vastly larger influence, both politically and economically.
That's because, in the US, it's all true, historically. Auto unions were a big reason why Detroit's automakers were so uncompetitive against the Japanese automakers in the 80s; autoworkers got ridiculous pay for menial work, which is why Detroit moved a lot of their production to Mexico and Canada, and other automakers moved to Southern states where unions didn't exist.
The simple fact is that unions in the US in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond were nothing like unions in Germany, where by almost all accounts they seem to work out extremely well.
>Most people in Europe may not actively be a part of a union, but they normally recognize them as beneficial entities in the labor market
Yes, in Europe that's true. In America, it just hasn't been the case. It's just like public transit: in Germany, trains and subways are fantastic: they're inexpensive, clean, and efficient; whereas in America, they're an utter disaster: dirty, expensive, constant maintenance problems, and just a miserable experience. Try riding the subway in Munich, and then riding the subway in NYC or DC; there's just no comparison. The problem isn't that subways are bad, it's that subways in America are bad. Same goes for unions.
It's fair enough to say that American auto unions (and very importantly, auto company management and ownership) would do well to model themselves after Germany's system. It's not a universal truth that all our unions are ineffective.
You could say that about many different things: if we just did it like the Germans, everything would be better, right? But how exactly do you actually do that? We're not Germany. You could go to Zimbabwe or El Salvador and tell them the same thing ("just be like the Germans or Japanese and you won't have all these social problems!"), but that isn't realistic; if it was that easy, every country would be copying the Germans and Japanese.
As for a universal truth, I haven't seen any evidence yet that unions in America actually work well. In Germany, yes, but this isn't Germany.
I could compare all companies to the worst examples too (e.g. all startups are Theranos) but that would never be taken seriously nor would it be fair yet somehow with unions that level of analysis is taken seriously.
Well, I'm pretty sure those auto jobs in Canada were also high paying and unionized.
Source: I worked for one through University.
That just supports my argument even more. It's not unions that are the problem, it's unions in America.
How can you possibly guarantee (no less!) what someone, regardless of where they come from, will say about any subject? You cannot complain about generalizations and broad statements, as in here:
>...a century of propaganda has convinced most people not only that poor people are lazy, but by extension that unions are evil, corrupt and lazy organizations infiltrated by organized crime.
And then try to fit reality into your own narrative at the same time without being a hypocrite.
I will tell you this, though: CCOO and UGT (the two major trade unions in Spain) are publicly funded, which I find absolutely wrong. Moreover, they tend to be incredibly incompetent and useless in most cases. Of course, I'm drawing from my own personal experience and others' accounts of their own.
Leave the more general, "politics" side of unions (calling for general strikes, and so on) to CCOO and UGT, and make use of another union to protect you when your company tries to abuse you. Also, if you're not satisfied with what the unions do, you can always the works council. A workmate of mine is in our company's works council and she isn't even part of any union.
Also, in my experience CCOO and UGT are not nearly as bad as the media paints them (again, I'm talking about what's going on at companies I've worked at). This may sound like a cliché, but really, there is an awful lot of propaganda against them because there are plenty of rich people interested in having an exploitable work force. The only real complain I have against CCOO and UGT is that they sometimes don't fight as hard as they should. But in many other cases they do. I've seen cases where these unions have successfully sued companies upon wrongful termination of workers, for example.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/why-are-people...
The main point of my comment, which I made very clear, was that specific examples of "bad unions" is not a helpful or constructive basis upon which to have an argument about the theoretical place of labour unions in a market, no more than you would base an argument about where to go for dinner in the nutritional value of a carrot.
Either working for the MTA or LIRR is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, or this is quite literally "organized crime"
And who could forget this story? Is this "25 years of propaganda"? https://nypost.com/2013/12/20/ex-lirr-union-boss-in-gravy-tr... https://nypost.com/2014/08/06/nearly-all-lirr-workers-have-d...
Anyways, not saying there aren't good, hard working people in unions out there, and they don't provide some functional value, but like anything in life they have become corrupted.
Unions can certainly succeed if the the employee side also has a vested interest in the success of the company just as much as the company has, and that balance is maintained. Then, you truly have a collective.
This statement is completely and utterly nonsensical to anyone that has even a shallow understanding of the history of labour struggles and unionizing.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room
When I was young I believed they were good as it was what I was taught and fell in the socialist-leaning mentality of much of the country.
Having started to learn about economics, entering the industry, and seeing the arguments many people make for unionization have definitely led to me to swing much harder to the "unions are evil" side of the argument.
That said I do believe they are a double edged sword of sorts. When the only employer for a certain profession is the government for example (i.e. not driven by profits and losses, or not a part of a competitive market) unions can actually help make things fair and get a point across that otherwise would not be visible. But in general they are much less efficient than profits and losses in a competitive market and in those situations will lead to a decline in growth that you would otherwise not get.
> seeks to extract as much value as is possible/reasonable from the host organization, but not so much that they destroy it
I'm lucky at my current job that my employer does care for the employees. We are paid well, have amazing benefits, they are open about earnings and such. I much prefer this scenario rather than a union, but I can totally get why some companies need a union -- companies that treat their employees terribly. I just feel bad that it has to be a thing at all :(
Which means IT also benefits from the work hours agreements that affect everyone, just to give a basic example.
So far on HN, I've noticed that people from the US seems to not like the idea at all about unionization while people from EU (me included!) see unionization as something good that protect workers. I do know that efforts around unionization are very strong in Europe, and helpful for the workers. Maybe there was a previously unsuccessful attempt in the US and peoples impression comes from that?
First, culturally, US Americans are much more individualist than most Europeans. (Obviously I am painting with broad strokes here, but it’s true in a general sense, on average). US Americans are somewhat less likely to feel solidarity or a sense of common cause with coworkers, and more likely to value the freedom to negotiate their contract on their own.
They are also much more likely to distrust large organizations and bureaucracy, sometimes to an extreme extent that would be puzzling to Western and Northern Europeans. Rather than being on their side, many would perceive the union as just one more large bureaucracy trying to screw them.
Third, there are many current examples of unions in the US that have made industries meaningfully less efficient. And highly-paid US Americans are less likely to see themselves as oppressed by their employers and more likely to see themselves as making common cause: after all, they have a common goal of making a lot of money. If my company, say, found it harder to fire low performers (an almost certain consequence of a union), it would be less efficient, make less profit, and be less able to pay me my current high salary.
I hope I’ve genuinely answered your question and given you some insight into the mindset without implying either side is right or wrong. Just different viewpoints...
> US Americans are somewhat less likely to feel solidarity or a sense of common cause with coworkers, and more likely to value the freedom to negotiate their contract on their own.
No one is negotiating their contracts on their own. A negotiation requires at least two parties, and when it comes to negotiating employment terms, one party typically had no problem incorporating and using that to their advantage.
> They are also much more likely to distrust large organizations and bureaucracy, sometimes to an extreme extent that would be puzzling to Western and Northern Europeans.
Yet some of the largest and most powerful organizations in the world are US based. For a place where so many buy their food at large restaurant and store chains, buy their internet and phone plans from large national service providers, trust large organizations like Google or Facebook with information about their browsing and communication habits and depend on large credit organizations and banks, this just doesn't strike me as true. Large, bureaucratic organizations thrive in the US and people love them. Maybe not meaningfully more than in European countries and probably even less, but to call it an extreme distrust is a mischaracterization IMO.
> Third, there are many current examples of unions in the US that have made industries meaningfully less efficient.
IMO this is an important point, but in a country with the GDP per capita of the US I think that there is some margin to improve conditions in a lot of industries, of course at the expense of some very rich people. The problem is that consumers cover that margin instead of shareholders.
For example, they don't work very well for freelancers/gig economy type jobs; and their traditional focus on job safety in factories/assembly lines doesn't really apply in the same way to programmers sitting at desks.
[1] I'm not affiliated with them, but have met the team, and they seem like smart people.
I commend you for saying this. Usually people just keep digging in and stick to their previous statement.
Not to say that the mods don't work hard at this as well nor that there aren't others who contribute positively here. This is just such a perfect example that I'd like to draw attention to it.
Back on topic, I think unions are like anything else; if they are not well managed/maintained, they can become top heavy and easily corrupted. The key (much like any other organization) is consistent involvement from membership to keep the top honest... and move leaders along that don't have the organization's best interest at the forefront.
While unionization is the formalized structure of collective bargaining, there is nothing keeping these individuals away from collective bargaining without forming an official union to do so.
I think this is the main reason why I just "don't get" unions. Why do we have to put a name to it? Trying to understand unions, I guess it provides some sort of legitimacy to the organization. Or perhaps unions are more efficient at bargaining multiple issues simultaneously. I guess I am just really hung up on paying a union money.
To set up a communications and decision-making structure.
> hung up on paying a union money.
Agreed.
Am open to unions, but their worst tendencies such as significant monetary collection and (everyday) work obstruction should be against the rules. Just as anti-employee corporate policy should as well.
I know someone who's in a union as a mechanic. Her union dues are $50 and she gets fantastic benefits, that more than pay for the union dues.
Plus many countries have laws surrounding how unions can operate and protections for employees organising them. In a less enlightened society employers will just lay off anyone attempting to organise.
So in general Unions are typically formed explicitly because people have lots of existing evidence of the benefits.
I'm not against unions, but his suggestion is about the individual.
YES! You're absolutely right!
> They don’t need to unionize.
Err... Why on earth not? That would literally be the definition of growing a spine and saying no to ridiculous work conditions but also having it be effective.