And it's not somehow magically different now; the woman responsible for the Panama Papers got car bombed and it was just swept under the rug. Capital is more than willing to use extralegal lethal force to protect itself, to this day.
But it seems like with this sort of reaction, it's the companies who are feeding an adversarial relationship. Companies responding to labor organization in the US have had crazy, even violent reactions. Perhaps rather than justifying why American companies are so afraid of unions, it would be enlightening to ask why American workers feel so positively about employers?
* People that see the use of H1Bs as suppressing wages for American tech workers. This camp is often broadly against immigration in general, and is more closely aligned with the right. You won't encounter many of these in the Bay Area, but they do exist and are more prevalent in other parts of the country.
* People who want to make tech companies even more progressive, often wanting more aggressive diversity representation OKRs and abolishing interviews. Some good ideas are present here (like ending forced arbitration) but this camp is often adverse to meritocracy which runs contrary to the ethics of many, if not most, tech workers.
Really, software development and tech are fantastic jobs that pay well and have effectively zero risk of injury. Hours can be difficult in specific segments (e.g. Game Dev) but compensation as a function of work life balance is far better than the overwhelming majority of other industries.
That's an interesting theory, but no, that is not Unionization's primary purpose. The primary purpose of Unionization is to make it possible for employees to collectively bargain about whatever subjects they see fit through a horizontal link between all employees in order re-balance the vastly asymmetric employer-employee relationship.
Saying that unionization is about collective bargaining is a more long-winded way of saying the same thing.
Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond:
So in the end, you don't actually disagree that constricting the supply of labor is the primary purpose of unions. I agree that this discussion has been non-productive, so why did you bother kicking it off by trying to claim that this isn't how unions operate in your first reply?
Because collective bargaining means that the party with the largest resources and the power, in this case the company, will have to at least take into account their ability to operate.
> Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met.
Exactly. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that when that power is used appropriately. As evidenced by a very long history that turned out to be an extremely good thing.
Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement.
This whole discussion is right along the lines of 'what have the Romans ever done for us' from Monty Python.
Those things always get brought up but that's history from 50-75+ years ago. Got any more recent examples?
It's a bit like marketing: if you stop doing it your marketshare will dwindle, even if you're top dog.
Parental leave, workplace conditions, scheduling are other common things that are still very much up to unions to negotiate for, on behalf of their members.
Unions in America have been both conservative (e.g. AFL) and radical (e.g. IWW). The radicals were crushed by big business and the US government, while the conservatives are still around, but haven’t fought back enough against the continuing assault on American workers because of this inherently conservative nature. Their strategy has always been to make the labor movement in America part of the establishment, but the corporate grip on America won’t let gains for employees last without a continuous fight. It’s greed by companies, not workers, that makes labor relations so adversarial.
What you perceive as “greed” by workers is workers asking for basic rights on the job. Why is it wrong for employees to ask for their share but right for companies to ask for as much as they can? I see this far too often on HN and I believe it’s a symptom of how corporatized our society has become.
Unions don’t just fight for higher wages, they fight for dignity and respect on the job. That means workers get a say in their conditions. That’s a good thing for both workers and companies—even if companies are too blinded by greed to see it.
And they also fight for as much as they can get, sometimes to the detriment of the company. And they also fight to do what is best for the company because it's best for them. And they also fight for a wide variety of other things depending on the time and the place and the people. And sometimes they just fight; and threaten people.
Sometimes unions are good and sometimes unions are bad. There have been places where people would be in a much worse state had it not been for a union. There are other places where people are in a much worse state _because_ of a union.
It seems like most times people present an opinion on unions, they highlight either only the good or only the bad. Balanced discussion seems very rare.
Unions are a layer of bureaucracy, red tape and an entity that cares more about the Union than anything else.
Add to that, as a conservative and right leaning individual, the last thing I want is be forced to donate to left leaning organizations that go against my best interests.
Color it for what you will... I think there are cases where Unions do important things. But most of those cases are long in the past and most unions today are Yet Another Bureaucratic Mess that is useless and leaches off of society as a whole.
But I guess the numerous benefits you enjoy today because of unions don't matter all.
https://reason.com/2019/04/09/janus-211000-workers-fled-seiu...
And, as expected... those who aren't forced to pay - don't. Because the fees aren't worth it in most cases.
> I guess the numerous benefits don't matter
As I said... in some cases and at one point most unions did "Good Things (tm)".
But like most "Good Things (tm)" that time has ended - for most unions - and we are in a point where the unions are largely useless and extra baggage that causes more harm than good.
And again - your "Unions don't matter? /tear" doesn't approach what is personally my main problem: My inability to decide where union dues go to.
Before that law if a worker saw a company that was unionized they had every right to not take that job. If the job decided to unionize while he/she was employed, that worker also had the right to leave. There is no "force" at play, at all, no matter what reason.com or breitbart tells you.
That lawsuit was about enabling free riders with the ultimate goal of kneecapping unions. Arguing otherwise is silly.
You say "they have every right not to take the job"... I say "if Unions were worth the price, they wouldn't have to force membership"
I'm not following? I know what unions are and what they aren't.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
Reality is... that's obviously not true.
These descriptors cover most human organizations. Churches, clubs, businesses.
You choose to go to church, clubs or spend money at businesses.
If you're part of a union... chances are you don't have a choice.
The difference is that with the "churches, clubs, businesses" - when they do wrong... people go elsewhere (IE: Ask the Catholic Church).
With Unions? You're forced to stay with the Union if you want to keep the job.
IF the union is "mandatory" or the Church is - I think both of those situations are wrong.
If a union is truly worth the fee... it shouldn't be a the end of a gun (Government/Corporate/etc mandate, forced fees, etc).
Non-union employees get the same pay raises union employees do, a rational actor in a non-compulsory union shop would not join the union because they don't want to pay dues. That is why joining a union is compulsory.
European unions differ in that they are more focused on building a collaborative relationship with managers and aim to ensure stability and sustainability for the business. To achieve this, you need a certain level of societal trust and unity, which just isn’t realistic at the moment in America.