Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.
I have had this happen in many different situations when working with union members.
Anecdotally, I do not want to be a part of any union that has these types of rules.
It's not universally bad but, as someone else said, organizations become about themselves and their leadership. A former GF was in a union and she had very few good things to say about hers. [ADDED: That is an anecdote. I state no opinion about unions generally.]
> Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.
While the anecdote is true, it's also FUD, because there's no good reason to expect a tech worker's union would work like that. It would exist to solve tech worker's problems, which are different than those of a convention center worker. If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.
Name a union, any union, that does not impose rigid role definitions.
The fact is, there aren't any. Their entire purpose is to categorize employees into roles as a basis for bargaining. If every worker was unique, then collective bargaining would be impossible. The entire point is to group people together and bargain for the rights of that group, and to sign up every member of that group to the deal that was obtained.
you replied to this with a one-off anecdote to spread fud
In US in particular unions seemly often have power not only to defend workers but also to define workplace rules and even to veto decisions of the CEO of the company and whatnot.
Also in US unions were first born in a extremely violent manner, with both sides actually killing each other, and the culture there is thus much more antagonistic, unions and companies are perceived as literal enemies, where even violence is actually possible (not that people would use violence currently but people might not forget violence of the past).
From what I heard European unions have a more "cooperative" relationship with the company.
I worked at Northrop Grumman a decade ago as a developer and a lot of the non-tech people were unionized. There were certain things I was not allowed to do because it was the job of some union person. For example, moving equipment was prohibited. When I changed desks I wasn't allowed to move my phone, PC, or monitors, I had to let the person whose job it was to do that, do that. It only happened twice, but in both instances I was without a computer and phone for a day or two, even though my old desk wasn't too far away. It was annoying and seemed illogical.
My union in Europe doesn't really do that much in my day-to-day work. As a skilled worker in demand we're generally treated very well.
But for the broader questions they are nice to have. For instance they recently spear-headed the abolishing of anti-competitive contracts. That's something a lone worker probably cannot achieve.
When I graduated they said what I should expect to be paid. Which was useful as I really didn't have that much information (compared to the companies), and it also helped to anchor the pay as no graduates would settle for lower. And the union could reveiew the contracts and see what we should push back on before signing. That in itself probably helps keeping everything straight, as the companies know they cannot get away with abusive contracts so they won't even bother trying.