As for whether anyone should have a problem, you're welcome to have a problem. It's a free country. Whether that will lead to an outcome you desire is independent, though.
de jure != de facto
Companies are legally prohibited from stopping unionization in the US. But that's not how it works in reality.
Most people work in an 'at-will' states. This means a company can terminate employees at any time. Want to unionize? Have at it.
All an employer needs to do is find is some company policy a person is violating (and trust me, EVERYONE is violates their company's policies from time-to-time, if only because company policies are so verbose and onerous). Your work badge isn't immediately visible? That's a policy violation. Go over your lunch a few minutes? That's a policy violation.
The company fires the unionizer. Now the onous is on the fired employee to prove that they were fired for unionizing. As long as the company doesn't say "I fired you because you were unionizing" (which they would never do), you got a lengthy legal battle on your hands.
Now where do you take your battle? To the NLRB. Now you have to fight against regulatory capture and political appointees who are hostile to the very idea of organized labor. Even if you do win, it will cost untold sums of time and money. It will be years before everything is adjudicated. At that point, what does it matter? The unionizer has been forced to move onto another job in the interim (and hope that the other company doesn't avoid hiring the person because of the labor complaint. And if the potential employer does? Another legal battle that the unionizer has to enter and prove).
1.) Getting rid of at-will employment 2.) Have a NLRB that is functional and actually protects labor 3.) Lower the legal threshold for proving illicit anti-union activities 4.) Give teeth to laws protect that unionization and uniformly enforce those laws no matter the political party in power 5.) Staff the upper levels of the NLRB with career civil servants, not political appointees
a. eliminating workplace one-party consent recording laws in every state
b. public advertising campaign + bounty - record your employer for violation of labor law and get paid a bounty if it is proven in court
As an anarchist - why are people not willing to start a co-op?
Open your refrigerator, look in your closet. Can you say with certainty that you voted with your wallet by only supporting companies that adhere to your values? Today’s economy has too many interactions to have any confidence about how you vote with your wallet. In this case complexity, not religion, is the opiate of the masses.
Most people’s lives are too complex and busy to “start a co-op”. I know the counter argument is probably “then they obviously don’t care enough” but that’s the pragmatic answer
Of course there is no law mandating Walmart provide a service. There are, however, laws governing how Walmart must treat employees. Part of their bad reputation is that they run afoul of these laws.
I know the anarchist view is to just decide not to shop there. My point is that in a pragmatic sense, consumers in a globalized economy cannot assess all the information to do so, even if it was freely available. The counterargument is that regulators are the better alternative, which is why the Dept. of Labor has fined them in the past to correct that behavior.
Why should a voluntary, consensual signing of a contract be made illegal?
Unions aren't mandated by law anywhere.
The “just find a different job” position is the trivial case that doesn’t really add much to the discussion
Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union.
"If you don't like the job, don't take it." It's like the argument when discussing child welfare policy where one side says "Don't ask society to help; if you need help, don't have kids". Or in healthcare policy, "Don't want high medical bills? Buy better insurance." While true, it is just a way to elevate above the actual problem without providing a satisfactory policy solution.
I guess I don't see why an employer requiring you to join a union upon joining the job is
a. a mandate (it's not) b. at all different from any number of things that an employer can require you to sign off on to start working at a job.
Union membership is "mandated" in the same way that when you accept a job that requires a 40 hrs/week, you are "mandated" to go to work.
> the actual problem
What is the actual problem? I don't see union security clauses as a problem, it's basically the only way collective bargaining can solve the free-rider problem and generally benefits the worker.
The problem is many people don't feel they should be forced to pay into an organization that doesn't reflect their values in order to have a job. In some ways, it's similar to the notion that many people don't feel they should pay taxes that go to support something they don't personally support (e.g., abortion, war de jour).
Right-to-work is a way around that in many peoples eyes. In my opinion, it's a policy that takes advantage of people's short-term bias.
Saying "just don't take that job" is like saying "just don't live in that society". It's not wrong; it's just not particularly helpful
I'm unsure of the relevance to "freedom of association" as a negative concept, though. You are still free to associate with who you wish, just as corporations are free to not associate with you if you do not join a union.
If we are going to transform a negative right to not join a union into a positive one, there are many other things I'd like to turn into positive rights first.
I don't think it is negative as a concept. I agree that, in theory, it is best to always err on the side of more freedom, not less. In practice, however, it can become negative if you think people don't always act rationally. Which is why I don't know if the right to work is good policy; part of me feels like it takes advantage of humans short-term bias, and leads them to limit their own long-term rational best interests.
It's very much like the social media debate going on right now. Part of me just wants to say it's better to have a completely open marketplace and let the chips fall where they may. But another part of me feels like there is a very real danger this will hijack human psychological shortcomings in a way that is not good long term. Maybe the cliché that "people get the government they deserve" is the closest I can get to reconciling the two.
Companies have been fighting unions for a century.
In some cases leading to massacres:
It's one thing to not show up as part of a strike, it's another to make life harder for those that do and commit computer crime.
This is illegal in most countries, no?
I don't believe picketing is illegal as long as certain conditions are met (not blocking egress, etc.)
Yes - union contracts may include a ban on non-union workers. As long as that's not mandated by law - it's really none of our business.
I would potentially be on board with outlawing such agreements altogether, but it's not fair to restrict unions to be unable to make exclusivity agreements when every other type of organization can.
If, as an employer, you would prefer not to adhere to strong labor protection laws in the market you desire to operate in, you are free to find markets more to your liking.
The richest 1%, with over $1 million in wealth, own 44% of the world's wealth, but we're going to keep chipping away at the middle class?
The hollowing out of the American middle class over the last 40 years due to globalization is what the end result looks like, hence why those in the Western world should not support further globalization efforts (including outsourcing offshore).
Just like an airplane, oxygen mask on yourself first, then help those around you.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477...
Middle class = 0.67(median household income) - 2.0(median household income)
Was there something wrong with the traditional definition of middle quintiles?
The whole point of having negotiating power is they can't just "stop" it. Because you, as a union, collectively have enough power to force them to the table to negotiate.
Whether or not the company has a problem with unions is basically irrelevant.
I don't know why people keep saying this. Unions themselves convinced most that unions are a bad thing, through their behavior. In my case, it was watching the UAW and Teamsters for a couple of decades.
I should have been more specific to say 'unions with bad reputations are often culpable for those stereotypes'
FWIW I don't think unions are a silver bullet. I'm just pointing out that if you look at it from a neutral/uninvested party the bias is weird.
Of course the comparison doesn't quite work because unions are not standalone entities - they are linked to government or companies. If they were independent the labor organizations would be guilds.
To be clear, I deliberately use the word "can" in my previous statement i.e., they may abuse their power, but also may not
Unions aren't necessary but can help. I've worked in positions where the courts provided the same benefit via a different mechanism.
Edit: I accidently had "are" for "aren't"
* Better treatment against the rampant ageism in our industry (eg. access to lawyers when IBM decides to do mass layoffs of people above a certain age...)
* Guaranteeing reimbursement for self-education materials, time off for self-education purposes like conventions and hacker spaces
* Better treatment for H1B visa holders, a political push to stop the abuse of workers who cannot leave employers or risk losing immigration status
* Support for and communal funding for OSS
* A group pushback against flagrantly unethical, insecure, or straight up illegal behavior on the part of companies (eg. that non-poaching agreement back in the day that kept people's wages from being as high as they should've been)
* Standard establishment of making sure remote workers are paid for the value they bring to the company and aren't stiffed purely because of where they are geographically located at the time.
Ageism is on the worker's shoulders, but those workers are also managers who choose to do bullshit like lay off workers above a certain age across a company. We need ways to protect ourselves from that.
Agree with the second point on ageism
There is no "might have been". It's pretty much a matter of historical record that labor unions were fiercely anti-immigrant.
Judging by nativist comments even on a heavily moderated forum like HN whenever the topic of H1-Bs comes up, the many, many immigrants in the tech industry would be have to be bonkers to trust that a tech union wouldn't become nativist.
The old stereotype of nativist unions is just that. It's true in some cases--see the Teamsters, who also supported Trump, or police unions--but the actual union movement in the US has long fought for better treatment for immigrants.
https://www.seiu.org/cards/solutions-for-immigration-reform-...
I don’t know your location, but in the US it’s already illegal to discriminate against someone’s age if they’re over 40
If outsourcing is the threat isn't the potentially outsourced threatening a strike kind of like responding to a mugger by putting a knife to your own throat? Except I think that might be more effective as a threat as it makes the mugger think of you as unstable and irrational.
As an aside, I don't get why deng tolerates comments like yours, but will mod an equivalent comment that even moderately right wing. If we want real discussion here, it doesn't start with a reshashed Eugene Debs speech.
E.g., I’ve previously worked for an automotive manufacturer on controls software. I was attached to the maintenance team. The design engineers were a subset of the entire engineers population. In other places I’ve worked, R&D was mainly done by scientists and physicists, not by engineers who served to support the R&D effort
Just because I'm in Atlanta doesn't make me inherently worth less than my peers in SF.
Whether this is good or bad is beside my point, as are what other second-order effects may arise. I'm simply pointing out, "everybody in the world gets paid SV rates" simply isn't on the table. So don't go into this process expecting that outcome.
I predict wages will stratify based on what kind of company you work for, not where you live. FAAMG will still pay top dollar. Best of luck if you work doing coding for, say, the Weather Channel.
If suddenly the supply expands from the Bay Area to all of the US, that changes the equation. Don’t forget that guy in Atlanta who is equally as talented as you, but willing to work for 20% less than you make.
Supply and demand ultimately determine the wages, assuming the job is filled at all, but what you're "worth" to the employer does serve as an absolute upper limit on what you can expect to be paid. If no one is willing to take the job at that price then no one will be employed and the job will simply go undone.
And that's a good thing.
I think the mistake you are making is assuming that your salary represents your worth to the company.
Should a person be charged SF prices for groceries when they're living in Atlanta because they're getting SF pay? Clearly not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Your reasoning makes no sense. It's a choice to live in a city that lets landlords dictate which buildings can be built. Atlanta and other cities are unconstrained for new housing development.
SF policies are a tax on its non-homeowner residents.
You shouldn't be entitled to a differential just because your city doesn't build new housing fast enough. That has no bearing on the work your employees perform.
You can if you have sufficient negotiating power.
Unions are good to protect employees that don't have negotiating power (e.g. factory workers), otherwise companies would take too much advantage of them.
I am not sure this necessarily applies to knowledge workers, especially if their work can be done remotely to some extent.
And I am not saying that I am against unions; but like with everything else in life, everything comes with pros and cons.
I have personally witnessed several examples of unions using their position to drive their political agenda at the expense of well-intentioned companies (most of it in my home country, Italy, in the 1990s and 2000s). So, beware: unions do not solve everything; they bring their own set of problems.
> company's goal is to "extract" from each employee more value than his/her/their salary. If a company manages to save on a salary because the employee doesn't have much negotiating power, good for the company.
If that's a companies goal, then an employee's goal should be to counter that, and Unions are a line of defense against companies treating an employee as a resource to "extract" from.
Free markets are good and all, but companies leveraging their outsized power against individual people shouldn't be surprised nor able to prevent individuals from working to put that power in check.
I am not sure this necessarily applies to knowledge workers, especially if their work can be done remotely to some extent.
These two paragraphs contradict each other.
Work rules are another way. My dad told me about the union work rules at the factory where he was a white collar employee (R&D department). I'm reminded of those stories when I've tried to get someone to do some programming for me in a large organization.
Granted these rules have their origins in preventing abuse, or replacing skilled labor with unskilled, but they existed nonetheless and were part of running a business.
I think the opposite is true. The companies try to stop it precisely because it will weaken the company's negotiating position. I personally think unions have their place, but from an employers perspective there is little incentive to be pro-union (unless you are just arguing from a moral -- not pragmatic -- view).