I watched my parents suffer throughout their careers because their Unions were politically toxic and also deigned it necessary to keep their wages below market in order to apply pressure on the employer to raise the wages of others in the bargaining unit. As though a lineman and a telecontrol technologist are similarly skilled and trained.

My father spent the better part of a decade trying to hire his replacement because the union wage was so attrociously below market for his labour.

And then the politics, favouritism, bullying and abuse that occurs under a union; because the shop steward et al formed a social clique to get themselves and their buddies the best hours and best positions.

My two siblings went to work in unions and now regail me with similar tales.

No, I'm happy working for small and independent game studios and negotiating for myself, thanks. I happily donate the money to political organizations that would otherwsie be used to pay union dues.

If you actually want to be effective, the solution is to fix the union, not to engage in completely inoffensive tactics.

I don't doubt that a great many unions are horrible. For a great many reasons, unions are often, but not always, structured horribly with badly mismatched incentives, almost no democracy, and poor accountability. There are reasons for this, that can and have been addressed.

You're simply never going to be able to outcompete your employer in legalized bribery. It won't happen.

Also, if the PACs you're talking about ever get actually influential, there will be just as much politics involved. And you still haven't adresses the most important point, which is that your employer can retaliate against you for doing so without any problem.

In any case, unions can be and often are better, and can be and indeed often are hundreds of time more effective than what you're describing ever can be.

How could they not be toxic? The ability to advocate for yourself has been given to someone else, over something as intimately personal and important as the labour you undertake for the majority of your waking hours. They are your only advocate, in the absence of strong regulation and legislation, because in a union arrangement it is inappropriate for the employer to advocate for the employee against the union.

I don't need to outcompete on donations; I need to collectively pool my cash with other like-minded individuals in order to pay for political activity that will coerce and convince legislators. Those with the most money don't necessarily win, but money is the key to gaining access. I've had my representative read to Parliament an exerpt of a letter that I wrote; there was nary a need for money to get that response, only access.

My employers have never been interested in what I do with my money, and I suspect they would be _far_ more interested if I were to begin organizing a union.

The solution to employee abuse is legislation and regulation, not yet another layer of political bureaucracy.

Your employers are interested in their interest. If you're going to be using your money in an interest category where your win is their loss, they were care proportionally to your effectiveness, no matter the methods.

Now :

>How could they not be? The ability to advocate for yourself has been given to someone else, over something as intimately personal and important as the labour you undertake for the majority of your waking hours.

You can structure a union in such a way that hierarchy is very weak and involvement is direct. The reasons why this often isn't the case are interesting, and you should read about them.

The root if the issue is this : your ability to advocate for yourself is almost nil. You need to get together with your fellow workers to have any impact. By doing so, you will lose some of the flexibility in your advocacy, but will receive greatly increased power.

Literally the only politically effective lobbying group for the average person is a union. There have been many studies done about it.

I have second hand experience with four unions, and first hand experience with two. All but one were great, and the one that wasn't was clearly deficient for obvious structural and social reasons thah could be addressed.

In any case, you're free to continue wasting your money. You will be contributing to PACs that will eventually get bureucratized, ossified, ostracized, and turned against you, and because you plan on aligning yourself with extremely narrow organizations that lack the power to withold labour, they will collapse and crash.

Not only that, but success in such politics is a question of money and connections. The entire tech sector, totalling tens of trillions of dollars in valuation, is better connected than you are, will be able to vastly outspend you, and will do so in a much more efficient way than you can via a heterogenous network of PACs.

I mostly donate to NGOs and political parties directly; I get to see my dollars go directly to those who help those in need, and as a party member I get the opportunity to shake hands with legislators and talk policy with them directly. I helped get the husband of a friend elected mayor of my city. This has had a meaningful impact.

I see unions having enormous utility for those living where there is effectively one employer, and who have no real market for their labour. That's where unions shine.

Unions don't have to be limited to a single employer, and their actual advantage isn't any of that, their actual advantage is that they allow you to effectively withhold your labour, which is even more effective if you are in high demand.

In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

If I'm in high demand then I don't need any help finding leverage; other, potential employers are leverage enough.

> If you actually want to be effective, the solution is to fix the union, not to engage in completely inoffensive tactics.

This made me laugh. If you have to fix the union, then really all you've done is worsen your situation.

"And now you have two problems."

Sometimes, when you want to fix a problem, you have to fix another problem before. It sucks but it's life. Thankfully, one of those is much easier than the other.

Unions are democratically controlled. With extremely high probability, some of them will be mismanaged and abusive. We see the same in democratic government. But we don't tend to then say "wow, that elected leader was terrible - better replace it all with philosopher kings". Unionization at least gives workers the chance to influence the business, even if that chance can be squandered.

I don't know why but it seems that unions are very different between Europe and the US.

It seems to me you've also taken the concrete action of only working for small/indie companies where the relative power between a single employee and the employer is much greater than at a place like Google. I think that's also an entirely reasonable action, and if everyone did that, many of these problems would go away.