Compensation for the majority of software engineers has not kept up with cost of living increases, inflation nor the amount of revenue they generate for their employers.
Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with one another[1] to keep tech worker compensation below their market rates.
> So if you don't feel that you need a union, but you're forced to be in a union (and pay dues) against your will -- as happens in many industries
No one is forced to work a union job. If your employer makes a decision that you don't like, you aren't forced to work for them, either. If a union makes a decision you don't like, you aren't forced to work for it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
This is technically true, but this is also an argument against unions. It's true that if you don't like that your company is unionized you can go work for a company that's not unionized, but it's also true that if you don't like that your company is not unionized you can go work for a company that is.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf
[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X16643321
I mean, yeah, you owe dues. How else should it work? When I was part of a union it amounted to 2 hours of wages per month, not exactly onerous.
That’s pretty ambitious when the employees are Googlers.
>> When I was part of a union it amounted to 2 hours of wages per month, not exactly onerous. reply
>> elefanten 2 hours ago [–]
>> Counterexample: the nascent Google employees union is taking 1% of total comp.
Not sure it's really a counterexample as there are - in theory - about 200 work hours per month, so 1% of comp is pretty much equivalent to 2 hours of wages per month.
It's a bigger problem in non Right to Work states, where you can be forced to join the union (and have dues taken from you).
In places where joining the union for their benefits is voluntary I don't see the problem.
There are also places where you don't have to join the union, but they still take some of the wages (at a lower rate than full members) for nebulous "benefits" the union offers. Those are especially contentious because not all the employee believe they get any benefits at all.
The US should shift to the European model where multiple unions are available at each employer, and they compete with each other for membership. I believe joining a union is required there, they don't have any non-union jobs, but a European union is not the same as a US one.
Google: "closed shop vs union shop" and you will see.
Basically you cannot have a business that only hires from a union, but you can have a business that requires you to join a union after being hired meaning the union cannot prevent you from joining them.
Or in other words in non-right-to-work states you can be forced to join a union.
Out of curiosity, what field are your union friends in, and do you happen to know what union represents them?
If it's a "closed" union shop, then I'd consider the union-dues as simply part of the job-offer and treat it the same as employee-side health plan copayments: a minor unpleasantry but nothing worth raising a fuss about - assuming the union dues were in the typical range of $300-800/yr - obviously the more they cost the more I'd be inclined to ensure they're being spent responsibly and that I felt like I was being represented well.
Though I want to say the sentiment (or mental-connotation) you're expressing with language like "against one's will" w.r.t. union membership hints of a reductionist Ayn Randian influence on your opinion. That statement is not an incorrect assessment, but it's overstating the problem - it reminds me of sayings like "taxation is theft".
Sincere question: what do high-quality surveys of union membership (across all industry sectors in the US) suggest about opinions held by closed-shop employees of their unions - and their employers? I feel there's too much reliance online on anecdotes about the excesses of certain named unions when it comes to forming opinions about them, so I'd prefer to see some "big data" about union membership.
Among the criticisms I've heard ...
Sometimes market forces can get you adequate conditions and pay/benefits without the need for collective bargaining. For instance, software engineers tend to be well paid even without needing to unionize. So if you don't feel that you need a union, but you're forced to be in a union (and pay dues) against your will -- as happens in many industries -- you may feel those dues are taking money out of your pocket unnecessarily. In fact, the union leadership might actually be making decisions that benefit them or the members collectively but that don't benefit you individually.