Nobody has any idea how to properly evaluate that. So they just pick the person who works the least and talks the most, using random jargon to seem smart.

Probably the people who have had a boss tell them they believe minimum performance for a salaried position was 70+ hours a week.

Generally the people who are advocating for a union are doing it to level the playing field for themselves against you.

Yes for example an immigrant that is under threat of being deported might want a more level playing field.

Historically, unions in the United States have been strongly anti-immigrant because they were seen as competitors who lowered wages. Anyone who has been on HN long enough has seen the undercurrent of anti-H-1B sentiment whenever the topic comes up and a union would bring that nastiness and racism out to center stage.

No, no immigrants in tech are going to want to vote for a union because a lot of its members think immigrants are part of the playing field that needs to be "leveled".

It's not racism to oppose policies that lower my salary

Unions are anti-immigrant.

Do you have any current data on that? I think it was true of the "Reagan Democrat" variety of union worker in the 1980s, but I suspect it's an outdated stereotype now. For example, SEIU, one of America's largest unions, represents a lot of immigrants and is strongly pro-immigrant: https://www.seiu.org/justice-for-immigrants/

The only reason blue collar workers' unions changed their tune is because they were unable to stop the flow of illegal immigration. On the other hand, restricting H-1Bs and green cards is a battle that many think they can win.

It is disappointing to ask for data and get more unsubstantiated opinion.

It's not really true any longer, but it was at one point. The head of the AFL-CIO admits here that unions were strongly anti immigration for decades. Only in the past few years have they changed their official opinion.

https://www.npr.org/2013/02/05/171175054/how-the-labor-movem...

There's a big difference between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. All of the latter people are also the former, of course. But there are people who want lower immigration even though they have no problem with the immigrants who are here. Some union people are surely in that bucket just for "reduce job competition" reasons.

And companies are pro-exploitation-of-immigrants… and not very pro-immigrants.

> It’s my understanding that in most union jobs, compensation and benefits are strictly based on time in role, not performance.

That is one structure, and it probably was predominant in the past because unions were historically in factories where workers were more interchangeable and had set tasks at a production line station.

Another is more 'guild-like': Jane Smith who is Waitress #2, and Tom Cruise who plays Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible, are both part of the same union/guild, but one is able to negotiate a much higher salary. But they have the same 'base' level of protection with regards to working conditions, pension, health care, etc.

Certainly Tom Cruise can go above and beyond those 'base' levels, but the union/guild simply provides a floor which everyone is entitled to.

There's no reason why a union contract could not negotiate things like working conditions, health/child care, pensions/retirement funds, etc, but leave salaries out of the collective agreement. Or perhaps have pay bands, with retention/performance bonuses that are out side of the scope of the agreement, and are 100% discretionary to the company: everyone gets a floor, but there's no ceiling.

A union is a democratically-run tool. Every tech employee I talk to hates the idea of compensation being based purely on time in role, why would they democratically vote for that to be the rule?

Because not every rule is up for vote. Ex: Majority of Americans want weed federally legal. America is a democracy. Why is that not the law? It's not up for vote.

There's two ways to unionize: roll your own, or UaaS. Rolling your own requires a lot of work, time in committee meetings, and has a risk that you'll overlook common issues or flub negotiations due to inexperience. But there's a lot of flexibility, and it can be done on the cheap. A lot of people pick the second option: a big union can send a rep, draft a contract, negotiate with your employer, etc., in exchange for the dues it pays its employees with.

Unions can be what the workers want them to be. The industrial time-in-role thing can be a reasonable match to industrial industrial jobs. But collective bargaining can include performance-based pay. E.g., the union negotiates the overall base raise and the size of the performance-based raise pool, and then managers decide on raises and promotions. They can also help you resolve situations of individual managerial unfairness, something that HR is supposed to do but is very rarely effective at.