I think there's a huge difference between the ideals of what a union can offer, and the practice of entrenched unions in some specific industries, particularly in the US.

As a well paid software engineer who wants to work with high performing colleagues, nothing my union has said has suggested they aren't supportive of this. They are about holding companies to account, not entrenching poor performers or normalising salaries around some middle ground.

Bear in mind also that there has been a near century long war of propaganda against the idea of unions. There's a lot of negative connotation built up in media, discourse, expectations, etc.

The specific criticism I heard my friend rant about was a colleague who did very little because they felt slighted, and they could never be fired for anything really, so because he wanted to move on with his life he just did all that other guys’ work.

I have heard this criticism. I've also heard from my union that they know there is that image, and that's not a culture they support or want to create, and that they want to promote an effective and fair performance-based team environment.

Fundamentally, a union for software engineers is just not going to work the same as a union for, say, manufacturing. There's a lot that mostly doesn't apply to us like physical safety, but a lot more that does like whistleblowing.

Whistleblowing is an extreme edge case. What about simply a lazy non-performer? Can they still be fired? Is there just additional friction?

I live in a country where unions are a de-facto standard. They actually negotiate with the government for stuff.

Firing "lazy non-performers" is easy, you just follow the steps.

1) warning about performance, in written form with someone present 2) second warning 3) fired.

The American way where a boss can just come in and say "you're fired, gather your things and security will escort you out" will never fly here.

The process is there to make sure the reason for firing is explicitly stated and understood by both sides. It also gives some safeguards that just a personality conflict between people can't be used to fire someone, there has to be a proper reason beyond "I don't like your face"

Companies can also fire people when they hit a downturn, but there's a catch. If they claim it's for "economic reasons" (there's a specific turn of phrase they need to use here that doesn't translate) they then need to primarily re-hire the people who they fired if they start hiring for the same positions again.

If my choice is between being let go for any reason under the sun, including the reasons that aren't real and also being told I'm bad or having a lazy coworker I know what I'll take.

And I raise you all the useless people I've seen promoted/hired into management positions in non-union shops.

I worked a unionized job in my first position with CUPE and we ended up going on strike after an open vote (2 against, my coworker and I, everyone else for) which is illegal. After 3 weeks out we went back to work for 1% more in the first year and 1% less in the second. Our union attempted to ruin the reputation of folks in my union who I personally knew crossed the picked line to teach so as not to violate the terms of their contract teaching positions (along with their union position). The union was stupid, corrupt and ultimately everyone who went on strike lost money.

Unions are not the answer.

Different union structures for different types of careers. Some people don’t like paying taxes and dues.

Factory unions protect the collective uniformly because each person is interchangeable. This is a “raise the minimum” type environment. They make it hard to fire because they need to hold the line.

Some unions are structured to support highly skilled and differentiated labor. Like in Hollywood. They protect workers like camera-men but still allow skilled actors to be well paid and properly audition for roles.