Hacker News Reader

> Nepotism. We had an open position we couldn't fill for over a year because one of the union leader's son was graduating soon and that position was reserved for him.

I don't know of any industry where this doesn't happen. Certainly in tech there's plenty of anecdata about nepotism in hiring, no unions required.

> General complacency. Raises and promotions for the most part weren't based on performance, but rather tenure. Many people start off ambitious but end up just doing the minimum over time because there is no reward in trying too much.

Again, this doesn't differ much from non-union industry. Anecdotally (I know) almost every silicon valley tech company seems to have poor ratings in their internal polls for "we fire/retrain low performers". This isn't a problem that is unique to unions, nor can I see any evidence that it's worse in unionized workplaces.

Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. [1]

[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

> Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages.

According to the paper you referenced, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in private industries and under the category "Management, professional, and related occupations" employees earned more actually – $35.70/h – compared to workers represented by unions, who earned an average of $32.95/h.

I would assume the majority of software engineers work in private industries, thus would fall under the aforementioned category, and as a result would actually earn more by not joining a union. Am I missing something here?

Furthermore, it's unclear whether those wages include other types of compensation, such as stock grants and bonuses for example, in which case the difference would be even greater.

I don't know what those numbers mean. As a programmer, I am a salaried employee whose compensation doesn't fluctuate with the amount of time I spend working. Working fewer hours and working from home are direct improvements to my compensation which don't get quantified in my earnings.

Here's the relevant paragraph.

> In private industry, there is a different pattern among workers in this occupational group: those represented by unions earned an average of $32.95 per hour, while those not represented by unions earned $35.70 per hour. The wage advantage for nonunion workers in this occupational group reflects the concentration of union workers in certain relatively low-paying occupations in business and financial operations, such as claims adjusters, accountants, and training specialists.

Thank for pointing this out. The 18% figure is from the global average and that analysis of the private industry number certainly suggests that as unions become more prevalent in higher-paying occupations the trend there will reverse.

Indeed, but in the private industry there is also a different pattern in compensation, as in addition to a base salary, private employers offer bonuses and stock awards, situation which is not accounted for in the study, as far as I can tell [1]. Do unions also negotiate bonuses and stock awards? I'm unfamiliar to how they operate.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncbr0002.pdf

As other commenters have said, the paper continues on to include an analysis that suggests the descrepancy is not due to some unique characteristic of the private sector but rather the concentration of union jobs in relatively low paying occupations in private industry. This and other BLS published reports suggest, therefor, that unions like the kickstarter union will ultimately put upward pressure on wages in professional occupations.

I think the paper as it stands is deficient. As I've mentioned in my previous comment, in the tech sector particularly, compensation is a combination of salary, stocks, bonuses, etc.

Unless it adopts a more rigorous methodology, the paper paints a limited picture. [1]

For example, according to PayScale, Google pays on average $15,030 in annual employee bonuses (anywhere from $1,000 to $80,000), and for comparison, Facebook pays $12,860. These numbers will have a significant effect on hourly compensation.

Unfortunately, statistical analysis is tricky to get right, and plenty of papers contain errors and omissions, and I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here, but one ought to be aware. More on this topic, in case anyone is interested – Statistics Done Wrong [2]

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncbr0002.pdf

[2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1593276206

Nepotism and complacency both exist in non-union work places sure. Just from my own experience, and hearing stories from those around me, they seem to be both more prevalent and more severe with unions.

Of course this is anecdotal and I don't have data to prove one way or the other. All I can say is, given the choice I'd rather not be in an union for my next job.

I think if we want unions to be more common place and more embraced, a good place to improve are some of the ones we currently have.

Which is what kickstarter employees are doing by joining an established union local. If you want to improve the unions we have then join them and run for positions in your local chapter. Advocate for the changes you want to see in unions.

> Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages.

Couldn't this be because you raise the wages of all the underperformers and lower the wages of the top performers?

If you have a team where a few rockstars make $100K and the average and underperformers make $60K, the average pay could be said to increase if you simply make everyone's wage $72K. But that sucks for the top performers and really is only a good deal if you are at or below average.

It could also be because everybody got an 18% raise across the board. This is an under-researched topic in employment statistics and I would love to see a better understanding of cause and effect behind wage discrepancies in union and non-union positions.

> a few rockstars make $100k

My problem with this narrative is that I have never worked somewhere where the "10x rockstar" was actually that, or wasn't also toxic in some other way. All we have here are competing versions of anecdata about high-vs-low performers.

I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. That seems to assume that companies are good at actually identifying performance and compensating fairly for it.

> I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer.

I never implied that. The only information I gave you were the respective salaries of the high and low performers. I as a developer know who the average and low performers are but I can only guess at their salaries. I don't want a union boosting their pay while reducing mine in order to raise the "average" pay.

Except my point is exactly this - if you can only guess at the salaries of average and low performers than you have nothing to suggest that they aren't, in fact, paid more than you, and a union coming in would boost your salary and not theirs.

This does not sound like what (little, I admit) I know about unions. If the union is in charge of hiring, promotion and even the content of your work, it seems the union is effectively running the company.

Dutch unions, as far as I know, negotiate employment contracts, employment standards and general working conditions with employers and the government. A lot of Dutch economic decisions are made in a committee with representatives of the government, employer organisations, and the unions. In many industries there are standards about what someone in a certain position should get paid, but hiring, promotions and bonuses are based on performance.

Union membership is also not mandatory, but some employers encourage it, and unions provide services for their members.

This seems to me like the right way to do unions, but stories about unions in other countries (the US in particular) often come across as completely nuts.

I'm not sure where you see the big difference. Dutch unions negotiate employment contracts, so it's easy to see how unions end up 'in charge of hiring, promotion and the content of your work'. Union power is ultimately rooted in the threat of striking to bring down the firm: there's no particular area of company policy such an organisation can't take control of.

Thus the powers unions obtain not only in the US but also for instance the UK, is entirely predictable - nothing stops them taking over the firm and unions are very frequently run by open communists who see it as a moral imperative to do so.

A good example is Unite in the UK, run by Len McCluskey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_McCluskey

In a speech at the 2010 Durham Miners' Gala he said political developments in Cuba and Venezuela should be better known, and suggested the reason they were not was because of "the fear of the good example".

Not surprisingly when major unions are led by people who think Venezuela is a "good example", people learn that unions are bad news!

Unions have no interest in bringing own the firm. That would be bad for everybody. Unions have an interest in a healthy company. Their job is to represent their members to ensure employees are fairly compensated for fair work.

How this works out in practice is that many industries, including the government, have very well-defined rules about compensation, which jobs go with which salary, how healthy working conditions need to be, and under what circumstances you can be fired. People can absolutely be fired, just not arbitrarily on a whim.

So yeah, compared to the way some American unions and companies seem to work according to people in this discussion, the difference is very big.

You don’t need unions to se nepotism, complacency and arbitrary rules ubiquitous in a corporate environment.

You do need a union if you want to have a voice in those issues though