Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnpowell | Hacker News Reader

I was a union HVAC guy for a few years. And one very nice thing was that there were union shops and they went through the union to find employees. So if work dried up at one place the union would take care of getting my unemployment going and then when work came up they would call and say that I was needed elsewhere.

This probably wouldn't translate well to software. But it works great if you are installing ducts. Same goes for plumbers and electricians. My sisters first husband was a union electrician. That is why I looked into getting a union gig. I hate job hunting.

In the years I did it I worked for five different companies. I didn't have to run around dropping off resumes and doing practice tests. I just got a call from the union and was told where to go to work. And I made significantly more than my non-union counterparts. Easily more than the dues I had to pay.

View on HN

Is this one of the angles that unions use to sell themselves to companies? They can help by providing a well of valuable resources to draw on in an as-needed basis. When both hiring and firing would be an easier proposition, I could see more activity occurring as a result. These people would have experience at different companies and could provide their knowledge like many say is the benefit of people rotating jobs a lot in the SF Bay Area.

> Is this one of the angles that unions use to sell themselves to companies?

Unions don't sell themselves to companies in the first place.

Why not? I would presume that would help with regard to union busting, scabs, outsourcing, etc.

> Why not?

The same reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't sell themselves to the public prosecutor's office.

Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense attorneys, because companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions.

> Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense attorneys,

No, I'm implying that working for an actor’s counterparty compromises your ability to represent that actor in adversarial interactions with the same counterparty, which is a core function of unions with respect to employers as it is with defense attorneys with respect to prosecutors.

> companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions.

Not in the US; even where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work laws, adverse employment decisions on the basis of union membership or union-related activity by an employer are prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. That is, in some cases, employers are allowed to hire employees who aren't members of a union, but they aren't legally permitted to hire employees because (even in part) they aren't members of unions.

You're even more compromised if you are removed.

In the US, do you think companies have not moved manufacturing from union plants to non-union plants? Do you think they have not moved manufacturing out of US plants? Do you think this does not have to do with union membership?

I believe the adversarial view of unions and employers results in inefficiency and waste. I was suggesting an alternative view of unions and employers, but I believe I now understand you: you think this is impossible.

> You're even more compromised if you are removed.

Unions (or their leadership) perceived as serving management are removed, invariably and swiftly, by their constituents, whether through decertification or leadership elections.

I cannot tell if you are intentionally misreading my statement. If you are not, what I meant is that the union would be removed.

That's what I am saying, too. I'm just saying that being beholden to management is a more certain way for them to be removed than being adversarial.

There is a reason it is called the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers)..

If you try to UBER union electricians you are probably going to be in for a rude awakening.

A friend of mine worked for the stage hand's union. It seemed as if it already worked like Uber. Of course in this case Uber was owned by the drivers, not a founder and investors.

What's the rude awakening that I should expect?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com