Hacker News Reader

Comment by dorkinspace | Hacker News Reader

> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?

Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.

I have had this happen in many different situations when working with union members.

Anecdotally, I do not want to be a part of any union that has these types of rules.

View on HN

The situation around conventions is particularly bad. The nickel and dime-ing of the venues are part of it but, as you say, many of the work rules are pretty stereotypically outrageous. Not that everything is entirely unreasonable; at convention center scale, things would descend into chaos rapidly if booth staff and others started winging things. But it's pretty bad especially in places like NYC.

It's not universally bad but, as someone else said, organizations become about themselves and their leadership. A former GF was in a union and she had very few good things to say about hers. [ADDED: That is an anecdote. I state no opinion about unions generally.]

>> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?

> Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.

While the anecdote is true, it's also FUD, because there's no good reason to expect a tech worker's union would work like that. It would exist to solve tech worker's problems, which are different than those of a convention center worker. If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.

> If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.

Name a union, any union, that does not impose rigid role definitions.

The fact is, there aren't any. Their entire purpose is to categorize employees into roles as a basis for bargaining. If every worker was unique, then collective bargaining would be impossible. The entire point is to group people together and bargain for the rights of that group, and to sign up every member of that group to the deal that was obtained.

Does SAG have rigid role definitions?

> or is it a one-off being used to spread fud

you replied to this with a one-off anecdote to spread fud

Anyone who has ever worked events will tell you that is hardly a one-off anecdote.

Events and convention rules are absolutely different from rules for employees working inside a company.

If it had happened only once or only a few times, I'd agree. This type of thing happens at every single convention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com