Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> A union is just an organization which represents the interests of workers.

A union isn't just that, though is it?

It's also a beast in its own right, with its own politics and power struggles and debates and meetings and people taking a paycheck from your union dues.

A union doesn't even necessarily act in your interests. It acts in the interests of the majority of members, who may be out to actively harm your interests. And versus its own survival a union is never going to put your interests first. Why would it?

> If we don't want BS work rules, we don't have to have them.

Right but what if your colleagues what these BS work rules? What if you're junior and they want pay by seniority?

View on HN

This perspective is frustrating, as it paints unions as an entirely negative endeavor. They're not and there are trade offs. Those trade offs may be a net positive or a net negative, but only highlighting the negative doesn't do any good.

>with its own politics and power struggles and debates and meetings... A union doesn't even necessarily act in your interests. It acts in the interests of the majority of members

If your going to chastise the process of advocating for your views then complain that somehow they don't get taken into account then I don't know what to tell you. If your concerned that the interests of other members are outweighing yours, then participate. If you don't want to deal with it, don't join the union.

>people taking a paycheck from your union dues

Oh my gosh, contributing to something that you get value from... what a crazy concept. If you don't get value from the union, then see above; change it or don't join.

>Right but what if your colleagues what these BS work rules?

Why does the assumption automatically go towards "unions would be TERRIBLE"? Most devs don't like to put up with BS, so why do you think a union made up of devs would somehow institute a ton of BS rules just because it's a union. Again, if you don't want BS union rules, then make sure the union doesn't institute them by actually participating.

>What if you're junior and they want pay by seniority?

I hate to break it to you, but that's called the real world.

At the end of the day, a union is about shifting the balance of power and advocating for the things the union sees as valuable. What are the things you'd change about tech employment if you could? How could a union be more effective at achieving those changes? A union doesn't have to just be focused on pay scales and bureaucracy.

'Just don't join' doesn't work. Unions often bully or ostracise people who refuse to join. Sometimes they're in practice closed-shops, like the Screen Actors' Guild, even though this isn't supposed to be allowed in law. In some cases unions use violence against 'scabs' and other people who resist.

I like how a non-existent tech union is instantly popping up out of nowhere with both a massive bureaucracy, and a squad of enforcers to beat people up for not joining.

Please, stop bringing up historical anecdotes as reasons why a tech union wouldn't work. It's funny how you don't bring up things like strong health care and training as anecdotes on the other side.

The question of whether or not there will be "union shops" or not is still yet to be seen. Whether or not there would be is a question of the union and the employers (i.e. TBD).

If kickstarter is an example then they forced 37 persons to join it, so it is correct to fear unions forcing you to join.

"with 46 employees voting in favor of the move and 37 opposing it".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/technology/kickstarter-un...

A vote on formation of a union does not mean employees are forced to join it. A union also doesn't mean anything if there isn't an agreement with the employer. A union also doesn't mean anything if it's members are not going to withhold their services if they don't come to an agreement that is deemed acceptable by it's members.

Unions are also about leveraging power. While someone can try to start a union with any number of people, how much they can actually negotiate is going to hinge a lot on that number. Is 55% of the workforce enough to have significant leverage? I don't know and it depends on what the union wants. Would the union be able to reach an agreement with the employer that would force the others to join the union? That would seem like quite a stretch to me.

> don't join the union.

This isn't an option in USA unless you live in a right to work state. The US left pushes hard against right to work, meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/if they are formed. This includes basically all tech hotspots including California and New York, if your colleagues organizes a union there you will be forced to join. This include this Kickstarter union btw, likely a lot of its members don't actually want to be a part of the union.

>The US left pushes hard against right to work

Because right to work is a union-busting tactic

>meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/if they are formed

This is wrong in a number of ways. First off, the formation of a union does not require that all employees instantaneously join it. Second, the union still needs to have an agreement with an employer. So if your workplace doesn't unionize, it doesn't matter if the one on the other side of town does. It doesn't magically just flip an "isUnion" bit and completely change everyone's employment situation in one fell swoop.

>if your colleagues organizes a union there you will be forced to join

If you workplace unionizes, then you _may_ be forced to join. There is no guarantee that a union would force joining to keep your job, although historically that has been the case. Much of that was due to a lot of the improvements that unions were negotiating for being very hard to "split" between union an non-union members (i.e. safer machines in a factory were a benefit to everyone, not just union members). In a tech union, who's to say that has to be that way. If unions negotiated for things like always having the latest hardware for members, it would be easier for non-union members at the same shop to be given whatever hardware your employer decided. Basically, a tech union may not be bound to the same constraints as traditional unions might have been.

>likely a lot of its members don't actually want to be a part of the union.

But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other.

> Because right to work is a union-busting tactic

No it isn't, right to work exists in the entire EU since EU enforces it. Union participation is still way higher here than in USA. Obviously right to work isn't hurting union participation that much, or unions would be dead over here.

Banning right to work is just there to protect corrupt unions from members being able to leave a corrupt union on their own.

> But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other.

Because other members wanted to be a part of the union. If 70% wanted the union but 30% were forced to join then those 30% still didn't want the union afterwards, it is that simple.

It's not as simple as "don't join the union". Unions in the US have exclusive bargaining power; if a majority of employees form a legally recognized union, the union contract will apply to even the employees who don't want to join the union.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com