Hacker News Reader

Comment by greggman3 | Hacker News Reader

This is what you'll get with unions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5a_00YVVkQ&feature=youtu.be...

My experience with unions. Monitor breaks at CES. Go get another, try to carry to booth. Get stopped because "only union people are allowed to carry equipment inside the convention center". Try to plug in some equipment. Get stopped because "only union electricians are allowed to plug in equipment in the convention center"

I know others who have add similar experiences in the aerospace industry where responsibilities were divided up and person A is not allowed do any work outside of their designated job.

For example, your job is to write UX features, some else's job is to unit tests. You're not allowed to write unit tests.

Why I would I want that?

View on HN

Sure there are some horror stories about unions, but you are just generalizing. And you are talking about "old" institutions ; new unions, for "new" kind of companies would not look the same.

Having an organization that can help a worker that is abused, or giving more bargaining power to workers seems clearly positive for the worker.

That could be a bit more irritating for the top management ... But the German example (strong unions, 50% of employee representation on the supervisory boards of large corporations) shows it tend to be, overall, positive for the companies.

>And you are talking about "old" institutions ; new unions, for "new" kind of companies would not look the same.

European here, let's talk personal experience. The americans have a very unhealthy situation wrt unions, and i'm not surprised people with do-it-yourself and can-do attitudes common in tech are soured up to them. And my impressions are relative to polish culture, where unions are traditionally quite strong.

I was responsible for selecting several tech conferences for my boss to visit, both in USA and Europe, Middle East, and Asia. Having read most of the documents proffered, I was shocked to find the amount of red tape that was specific to union arrangements in USA, and USA only. Stands, decorations, electrics, cargo large and small. The rider of one american general contractor was the longest document I had to process across 3 continents. We're talking "young institutions" - tech conferences, organized mostly by, and for, "do it yourself" kind of people.

Were the problems insurmountable? No, certainly they were surmountable. Did it have a sour taste and impression of a lot of wasted effort on both sides of the contract? Yes, certainly it did.

This is the weird thing. Americans love to complain about how stupid their unions are, and according to some anecdotes, some American unions are indeed pretty stupid. But these are the unions created by Americans.

I don't quite understand the underlying cultural issue that leads Americans to create unions they hate. It's got to be something cultural. Or is it something in US law? It seems so easy to fix, but somehow they end up creating something they hate. Why? What causes this, and why is it so hard to fix?

I don't know USA very well, so that is just a feeling.

- a lot of what the union do/did have to be understand in the context of important fight between the unionized worker and the companies that want to undercut union influence (and often undercut workers right)

- a lot of thing union do / used to do, make sense in the past, but are less relevant now.

- Human is quite good to do stupid things, to create some bureaucracy / rules... That applied to companies (Bullshit Job being one manifestation of it), but also to union

- We tend to notice more the bad things than the good things...

- Humans tends to love power and hate change... that includes human running unions

Who said you didn't know us very well? I think you summed it up well.

I would also mention goals.

If your goal is absolute efficiency in running a convention then you end up with poorly treated and underpaid workers.

If your goal is making sure the convention doesn't poorly treat or underpay workers, you end up having to find someone to plug in your equipment (also I suspect there are legitimate safety and security concerns for a prototype electronics conference).

You can't blame convention workers for preferring the latter situation.

Hostile environments end up creating extensive legal documentation to protect parties?

The REASON that AMERICANS HATE unions is...

1. Anti-union propaganda and the union-busting efforts of American corporations and their consultants starting in the 1970's leading up through the policies of Reagan.

2. Globalization and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

SADLY, in the interim American wages have been flat since the 70's and class inequality has exploded.

"Had the fruits of the nation’s economic output been shared over the past 45 years as broadly as they were from the end of World War II until the early 1970s, a full-time worker whose taxable income is at the median would instead be making $92,000 to $102,000" instead of $50k. (RAND Corporation) Source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st...

READ:

- https://www.vice.com/en/article/akwwvb/us-employers-spend-do...

- https://www.jwj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/JohnLogan12_2...

- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/jun/2...

- https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/starbucks-history-...

- https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/history_of_labor_unio...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/how-wal...

> but you are just generalizing

No he's not. Every unionized workplace I have been in from educational institutions to government departments to defense contractors is like this to a pretty large extent.

>But the German example

Yes, I know that European unions are different and not nearly as asinine as American ones but I have yet to hear anyone say that tech will get European style unions let alone a good argument for why this will happen. The best I've heard so far is we should unionize because Europe's unions don't suck. I've never worked (in tech) in an environment where I feel I am getting screwed hard enough that the unions are the lesser of the evils. I understand game devs may feel differently (and they will likely unionize before the rest of the industry IMO).

Basically American unions suck which is why American workers in well compensated industries don't want them.

"Basically American unions suck which is why American workers in well compensated industries don't want them."

A EU unionized tech worker here who has union negotiated minimum salery and benefits and am fully able to negotiate for more (which I do each year). And I am not far from the 6 figure mark (in $).

So there is nothing saying that unions will mess with your bottom line.

Just don't create unions that suck.

> but I have yet to hear anyone say that tech will get European style unions let alone a good argument for why this will happen

Well, it's good that discussions like this are happening because it spreads awareness that there are better models for unions from abroad, and perhaps that will get more people agitating for an union that's different from the traditional American kind.

American style capitalism has polluted the mental models of anyone raised in the States to disregard European management styles and by extension the successful European work life balance, to the US citizens' significant determent. The work-life balance in Europe is more of a life worth living, while the life styles in the United States require double incomes to participate, are so heavily marketed it rendered everything expensive in either dollars, social credit, political credit or when not "playing the game" complete social isolation. Life in the United States is close to ruined, we have close to no community beyond these online peeps into the darkness.

Double income is pretty much a requirement everywhere in Europe.

Some things are more expensive in the US, like cars. Some are more expensive in Europe, like food and gas.

There are great communities in the US. Dont generalize a country of 360M people on your personal situation.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

Not an argument.

People could organize a European style union for software engineers right now in USA if they wanted, but they aren't doing it. Instead they are still pushing for US style unions like they did at Kickstarter. The only reason I can think of why they are doing this is that they want the extra power that comes with US style unions instead of the more worker friendly EU style unions.

What is the primary difference between EU and US style unions?

US unions are usually per company and forces everyone working in a specific area in that company to join or quit, meaning that anyone performing a specific job function needs to join said union. This leads to the "You can't plug a computer into a socket if you aren't in the electrician union" problem, the reason they say that is they think the company could oust the union by hiring people to do that work without properly labeling them.

EU unions are bigger and more general but aren't allowed to force workers to join, ie EU is a "right to work" area. This avoids most of the problems with US style unions and also gives workers more political power since EU style unions are bigger and can therefore more easily influence national politics.

The general term for everyone having to join the union is "closed shop". It was apparently outlawed in the US in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop so I'm not clear how that's still happening.

It was declared illegal in the EU in 2006: https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Employmen...

There is no difference between between being forced to join and being forced to pay the same dues and follow same rules. That is why right-to-work laws is important, the law in 1947 did nothing to stop it.

Yeah, the union agreement gives the union money whether or not you're a member.

This was recently ruled illegal in the public sector (Janus v. AFSCME), because of first amendment concerns (the state is forcing you to pay money for union lobbying).

This hasn't resulted in a drop in membership, in no small part due to many unions adopting freakishly Byzantine opt-out measures, e.g. the ones where there's a certain window of 10 days a year that you can leave (computed relative to when you signed your union card, never advertised by the union — and if the employer even mentions these rights the union might attempt legal action under California law which forbids their employer from doing anything to "deter or discourage public employees from becoming or remaining members").

There is a big difference.

As French taxpayer I am forced to (indirectly) pay for all French political parties, including extreme right. This money gives political parties some freedom to act, to nourish the political debate... seen as a way to straighten the political debate and the democracy ; good for the general interest.

Still the number of members of a given political movement and the share of people voting for it is giving it the real power. And as someone only forced to give (indirectly) some money to a given movement is then entirely different than being force to join such a movement. And that is the same here for union.

Please note that as a worker, you are forced to "pay" for the stockholder. If you are not happy with it you can pick another oragnisation. Same goes for union, you are always free to join a union free company...

In the US, there are state by state rules now. It is complicated.

Interesting that it's so common in the US despite having been illegal for so long, whereas it hardly ever happens in the EU despite it having been legal until recently.

>I'm not clear how that's still happening.

"Congratulations you're hired. We can either hire you with an official job title of an X at wage V or a Y and wage W, Y is a union position, here's the paperwork"

It's not a "closed shop" but in practice if you want to get paid at a level befitting the work you're doing it is. Since unions are

About that political power, in some European countries, and maybe most famously in Netherland, a lot of big labour-related economic decisions are made in a committee with representatives of the government, representatives of employer organisations, and representatives of the major unions. They discuss and agree on salary structures, pay increases, labour conditions, and I think they can even make suggestions for changes in the tax system. If all three agree that something is better for the country, the companies and the workers, then it's very likely to happen. Note that these agreements hold for everybody, and not just union members. So non-members do benefit from some things the union does.

But the important part is: they need to balance the needs of all three parties: the country, the companies, and the workers. It would be stupid to sacrifice one of these for the benefit of one of the other stakeholders, as that would ultimately hurt everybody.

Yeah, I think strong worker representation in governments is very important for a capitalist democracy to work well. USA doesn't have that for some reason, basically all their politicians comes from a 1% or at least 10% home. Could be due to these strange union practices they have.

Not even back then was this tied to being in an union in Poland, but to having right certification which anyone can get provided they document having passed training and exam.

And indeed, the force people to join bit was outlawed in EU in 2006, but it was never particularly popular outside UK anyway.

In my understanding unions that can "forces everyone working in a specific area in that company to join or quit" are exceptions not the rules in 2020 USA (and clearly not what the article was talking about).

Perhaps am I ill informed (never been in USA, and my friend living there are not in unions), could you give us some sources saying that what you say is the main form of union in USA today ?

Kickstarter is such a union. Many of the union members didn't want it. I'd bet even most of the software engineers didn't want it, but were forced to since they were bundled up with a lot of unrelated professions.

> In the end, employees voted 46-to-37 in favor of unionizing

> As of February 2020, the union was made up of 85 engineers, directors, analysts, designers, coordinators, and customer support specialists

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/13/21257585/kickstarter-layo...

The union "represented about 60 percent of the company’s 140 employees prior to the layoffs". From the article you mentioned.

If 40% of the workers are not part of the union, seems that you are free to be part or not of the union. And that the union makes sense to the worker, as more than half of the workforce choose to join.

The union doesn't include every employee group at kickstarter. For example no managers or supervisors are included. Also the fact that they have to even vote is evidence that they want to force people to join, or at least force them to pay union dues. Otherwise why not create a union without a vote instead?

So far I seen no indication (and you provided none) that people are forced to join the union, and seen indication that people can "freely" chose to join or not. And that most people "freely" chose to join the union - while some could be part of the union and chose not to be. What is you point ?

Look, they voted about it meaning they forced people to pay dues. Paying dues is the same thing as joining. In Europe we don't do that, you just go to a site and say you want to join and then you are in a union and you don't pay to any union if you don't. no need to vote or talk to colleagues about anything, that is just stupid. I can join and leave a union whenever I want, if USA had such unions then they would already have huge union participation among software engineers and we wouldn't need these stupid discussions since you could join a union if you want and I could ignore it if I want, you don't have to convince your colleagues to join just because you want one.

"meaning they forced people to pay dues" ; there are nothing about this specific point in what I read.

Money helps, but union main strength comes from number of member and support. So paying for it or being member is in all case 2 very different things. And it seems workers are free to join or not, and most of them decided to join.

I don't know the situation of all European countries, but in France, unions gets some money from their member, but they also get some money from the state (ie taxppayers), and some elected union/worker representatives have some work time paid by the company to work on workers representation and union stuff

Board seats?

That is only in Germany and not typical for EU.

And Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden (but with less seats than Germany)

https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Rela...

I'll raise you one. My experience with unions:

- (Movie) set breaks. The guys from the appropriate union are working on a different part of the set and can't get away to fix it, so the camera guys (in a different union) fixes the break. They all have a beer afterwards, and the movie made $200M+ at the box office.

- Unionized grocery store. Jar spills onto the floor. The janitor is doing the COVID19 sanitation rounds, so the first employee to see the mess grabs a mop and cleans it up, even though it's not part of her job description.

Moral of the story: unions are what their members make of them. Some of them are deliberately and highly restrictive about scope of duties, but most of them are not.

Unions can also offer goods things like group bargaining, healthcare and moral support such as SAG/AFTRA and other Hollywood-style guilds. The only downside is you can't do cheap work on the side, but that benefits those who choose not to or cannot join these guilds.

Marriot jammed wifi in their conference centers to make you pay for theirs. Therefore hotel chains are a bad idea. /s

Yes, that kind of thing is a scam to make you pay more than you need to, a.k.a. "profit maximising" for the individual. But we seem to just accept that as natural for companies while shunning individuals that do it.

You seem to completely misunderstand what the union formed at Kickstarter is about. Nothing like what you describe, but rather giving employees more control over the company's decisions.

That's a fantastic video. I'm commenting mostly to save the link for later, but I cannot imagine unions trying to mesh with the tech world.

Can you imagine having a "frontend developers union" which disallowed backend work (or vice versa)? What a nightmare.

That's not how unions work at all and especially not the union described by OP's article. Can you imagine strongly opposing something that would benefit you, because you don't understand it nor take the time to?

I've only been exposed to unions through conferences, so I may not be completely informed, but this is the only way I know unions to work (also from my grandmother having been a teacher in NY, and strong union advocate).

I can not speak about how unions work in the US.

I have however been in unions my whole working life, and know of none who is a saleried employee who is not in a union, and what you describe is not how my experience of unions in Europe has ever been (nor have I ever heard such stories).

There are not, nor have there ever been any restrictions placed on how, where and when I can work due to unions. Any modifications triggered by how, when and where I was working are beneficial to me and soley the burden of my employeers.

The way unions have been warped in the US, either in reality or in the minds of people, truly horrifies me.

/edit: spelling

Aviation isn't about unions though, it's a safety feature. There were a bunch of different roles at the company I worked for:

- High-level requirements author

- Low-level requirements author

- Coder

- Test author

- Test runner

and then each of those had a reviewer, for high-level requirements, low-level requirements, code review, test case review, test process and results review.

The FAA technically only requires that the author and reviewer for each step in the process are different, but the company tried to avoid having the same person write the requirements, code, and tests as well.

You don't, so don't form a union that does that. Instead, form a union that does the things you and your coworkers need a union for.

The idea that unions should run the business is silly. Unions need to negotiate a good salary and healthy working conditions.

You can implement anything crap. I feel like you're just taking the worst possible example of a union and using that to state that unionization is awful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com