EDIT: Knew I'd get downvoted. Seriously though, why is it a bad thing for employees to bargain collectively in order to get the best deal? To me it just demonstrates the market working. i.e. people achieving "economies of scale" (to bastardise the term) in negotiations with powerful employers.
For example, in some states, if 51% of the employees decide to form a union, the other 49% are forced to become members. Then the union can extract union dues from their paycheck, even if they don't want to.
Unions also destroy meritocracy, replacing raises based on merit with raises based on seniority.
Unions can increase wages far above what would happen if the market worked. At commercial airlines, you'll see some pilots making $200,000, and some making $30,000, for the same job, on the same route, with the same safety. Increasing wages above market prices causes unemployment, because the company is less likely to hire new employees. Without the union, in general you'll see lower wages, but also lower unemployment.
What'd I'd like to see is all laws mentioning the word union to be abolished. No laws protecting unions, and no laws preventing them either. If you can form a club, and raise your wages or working conditions, more power to you.
Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US, and government employees organizing strikes to get more vacation?
Ah yes - when's the last three times that said laws were enforced?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_stri...
So far the MTA is still overpaid and the union is still there.
I'd have no objection to government employees striking to get more vacation - provided the agency they work for has the right to fire (for cause) and permanently replace them.
IMO, in certain kinds of industries, striking should be cause for firing. Imagine the pilots at a commercial airline strike. That causes massive inconvenience for customers (especially that already have tickets!), damage to the brand and long-term revenue.
Unless of course your absenteeism is blessed by a union.
THe employer still has a lot of power. You can be fired at a moment's notice and be forced into poverty. That's waaaaaay more power than a union has!
edit: I forgot to mention that a meritocracy doesn't exist. People come from different backgrounds and some have had more (or less) opportunities to improve their skills. Rewarding very skilled people is great, but you should also be rewarding less skilled people by giving them more training (which many companies skimp on...).
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but is this just a US thing? It seems that you can be let go (from a permanent position; we'll not talk about contractors/casuals) very easily in the US, without much reasoning.
To contrast, here in Australia, a part-time/full-time employee needs to be formally warned (and these need to be documented) three times before being 'fired', and there are many cases where Fair Work (a government body) has helped an employee take an employer to court in cases where the documentation was insufficient.
Of course, that's a very high-level overview, but the message I constantly get is that you can be fired for really simple reasons in the US, without much recourse (lest you want to take it on yourself).
This really only happens at larger firms, 'cause you could sue me, but you wouldn't get enough money out of the deal to properly pay your lawyer.
Unless they were casuals. But even causals can be treated, by courts, as full timers; depending on the circumstances.
A small Australian business can fire someone immediately without any warnings. I think it's a company of under 50 employees at the moment. The number was increased under WorkChoices then dropped back again.
A larger business can use exceptional circumstances to remove you instantly as well (breach of contract and along those lines).
How the hell does an employer force someone into poverty? What country do you live in where an employer can just take the employee's savings, or prevent them from getting another job? Does your government not provide unemployment benefits? I don't want to move there.
Unemployment benefits only apply once you've put some of your money into it.
Taking another job? Really? So fighting for an 8-hour day was basically a useless fight because wages can be driven so low?
The only reason that kind of thing happens is because the unions overreach and abuse their power and have stopped listening to the worker.
Paul English wrote a while ago that he had to let go about one in three as it wasn't working out. And look at all the hiring threads on HN about how hard it is to find the right person. If you can't fire, you can't take a chance on someone. It just reduces the liquidity of the labor market, and means borderline people don't even get jobs in the first place.
Skills aren't everything. Not every valuable attribute can be taught. There's talent, motivation, work ethic. As edw519 said in his book today, the primary differentiator among programmers is passion.
Assuming I'm an above-average employee, I would rather work at a company that rewards me based on merit.
Assuming I'm a business owner, I would rather pay employees based on merit, because if I don't, I'd never attract the best. Paying based on merit improves the chances of success of the business. Profitable companies pay salaries; bankrupt ones do not.
From the standpoint of the consumer and employer, who must deal with their strikes and surly attitude, unions are a disaster. From the standpoint of the above average and exceptional workers, they are also a disaster as unions exert peer pressure to stop people from working hard and "showing up" the unproductive workers. In a union workplace, all promotions are based on seniority rather than merit. And unions have a history of racist targeting of "outsiders".
You could not think of a culture less compatible with the tech industry, let alone a Silicon Valley startup.
I'm not convinced that there's anything a union does that a co-operative corporation couldn't do better. Instead of battering your head against Management, you can align your interests with Management.
See also:
Sadly, in the modern world, sometimes it seem labor is a throwaway commodity, and one that can increasingly be replaced by capital.
Here's a good example: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...
Mike Rowe nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=playe...
It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.
Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union."
Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.
In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me.
I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.
Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
The last time I looked, govt controlled the vast majority of the oil leases in the US. They just shut down Shell in AK after Shell spent >$2B to get a site ready.
The last time I looked, the US govt mandated 10% ethanol in gas, subsidized its production, and placed a high tarriff on imported ethanal.
That being said, government loves higher prices. They benefit first.
EMPLOYMENT depends on threats of poverty! If you don't work, you might fucking die. Unions depend on threats of strikes and other actions, but they don't depend on violence.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1025783...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/indu...
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/richard-trumka-facts-09152609
Hell, the reason these mafia have been granted the privileges they have (e.g., it's illegal not to negotiate) is that otherwise they were more than willing to declare war on employers:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_horror.htm...
The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms.