Unions are bureaucracy. Adding politics, people and power to any structure inherently adds inefficiencies.
If individual bargaining is working just fine in an industry, then I would not push for collective bargaining. Because, it is tradeoff is between 'bridging the information asymmetry between how much power you think you command, vs what you actually command' and 'inefficiencies added by bureaucracy'.
Gaming has clearly crossed that tradeoff threshold. IMO, big tech has not.
Efficiency, for example, is often the opposite of robustness. Many companies have learned that the hard way when COVID hit, even though they had an efficient supply chain and production pipeline, it was not robust.
I think a robustness/efficiency dichotomy isn't the right way to look at this. One doesn't preclude the other. A medical system that is both efficient and robust is certainly possible. This discussion deserves its own thread.
Watching how deeply these inefficiencies from bureaucracies plague us, has been genuinely angering.
So yeah, I do come into it with personal priors which lead to be deeply suspicious of any unnecessary inefficiency. (emphasis on unnecessary. Your covid example clearly shows that the word necessary itself is subjectively evaluated)
With that said, is it really fair to call India pseudo-socialist? For all intents and purposes, India is closer to the EU and a region/confederation of nations than it is to a single country. One can say that inefficiencies from Indian bureaucracy plague the country, but that would be to treat India like a monolith, which it certainly is not.
India is a panoply of genetic, cultural, and linguistic diversity -- a plurality, and one of the world's oldest democracies. Even so, India's growth remains blistering in real terms. Perhaps we see things a certain way because our finite lives exist in a certain point in history; but could our children or grandchildren see India the same way we see China today?
It's personally hard to fathom that the answer is yes, but it's equally hard for me to fathom that the answer is no. In a way, I almost expect to be surprised.
Workers can find the same value in consolidating their interests by unionizing.
For what it's worth, collective bargaining is, from an economic perspective, a monopoly. In anti trust terms it would constitute an illegal combination in trade if it weren't for statutory exemptions that explicitly give it a pass.
The business/management is a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least money possible for the most production possible.
The employees/union are a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least production possible for the most money possible.
A union seeks to even the playing field between management and labor. It's not a monopoly unless the local union is affiliated with a global union that includes the vast majority of all workers in that particular field.
What if I'm a junior worker on a labour market that is saturated by more experienced and skilled workers, and lowering my rate is the only chance to make it in the industry that I have? Existing union and it's members are my natural competitors.
And the evidence is overwhelming that unionized workers make more than non-union workers of equivalent skills/qualifications. So it sounds like this boils down, once again, to the argument, "I am amazing and exceptional, and I'm afraid that if there were unions, I wouldn't be able to get more money for being amazing and exceptional."
First of all, this argument cannot be true for the majority of workers—by definition, most people in any given field are not exceptional. So even if it would benefit you to not have a union, it would not benefit most people.
Second of all, there is absolutely no requirement for unions to prevent compensation from being increased based on actual performance. Some unions may have strict seniority-based pay schedules, but not all that currently exist do, and if we were to create a brand new union for tech workers (or just for game devs), then the people actually forming that union would be the ones to decide what its priorities would be.
Are they also a monopoly?
Joan Robinson studied labor and monopsony, her books are very illuminating for anyone interested
That is definitely a free market restriction on my rights as a worker, to have a mutual agreement with that specific company.
No, they don't. Actors are able to negotiate themselves and with the help from their union, and they're all members of SAG-AFTRA.
So, in other words, their rights to bargain and engage in mutual agreements is restricted.
You literally just explained how their rights are limited.
Specifically, it is limited in that you have to be a part of this group, to engage in certain agreements.
And even within that group, people are prevented from engaging in certain mutual agreements.
You can negotiate without union representation.
You're also free to be a non-union actor.
There are limits on the contracts that I could engage with, with another mutually interested party, is the point.
If there were no limits, then, almost by definition, it would not be a union.
So yes, a union puts limits on the contracts that mutually interested parties can engage in.
Were you not aware that unions put limits on the contracts that mutually interested parties can engage in?
Did you think that a company, and an interested worker, could just completely ignore union rules, and create their own contract, that conflicts with the rules of the union?
But it doesn't, you can choose to not be part of the union
The truth is that no one is forcing you to work a union job.
That's pretty disingenuous. Try working for government at any level without also working for a union. I could turn your argument around and say, "if you want a union job just go find one!"
Regardless, that choice you speak of represents a profound injustice according to union leaders. The ultimate goal of mainstream political labor movements is universal unionization. They would very much like to make it so that everyone is forced to pay union dues, no matter where they work.
The union puts a limit on the contracts that I can make with the company.
So I would be prevented from bargaining for certain contracts with a company.
So me and this other company's mutual right to make an agreement would be limited by the union.
This is a bit like saying that criminal law takes away your right to be mugged, beaten, and murdered.
So then I am not free to negotiate, and me and this other company right to engage in a mutual agreement are prevented.
Yeah, that's my point.
> I fail to see how the right to work for less pay
I get paid way way way more money than the average unionized tech worker, where they exist.
So actually, my ability to negotiate for myself, outside of the restrictions of a union, has worked out pretty darn well for me.
> the absolute minimum fair pay
Oh that's funny. You aren't aware that union contracts cover much more things than just a minimum wage.
The whole point is that many union provisions can be bad for many people and are not strict benefits for workers.
I have also negotiated my pay up, but under the umbrella of collective bargaining agreements. As far as I know, you are always able to negotiate your pay up. This has worked pretty well for me as well.
Ok... and thats my point. Certain union provisions are bad, for many people, and you cannot pretend that they are a universal good.
> you are always able to negotiate your pay up
Non-union jobs in tech pay way way more, than most union tech jobs though, and union provisions prevent certain contracts that many workers would prefer.
So the actual, measurable facts show that I and many others, in non-union jobs, are doing way better than most unionized tech workers.