Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyanydeez | Hacker News Reader

>I’m skeptical because I don’t necessarily trust the people who would be at the top of a union

why would they be any worse than whose ever in charge of your employment.

every country has proven that no matter the the system, without an engaged populace, it can be crippled with corruption.

View on HN

In a union, the leadership is negotiating for you. So the person in charge of your employment that the union is replacing is you, not management. They could negotiate things like more PTO, better conditions, or a larger bonus instead of a straight base pay. But as the employee you might want straight up higher base pay. Or maybe the union gets a promotion process that values seniority more than performance. It might save you from a political process or having to play the game, but can hurt other people.

The idea is that unions help the collective and will get a generally better deal then you might get on your own. But again the isn't going to get everything from management and they have to decide what to prioritize. So if your priorities are different than union leadership your wishes might get left behind to help more other people.

I can’t really imagine a union negotiating in the interests of privileged, mid six figure, 1%er software engineers. Even if it is made of us. That’s a little bit cravenly capitalistic for the kind of people who would be running a union in San Francisco. Rather, I think it would say that we, the members, are the powerful, and we have an obligation to use our collective power and wealth to advance broader left causes.

I don’t really want to get into it with my coworkers over exactly what our issue profile is, nor accept what I think the loudest voices will say. I prefer to choose my political organizations separately from my job.

Now if it’s truly going to just self-interestedly fight for our already well served interests, sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com