But in the US the history of unions often ended up with ties to organized crime. In addition unions seemed to become more interested in serving the needs of the union rather than the well being of the workers. One example is a buddy of mine that had to be party of a bag boys union who had to end up paying basically the entirety of a pay check in union dues each month simply to be employed, without him getting anything from it.
From what I understand there is a literal and figurative ocean of difference between the unions in the EU and the US.
I'll further add that trying to conflate the two is a tactic I've often seen used by dishonest people to manipulate the conversation.
Organized crime takes root in groups that don't benefit from government protection. Do you think that unions would've turned to organized crime if the authorities and privatized security groups didn't regularly attack them without any intervention by the US government to protect them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
Is this true, or just another case of historical revisionism based on pop culture?
Not denying that there aren't examples of this, but it does seem a bit like people like to go back to a few famous criminal individuals to justify that unions are "bad".
What potentially could be a whole paycheck are the payments for healthcare that is provided by the union
edit: Looked it up in my state, they are limited here to $15.
This is in contrast to the rest of Hollywood which is probably one of the best examples of a union success story the US has. Every single little niche has its own union (Animation Guild, Editors Guild, etc)
This all ended with a huge lawsuit and a (supposedly) massive settlement without a court decision. But the end result was that the tech unions never formed - the assholes won
In particular:
1. Do you have a choice of union?
2. Do you in theory have a choice of union even if in practice there is only one applicable union?
3. Can you leave the union/not engage in collective bargaining via the union if you believe the union is not representing your interests?
4. Can you in theory form your own union if applicable unions do not represent your interests?
From a cursory inspection of the structure of German and Swiss trade unions, I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes, though I do not have any in-depth or firsthand experience indicating the truth of my belief, so it would be helpful to get input from someone with firsthand experience.
In contrast, based on a more in-depth analysis on the nature of legal recognition for unions in the US, in the US the answer to all of these questions is no. I hypothesize this distinction, assuming it is true, is a key reason for the different attitudes towards unions in the US and Europe.
Maybe it’s because he really is a “bad cultural fit”.
Everyone meets an asshole every now and then, if you meet assholes all the time, maybe the problem is that you’re an asshole…
And even beyond that, there is an even larger pool of NON-tech companies desperate to hire ANY developer at all.
I don't want to pretend that this doesn't happen, and it sucks, but this does not block any competent developers from software employment.
Unions would mean I get paid less, and the guy sitting next to me who can’t find his way around a computer would get paid more.
I know you folks like to say it’s a stereotype of unions, but unions really only protect the lazy. If you do your job well companies will fight over you. If you are not so good at your job that union sure does sound like a good idea.
Weren’t police unions why we have bad police?
Really? You really think that you are the best negotiator out of everyone who could join a union local in your area? You really think that by yourself you have more leverage than if you were negotiating alongside everyone else in a similar position within your company?
You look at the amount, and see that it's good, and you make a whole bunch of assumptions founded on stereotypes about unions, and come to the conclusion that you are the specialest person around...and it's a very seductive thing to believe.
But it's just one more way the people making dozens or hundreds of times more than you screw you over.
I’m not sure if that’s actually the effect unions have, but assuming it is - that position is still so incredibly selfish. Even if you are on the high end, you weren’t aways. Hold the door open for the next generation. Lift everybody up. Let everyone get a first helping before you go back for seconds.
But the past inexperienced me didn't bring as much value as the current me so it makes sense that I made less.
2. "Value you bring to the company" is an odd way to look at most jobs. Like what's the impact on productivity of the 25 engineers in an office if the trash hasn't been taken out in three weeks? Janitorial labor is contributing to the overall income of the company in ways that may not be direct, but ARE real. Same would apply for junior engineering tasks.
3. While I'm a fan of the idea of everyone earning the same hourly wage within a company for above reasons, unions MIGHT flatten the payscale a bhit, but they don't usually result in a FLAT payscale. So you will still earn more based on some ladder - years with the company, title, value you bring, etc.
If a company has button that when pressed makes them $1M. A person they hired for that role brings them $1M in value assuming they had no one to push the button before. The value of that person is very low since they can easily find a replacement.
That's not the sole determining factor. The question is not "can someone else do a better job negotiating for what I want", the question is "will someone else do a better job negotiating for what I want, and will I be able to successfully convince them to do so".
It's valid to ask "does this negotiating body actually represent me". Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. But it's not reasonable to ignore and dismiss people who believe it does not, and who believe they're unlikely to be able to change that.
In the context of the article, it sounds like this organization is quite likely to represent the goals of its members, and I hope that it stays that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S... / https://listverse.com/2017/09/14/10-tragic-times-the-us-gove... / https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/themine... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars / https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/219
In the 1970's Reagan ushered in an era of busting unions and they have been declining ever since. Ironic as Reagan in his youth had actually fought for unions.
https://medium.com/the-future-of-labor-unions/ronald-reagans... / https://medium.com/the-future-of-labor-unions/why-has-union-...
Numbers are really, really low here, if you compare them to owners' lead violence, especially committed by police.
Unions don't do that, that's pure propaganda. Unions bargain for more free time, better pay, better work conditions (healthier, safer).
They do that AND make it hard to fire useless employees. It's a mixed bag, as all organizational layers are.
On top of that, the percentage of millionaires on HN is probably closer to 80% than 8% so that hackneyed slogan has little resonance with this audience. Then add in that many, many developers get a massive chunk of their compensation in stock or options, which literally aligns their interests with the owners of the company because they _are_ part-owners of the company, and that slogan is DOA.
Eventually the Civil Rights Act passed, forcing government-mandated equality in many places, especially around employment. White labor abandoned the labor party (Democrat) in favor of the anti-government party (Republican).
Since then, the Democrats have been pro-minority, pro-government and at best fairly ambivalent about labor issues. Only the management perspective played in the media, and when Clinton came in to power he brought a strongly anti-labor platform to the Dems.
Americans for the most part have not had a labor party to oppose management narratives, and don't generally even have the common vocabulary to discuss labor issues.
This was one of the warnings of Orwell. A good example is how communism and socialism are synonymous for many people limiting their capability to discuss social improvements.
The political realignment was rather sudden, and the upshot was that the party that previously represented labor didn't particularly care about "labor vs management" anymore. They cared about equality within the labor force, which is a totally different thing.