Hacker News Reader

Comment by unknownaccount | Hacker News Reader

Unions are good for lazy employees because it makes them harder to fire. Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired. As someone who works hard I definitely would never want a union.

View on HN

I strongly agreed, until I started seeing things like my company 'laying off' a few hundred people and then that afternoon telling everyone left "we're hiring!" Or my favorite "this office is no longer able to host this job function, we really want to keep you but you have to move to this higher cost of living area within 90 days - sorry, we can't make compensation adjustments at this time - or we'll have to let you go." Or, seeing someone paid vastly more or less than I am for the same work; if you think a peer is doing good work and they are paid a lot less than you are, that's not you whining about not making enough money.

It's absolutely true that there are people who toe the line with respect to doing the minimum they can get away with and keep their job. I've seen it, and I'm sure other people have seen it. It's absolutely true that (in the US at least) union leadership is not immune to leaders who think leadership is about being in charge of others or building a fiefdom. I don't think these negatives are exclusive to unions, though, and I think it's a bit dangerous to let businesses convince you that they are.

I'm a coder, and now in a union. I'm happy about this. No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address.

I'm also not just concerned about myself and my own compensation, I greatly care about my team overall. Sure, I can muscle my way up through performance reviews and such but not everyone has the same background or privilege I do. I'm happy to have a union to represent everyone, and not be happy with a few people having a lot of leverage.

Caring about others... who would have thought?

> No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address.

I'm also a union coder now. I agree.

The work we do is inherently collaborative. Any issue that affects one of my coworkers at this company or anyone doing similar work will eventually affect me. Without a union, employers force us all into a race to the bottom to internalize costs that they should bear a greater share of (e.g. crunch time due to failure to plan).

Sorry but Im not a charity worker. Its great that you are priveleged enough that you are in a position where you can be, but I cant afford to accept working harder to make up for less competent/lazier workers.

> less competent/lazier workers

That's an extremely naive view of the people a union is intended to protect. Even a minimal amount of research, or even some simple pondering of the situations your fellow employees might find themselves in that benefit from a stronger work contract would lead to many other cases where a union has benefit.

That's not to say a union is right for every company or job, but to think it only benefits those you outlined is just plain silly when any thought it put into it. If you really need some help in figuring out a beneficial case, consider what purpose insurance often serves, and also consider power imbalances when you have a bunch of individuals against one large unified opponent (when any negotiation can be considered adversarial under these conditions).

> less competent/lazier workers

Not the op, but that isn't naive. Did a short stint in a union shop. The day had more breaks than it did work in it. Me and the other new guy started cranking on our task list, and were told by our manager to "slow down or you'll work yourself out of a job."

It's not naive to think that may be the case for some or that it happens. It's very naive to think that's the only reason for or result of unionizing, and it was presented as the only ting that matters enough to be mentioned.

Do you know how much income the investors/managers in your firm are taking home? How does it compare to your income? Are they factoring in your time and stress when making big strategic decisions?

I've had coworkers that didn't pull their weight in non-union shops that were able to skate by because they were buddies with a manager who played political games well. My union (CWA) is pushing at multiple workplaces to have a more objective review and hiring process.

But the occasional struggling or unprepared coworker has affected me way less than instances of poor management.

"No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address."

so you choose to prioritize your desires over customer needs? what if end users preferred to keep their cash instead of pay for your code refactor of a feature nobody uses?

Does that not apply to management? What if the end users preferred a cheaper product rather than paying out exec bonuses? What if end users preferred a well made product rather than cutting corners to keep costs down?

The higher up the hierarchy, the more accountable they are to the customer. If management doesn't increase sales by providing an offering at a competitive price, sales will slump and someone will get fired. This is the opposite of union shops where the manager to employee ratio is much higher because nobody gets fired for being a burden on the customer's wallet.

I think we might come from very different worlds if people higher up the chain are more accountable for customer disgruntlement in your experience.

That being said, I could see your point of view if you were in an org where that was true

By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO job. The CEO is picked by the shareholders to maximize shareholder value. The top boss is extremely well vetted to make sure they make good decisions to protect shareholders' money. The CEO's #1 job is to hire & fire managers that let him keep his job by increasing sales. And so on down the chain.

How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for customer disgruntlement"? They have less skin in the game than people up the hierarchy.

> By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO job.

That’s kind of less my logic and more my lived experience, unless you count being politically connected as the only qualification for CEO’s.

> How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for customer disgruntlement?”

Have you never seen execs grand schemes fail and make up for their mistakes by firing scapegoats or laying off workers and saddling the rest with more work to make the numbers look good?

> They have less skin in the game than people up the hierarchy.

Do they? In my experience workers typically have their entire income stream at risk while execs get golden parachutes and another executive position at a different company despite failing massively. If skin in the game is just “get higher compensation” then why aren’t the richest people on the planet the most environmentally conscious since they have more “skin in the game” than everyone else?

Edit: fixed typo, sassing -> saddling

Yes, only highly qualified people attain CEO jobs. You never see any baffling CEO hires who flame out spectacularly taking shareholders and employees down with them.

My coworkers and I were all illegally fired in retaliation for forming a union a few years ago. The federal agency that investigates violations of labor law found the employer to be obviously at fault, and we settled for cash.

As part of the federal investigation it came out that the employer had drawn up a list of employees they wanted to keep if at all possible. I was on that short list; but once it became clear I was pro-union, they fired me anyway.

Contrast that with the actual union contracts coverings software devs being bargained at places like the New York Times or Kickstarter. I'll take my peers' idea of a fair process over the employer's any day.

This is an interesting opinion. The fact that an employees as to make up for another colleagues is weird. If your manager is unloading on you, you have a bad manager, nothing to do with your "lazy" colleague.

Its just the reality of how many jobs are. It makes sense for managers to structure the work in this way, using an informal system of what amounts to group punishment if the team as a whole performs poorly. That way the team manages itself, lazy employees will be peer pressured into getting improving or quitting. Is it unfair? yes. Is it highly prevalent in jobs? Also yes.

In that case you have two lazy employees, your colleague and your manager.

You should go talk to the railway workers who are about to strike. Your perspective might change.

This argument assumes that non-union jobs are all magically perfect meritocracies and that unions provide no benefits other than protecting lazy people. Neither of those things have been true in my experience.

You are already making up for lazy workers without a union. It's just that they're your bosses, not your co-workers.

You are working harder than you need to so more money goes to shareholders and executives can hire less and delegate less.

A union doesn't solve or make that problem worse, it just gives you more power in the relationship.

> bad for the hard workers

Some industries resist unionization, not through management being dicks, but because the talented workers start a competitor that wins market share. Most industries aren't like that, however, and to the degree they are, it's a transient state.

You sound like a pro police kinda person. You know they're all unionized right? As well as the sheriffs.

Maybe you watch Fox news or listen to Sinclair. They're all union too...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Broadcasters_...

Just like the multi-million Park Avenue penthouses all being co-ops, when it comes to the rich and powerful it's "unions and coops for me, landlords and bosses for thee"

Curious...

> Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired.

Yea, and without any upside, so they'll eventually leave. Union power will then sort of get in a chinese finger trap situation, continually defending malaise and bankrupting the company.

Unions are destructive IMO. They're an indication of the current times. The entire society is getting into "insurance" mode because we don't have any definite ideas anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com