This is good, I hope the employees at ActivisionBlizzard can finalize their union if they’re purchased by Microsoft.
Unions on the game industry would never work, reason why game industry is so abusive is two fold:
1. A lot of young people believe working with games is only fun, providing endless bodies to be hired and replace the previous young that realized how much it suck that they quit.
2. Games market follow a very strong winner takes all model, a few games have all profits, literally thousands games are released yearly that nobody ever heard of or bought.
As such here is the situation:
1. Very few companies (because of previous point 2) can afford to pay good wages and benefits.
2. The few companies that actually are wealthy, get so much applicants that every year starry eyed talented newbies will join for shit pay. Hell, when I had my own company people wanted to work for free even!
3. If a union starts to form, the company will just get rid of it somehow, even if is extremely bad PR, because people will still willingly throw themselves at such jobs thinking "EA Spouse" description of crunch time is a dream, not a nightmare.
Note: currently unemployed again. I am in love enough with games to want to brave all its shittyness, but I don't have my hopes up that I will get a game job, because my wife is pregnant and I need wages that allow me to take care of 3 people now, and I know in the game industry this is very unlikely. When I first finished university nongames companies offered me usually at least 3x what game industry did for same positions. My first job ended with me getting 5x the highest offer I got from game industry. I accepted it because the game industry offer was lower than my student debt repayments for my Game Design and Production degree...
Well, it's not ideal, but it's fine if only a few companies can afford to operate in a given field.
> 2. Games market follow a very strong winner takes all model, a few games have all profits, literally thousands games are released yearly that nobody ever heard of or bought.
These are both true of movies, but that is a heavily unionized industry.
The games industry has almost no old talent. There are many non-trivially-sized game studios where nobody working there is over 30.
Presumably, on the film-industry side, this is in part a work of the unions, acting as barriers-to-entry to the industry and thereby limiting the supply of (⇒ increasing the demand for) their existing membership.
Not knowing much about the history of film, I would guess that film-industry unions — besides the blue-collar labor unions, that likely arose organically just as they did everywhere — originally arose out mostly from the natural limited supply of "famous actors" who thus already formed an implicit power bloc within the industry.
The games industry really doesn't have a natural power bloc equivalent to "famous actors." There are some famous directors, but they just go found their own studios if they don't like working conditions elsewhere (since business/people management is already their comparative advantage.)
https://www.thelightleaks.com/think-pieces/reality-of-unpaid...
Guess I need to tell all the older people in the game industry I know they need to quit.
Book publishing was pretty winner-take-all, until Kindle Unlimited (and its close relative, the many serial-fiction "unlock new chapters with coins" websites and apps) came along, and basically changed everything for many indie authors.
Before, you needed to woo a publisher, because you needed to be in bookstores, because you needed a certain threshold of word-of-mouth to be stirred up around your releases, in order to get sales that would let you make enough to cover your own advances.
But with the Kindle Unlimited model (users pay a flat subscription fee; authors get paid per page read) it's now practical to earn a living just by writing and maybe talking your book up on your own personal social media — no need to find a publisher, no need to make it into bookstores, no need to advertise heavily, no need to make big-hit releases, etc. Just pump out a constant stream of stuff that some people like enough, and you get money.
Could there be a Kindle Unlimited for games? All games are free under subscription; devs get paid proportional to play time?
A quick Google suggests that Apple Arcade might actually be doing this, but Apple Arcade devs are apparently under NDA not to talk about the revenue model. (Maybe because Apple doesn't want the other bigcorps realizing this is working well and being a fast-follower?)
Every time, if someone in gaming has the opportunity to take a gig in entertainment, they will choose the entertainment gig.
The industries are very similar, but due to how they evolved they are each a mirror image of the other had each taken a different path to labor organizing. Hollywood was (and in many ways still is) THE most exploitative industry when it came to profit sharing, dangerous+stressful+long working conditions, etc. But at least the unions guarantee certain things like breaks and time off, healthy pay floors (e.g. an entry level writer on a tv show will make $120k that year if they work 8 months, $70k if they work 6 months, etc), health insurance between gigs, a pension, etc, even to their minimum wage workers. Gaming workers can have this too if they realize the profitable game studios literally cannot make a profit without their labor, and organize en masse accordingly.
Except in VFX which is as young as gaming industry and suffers from the same problems.
I imagine this will be added to the list of grievances animators historically have had with the lack of union protections in recent years, and used as a negotiation chip in the next round of strikes. After all, union films and tv shows cannot use non-union actors or crews in most cases. I imagine there will be a similar rule made that union productions cannot work with non-union vfx agencies, eventually.
Doesn't that make it a fair trade? Musicians generally don't make a killing either.
Just look at how successful football players were in getting a slice of the pie. I’d still consider that a dream job.
The situation is a bit like cabs in NY city before Uber/Lyft - the medallion owners were the ones who were making the real money.
In this case they are the product, and there are a lot of customers. Plenty of people working on the things that make those players valuable, building and staffing stadiums, and filming and broadcasting events worldwide, that don't get a share. Because they aren't the product.
They wouldn't have those jobs if the players or the league did not exist. That's their share. They make a lively hood off the product's operations.
We're talking about professionals. If the Chiefs could replace Patrick Mahomes and save themselves $450,000,000 without impacting their business, they would.
It's not really a fair comparison. The NFL is a monopoly, so there is no way for athletes to vote with their feet. At various times in the past, in order to negotiate the NFLPA has had to decertify in order to sue the league.
The NFL is also not a good proxy, because the average career for an NFL player is 2-3 years, and it is a physically dangerous job.
However what we are discussing is rather the levels of money at the top of such an industry and that concept applies to both sports. Where Ronaldo can earn £25m in a year at Manchester United while still having his "dream job". Football in Europe since the Bosman ruling has allowed its players to share in the wealth of the industry; one could argue that programmers in the gaming industry are not afforded that same. It remains an interesting discussion as to exactly why that is and I think the risks that workers take are not as relevant to the amount of money available in the game and scarcity of the best employees available; which results in such inflationary salaries for the very best employees.
As other commenters pointed out, it's not like playing in the NFL. It's more like being a high school football player trying to get into the NFL. Or an actor trying to get a part in a Hollywood movie. The chances of a company becoming lucrative off games is slim.
There is some outliers, but simply most games either are not popular or even if they are they also take huge amount of labour to develop.
it also goes beyond that, working conditions for game devs are truly abysmal. low wages are just the tip of the iceberg; add it abusive managers, long working hours, etc
It's the company's job to maximize shareholder value.
It's the worker's job to maximize worker value.
It's the market's job to push profit to zero.
So the union is like a new force in the equation: they put pressure on the company to give the workers more value.
Which could actually be good for business: if treating workers results in better work product, the shareholders might not push for that (typically markets optimize for quarterly earnings). But the union can secure better conditions for the workers, which might lead to moving to a better local maxima.
I agree with your general thought that it could be good for business, but I'd take it a small step further and suggest a more comprehensive way to think about what's good for business as encompassing workers and shareholders equally. A situation that optimizes shareholder value at the expense of worker value is not really economically optimal even if that doesn't necessarily damage the business long term. If you can get much better conditions for workers with only a small drop in shareholder value, for example, that could be considered a net win.
only the shareholders can decide if this is worth a drop. And i would imagine the majority of them would not accept a small drop like that.
Otherwise, I'd already be working on the exact things I want to work on, and earn almost nothing (for maybe a long time).
I quit my boring job as a dev in the banking sector to work in agriculture, hours are longer and money is tighter but it's my dream job ! (Way to go ! Keep working your dream, money is not everything !!!)
I quit my boring job as a dev in the banking sector to work in the gaming industry, hours are longer and money is tighter but it's my dream job ! (OMG you should unionise, it's so exploitative !!!)
Of course, but that's the whole point. You want to have me? Give me good working conditions! I'm probably not alone.
I would not relate these two situations differently. Agriculture or gaming industry, working conditions need to allow comfortable living, dream job or not.
I'm not saying anything about unions in my previous comment, but my position is that whether it's a dream job for you should not change anything on your decision to unionize. Not even mentioning unions, you are entitled to require good working conditions regardless.
What's more, your employer has all the incentive to provide you with comfortable living if you could be employed elsewhere with better conditions because you could change your decision to work for them at any time (your situation could change: new child, new housing, medical expense, etc; or even your tastes).
(I'm speaking about comfortable living, not the highest pay you could have somewhere else - even if still gives you some leverage)
What's different in the two situations you expose is that someone working in agriculture has (unfortunately) likely less leverage on their pay negotiation because they would less likely be able to find a place where they would be paid more (if there's no other domain they could work in).
At those conditions they also very much might not want to have you. And apparently the total package "industry prestige + working condition + pay" is attractive enough for just the right amount of people that they need.
You can argue that it's not a fit for you, but you can't argue that the equilibrium itself that has been reached between the industry and the workers is inherently wrong or that it should magically change in favour of one of the sides.
I can't argue that things are the way they are (including the equilibrium you are talking about), but that's not I'm trying to do.
"fair" is fairly subjective.
Free market is not necessarily fair (and I don't think it is). That may be part of the reasons why workers are unionizing in the discussed article by the way.
My current work is pretty boring to other people, but I like it. Would it be right for someone in my role who hates the work to make more money?
That's a narrow definition. Perhaps a better definition is when the other party knows you don't have leverage and takes advantage of it, you're being exploited.
Paying you little, knowing you'd work for a low wage because this is your passion? Exploitation.
Horrible working conditions, wages, and abuse knowing you're an illegal immigrant with no recourse? Exploitation.
Knowing you need the job for visa purposes and asking you to come in for a 2am code review because a new CEO wants to feel like an engineer? Exploitation.
Yes. This scenario includes factors that are depriving the worker of agency, chiefly the lack of recourse due to their illegal immigrant status.
> Paying you little, knowing you'd work for a low wage because this is your passion? Exploitation.
No. If the worker is passionate about their job and is willing to tolerate low wages and long hours that's their decision. Agency is not being deprived. The worker should rethink whether working in their dream field is a good decision, and change jobs. If enough people do it, then the company will not be able to fill positions and will have to change labor practices or close shop. But, chances are, there's plenty of people willing to fill this role and the company is simply following the labor market.
> Knowing you need the job for visa purposes and asking you to come in for a 2am code review because a new CEO wants to feel like an engineer? Exploitation.
Maybe. Was this part of the job description? Some companies are upfront about expectations around crunch time or oncall responsibility. Others are not. Are there factors limiting a worker's agency? I'd say it'd be exploitative to change the work responsibilities on someone who has limited agency to change jobs. An H1B worker whose residency is tied to employment, as you suggest, I would consider exploitative.
Most video game development falls in the middle category. The whole industry has a widespread reputation for demanding crunch time - I don't think one would reasonably say they were deceived if asked to crunch near release. They also have skills that are in demand with plenty of other fields. Heck, the company I work in now acquired a video game studio to work on a 3D Geodesy UI, and everyone's salary basically doubled and they were able to work roughly 9-5.
That kind of thing (collusion by big players to keep wages low) strikes me as exploitative.
You choose your job, though. I'm not overly passionate about what I do, but do it for the stress:compensation ratio.
Same thing happens in fashion, media and entertainment.
And many of those industries unionized to prevent the systematic abuse!
If there was a headline
"Abuser abused many girlfriends in a row" you'd excuse their behavior saying there are plenty of other guys out there they could go with instead.
Where was I excusing it? I was simply laying out the market reality. If you want to say certain classes of professions "deserve" less or more money, then shouldn't we expand this discussion to all professions (teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.)? No one is really saying they deserve less, but rather that this is the market reality.
If gaming devs want to unionize then that's their prerogative.
If there are 200,000 devs who want to work in game dev and 4,000 roles then wages will be depressed by over-supply. This is observable in all sorts of industries, often bordering on exploitation of people who desperately want to work in a specific area and are willing to work on low/no wages to get experience.
You'll also see companies over-paying when key skills are hard to source as the natural complement.
It’s not about correcting a cosmic wrong, it’s about people wanting more power and using a tool to get it.
https://cei.org/blog/biden-says-he-wants-to-be-the-most-pro-...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/adversarial-labor-law...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-pick-for-labor-secreta...
"Biden has already publicly declared he supports changing federal policy so that “there is no Right to Work (laws) allowed anywhere in the country.” President-in-waiting Kamala Harris, likewise, was bitterly critical of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which outlawed mandatory union membership and payment of dues and/or so-called “agency fees” for government employees."
These laws and actions don't make the world more just. On the contrary, they just add new injustices on top of the old ones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4
"Your job is fun/cool/meaningful whereas my work makes me hate myself. Therefore, I deserve more money than you" is an awfully sour worldview.
Working conditions or health and safety, are not up for debate no matter how amazing or terrible the job is.
Reread your sentence and think real hard about it because you're saying the same thing, you're just conflating the premise. Gaming devs ARE based on supply and demand. As one of the other comments points out, the demand is outsized relative to other developer positions (e.g. SaaS dev). Simple supply and demand tells us if the demand is higher, then the price goes down. There ya go.
> Therefore, I deserve more money than you
No one is saying this.
I understand the effect of passion on supply. You might think I'm making a distinction without a difference but I disagree. We shouldn't normalize the idea that well-paying work has to be unpleasant. "It's called 'work' because it's not fun" is a harmful idea.
> No one is saying this.
Read the comment I originally responded to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34245152
Should we subsidize other kinds of unsuccessful businesses too?
And how are unions subsidization?
For example the musicians have the AFM which helped force labels and radio stations to pay royalties to artists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_Music...
What are giving me to make it fair?
My feeling of internal satisfaction is genersted in my body, they are not supplying me drugs and cocaine.
Some musicians make a killing and get royalties - who in gane industry gets millions in royalties?
Samples: 0 - https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
1 - http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/business/tlc-settles-suit-...
> The group later revealed that the owner of Pebbitone made them pay $3 million to own the rights to their name.
2 - https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/tlcs-crazysexycool-...
Do you think people writing game software are not software engineers?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/08/us-agency-bl...
Is this because of supply & demand is different from other sectors? Say, people really love building games so they flock to the game industry? I'd imagine that developing games require highly specialized skills: great artistic sense, complex tool chains, deep understanding of maths and physics, and of course excellent programming and engineering skills. Case in point, my friends in the gaming industry routinely reads and implements SIGRAPH papers, or show me cool optimizations they did to all kinds of physics simulations with the NS equation, the constrained particle systems, and etc. It's hard to fathom that such talents get worse work condition that those who build CRUD apps.
Look what just happened to the railroad workers. The US government forced them back to work and gave everything to the companies.
Unions are effectively a corporation running labor. So you go from working for the company to working for your union rep. They then pimp you out and get kick backs. Wanna leave your job for another company or role? Good luck, you drop in seniority and will have your hours and pay cut. When layoffs come, the highest rank in the union decides who gets cut. His golf buddies obviously keep their jobs.
Then you end up like GE or Boeing in a zombie company. Poor management, poor senior engineers, and good, but underpaid low level engineers.
That’s not to say you can’t collaborate and organize. Ive organized my coworkers to make changes before, no union involved.
They often can't see the benefits, which are often large and numerous.
Some are bad, sure. Some unions here in the UK are bad too, but the general principle that unions work to protect workers is indisputable.
Not everyone works at Facebook or Google.
A friend of mine works as a data analyst somewhere near Washington, D.C. They still need to spend a week arguing with insurance companies for any medical emergency. Yeah, thanks, no. Keep your higher wage.
> Yeah, thanks, no. Keep your higher wage.
Thank you, I will.
This makes the makeup, laws, and conditions of a SAG contract FAR FAR FAR different then what is being talked about here
Informal organization (i.e. without the legal protections that formal unions have) only works in industries where the staff isn't fungible. A warehouse, fastfood chain or a lot of IT industry has the advantage for the employer that the staff is fungible. Fire everyone, pay a bit in fines for anti-union activities, and hire fresh staff that won't unionize because they know what happened to the last ones.
It's one thing to say that in tech people can have different performance levels. But stuff like PTO, actually meaningful sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, retirement benefits, healthcare, workplace safety, overtime work, using people for work they have not been hired, equipped or training for - there everyone is in the same boat, but tech's aversity to unions has an effect like the infamous "crabs in a bucket" mentality.
Even wages... it's not "just" performance levels that dictate these. Unions also serve for those who are not as conflict-happy or those who cannot negotiate due to external factors (e.g. visa enslavement, they have family to take care of and can't afford the potential of being out of work for a couple weeks while they set up new employment)... unions sacrifice a bit of individual wealth for common wealth for everyone.
Here in Belgium we have some industry specific unions like for rail (idk how the government in the US forces em to do anything).
But most unions are cross industry. They aren't really noticed when working in the context of a specific company too often unless mediation is needed when big lay-offs and shutdowns are happening at big companies or there's safety stuff involved or other such work condition things. They don't really dabble seniority, performance metrics and wages tied to that as far as i'm aware. Whilst they're generally not involved in keeping individuals employed at particular companies they do offer legal services if your company illegally fucks you over or for checking employment contracts or the like, push for huge once in a blue moon strikes if the government considers touching our wage indexation too much. etc.
They are also mostly politically aligned so we have left, liberal, Christian democrat, Flemish nationalist, independent, etc unions essentially competing against each other. Their membership is really cheap probably as a consequence of that.
Looking to European models would be great. But the current American union structure is written into federal statute, and there is approximately zero chance of the statute ever being amended.
Europeans on average earn half of Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_b...
Software engineers make 4x or more their European counterparts
If unions were effective I’d expect at least somewhat comparable wages… but that’s not the case.
Is it time off it optimized for? I mean that might be fine, but that also means as a union worker you can’t work more and make more. You’re stuck with what the union negotiated.
American unions definitely have their issues. That’s mostly where I’m coming from.
But even European ones, from the data (I’ve never experienced one), doesn’t seem effective.
Because wage is all you care for. How about: maternity leave, paid sick leave, child support, paid vacation days, wage protections, etc. etc.? And not just for software engineers, but for everyone?
> that also means as a union worker you can’t work more and make more. You’re stuck with what the union negotiated.
That also means that I cannot be forced to work overtime with no overtime pay.
> But even European ones, from the data (I’ve never experienced one), doesn’t seem effective.
If you only limit your data to only wages, then sure, that data will support whatever narrative you want.
yes..
>>How about: maternity leave, paid sick leave, child support, paid vacation days, wage protections, etc. etc.?
I have no children, I will never have children, and I rarely get sick, and I hate to travel so none of that matters to me. I am forced by my employer to take the vacation I do get, and my "vacation" is me sitting around my house doing chores or gaming which I do with out vacation time as well
That is the problem with Unions, they often fight for things I do not care about or need. Majoritarianism is always bad for the smallest minority... the individual
>>That also means that I cannot be forced to work overtime with no overtime pay.
Has a highly compensated employee that knows their value to the organizations I work for I have never been forced for work overtime with no pay.
The situation is not binary; it is a spectrum.
That seems to be the sweet spot to not get abused, either by management nor unions. Startups suck, Huge enterprises suck
In Europe I've worked for startups, I've worked for corporations. Everywhere I had the same situation: sick pay, vacations etc.
It's amazing that you assume that "getting abused" is the norm and you have to find yourself in some sweet spot to escape that.
Your assimilation of government abuse as not being abused does not magically change that
Ah yes. Because it's only people with children who get sick, need time off work, wage protection or pay for overtime, how could I forget.
> Has a highly compensated employee that knows their value to the organizations I work for I have never been forced for work overtime with no pay.
Me, me, me, I, me, me.
I wonder why overtime and crazy hours are then the norm across so many industries, and parts of industries (including IT).
You say that like is a bad thing. One should always look out for their own interests. I am unclear why I should not be?
>>I wonder why overtime and crazy hours are then the norm across so many industries
Well I know many documented cases where it is not "required" but the employee feels it is. As a manager I have had to prevent employees from working too much even though I have told them many times it was not required or expected they still did.
>>Because it's only people with children who get sick, need time off work, wage protection or pay for overtime
Not at all, and people that need those things should negotiate them. I have negotiated more vacation time for incoming employees that had that at an important item, I treat each person as an individual and what is good for one employee may not be good for another employee.
I prefer individualism
Whenever a HN union discussion comes up, the arguments against are always "Unions by definition do these things A, B, and C, which I don't like, and don't do D, E, and F, which I would like." Why do we believe this? Is there some law that says all unions must be the same, do the same kinds of things and have the same good and bad attributes?
If they do not, your individual wants / needs will be the first on the chopping block in favor of wants / needs that match the majority of workers
>>Companies are not just going to offer these kinds of things one-off to those few "Captains of Negotiation"
Some things they will, some things they can't change by law (i.e the law requires all employees get the same ). Unions rarely move the needle much in my experience for the non-Negotiationable things, which are largely set by things way outside the employment Negotiation. Unions will often take credit for things but in reality it is just PR for the union it was going to happen with or with out the union.
>Why do we believe this?
Most commonly because of direct experience of this happening in real unions.
I have worked in and around manufacturing plants my entire life, I have seen lots of shit from both sides
>>besides, workers shouldn't have to individually negotiate all these things. Yuck!
Why not? I dont understand this mentality where by things should just be given to people. I am continually asking for raises, promotions, etc. I advance because I ask to advance and negotiate my advancement.
Expecting things to just happen for you is a terrible idea, employers are not your parents, they are not "providing" for you, you are trading your labor for money. lets not over complicate this relationship
Because yours is a very narrow view that makes you blind to reality and externalities. You, and individual, don't exist in a vacuum.
- when you go to your favorite restaurant or a burger joint, you don't want to be served by an underpaid overworked staff who has been battling pneumonia for two weeks
- when you end up in the hospital, you don't want to be looked after by an underpaid overworked nurse
- when you go to get your car fixed, you don't want the people fixing it to be sick, tired, or worrying about things like whether they have enough money to feed their kids
- ditto for the ground crew servicing the plane you're flying on
- ... the list is endless
> As a manager I
> I have negotiated more vacation time for
> people that need those things should negotiate them.
People can't really negotiate these things because they don't come into these negotiations from a position of power. You, as a manager, and the company you represent have all the power in these negotiations.
You may view yourself as a good benevolent manager and you consider yourself lucky to have worked in companies that are good for some definition of good. This does not scale. You can't expect everyone to be lucky with their work and you can't expect everyone to have a manager who will magnanimously decide you're worthy of an extended vacation time.
You will also not going to be young and healthy forever.
> I prefer individualism
No. You prefer to be an egoist in a society, and reap the benefits that society gives you
No I want to be served by a Robot, and hope mcd;s leads the technology on automation technology to replace humans in the food service space
>>- ... the list is endless
and none of it is relevant and most of them do not work for unions or need unions to get good pay. so....
Union membership in the US have been DROPPING for decades for a reason.
>>You, as a manager, and the company you represent have all the power in these negotiations.
That is bullshit, every time this happen it has been the person we are looking to hire to bring up the things they want / need, All I have done is passed them to HR or my VP to see if the request could be accommodated or not
>>This does not scale. You can't expect everyone to be lucky with their work and you can't expect everyone to have a manager
It does scale but no I do not expect everyone to be "lucky" nor do I think you can eliminate all bad employers even under the EU level of authoritarianism you can not eliminate them all,
I am a capitalist, I believe in capitalism and over all I believe markets are a batter solution to human scale problem that government. History proves me correct and you wrong, history will continue to prove me correct and you wrong
Ah yes. Let's ignore the reality of the now and dream about this glorious robot future.
> and none of it is relevant and most of them do not work for unions or need unions to get good pay.
Just because you say this is irrelevant doesn't make it so
> every time this happen it has been the person we are looking to hire to bring up the things they want / need, All I have done is passed them to HR or my VP
Me: You, as a manager, and the company you represent have all the power in these negotiations.
You: This is bullshit... I pass this on to managers and the company who have all the power to say yes or no to these requests
Moreover, if a person is already working, and for some reason needs an extended vacation, or an extended sick leave etc. they literally have no power over you and your VP, and your company. It's entirely in your power to deny them that request, or have strings attached to the granting of the request etc.
> It does scale but no I do not expect everyone to be "lucky"
Me: Luck doesn't scale
You: It does scale but I don't expect everyone to be lucky
> nor do I think you can eliminate all bad employers even under the EU level of authoritarianism you can not eliminate them all
The US: employers have almost no responsibility towards their workers. There is no end to cases where employees have no to little protections at all
The EU: even with the worst employer you get your sick pay, your vacation, your overtime pay, ...
You: EU is authoritarian, I'd rather wait for robots
This is why I'm saying that your "me, me, I, me, me, me" makes you completely blind to the world. Not to say anything about how little you know about the world outside the U.S. and your lucky little job.
You have rarely gotten sick thus far in your life.
This is because of the prevalence of socialism, which came about because labor broadly won in Europe. I think Europe's example makes the benefits of unions clear.
- Life expectancy
- Inflation rate
- Number of paid vacation days
- Class disparity
- Poverty rate
- Quality and affordability of housing
- Hours of work required to purchase necessities
- GDP
- Affordable access to quality healthcare
- Quality and availability of education
- Incidence of disease
- Infrastructure
- National economic growth
- Economic and political stability
- Political and religious freedom
- Environmental quality
- Climate
- Safety
Generally other than the GDP/economic growth points, the EU beats the US.
[0]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/08/st...
I don't know that it supports your claim that the HDI delta can be "entirely" (or I would even say sufficiently) explained by slavery/immigration:
- There are quite a few Asian immigrants from developing countries (in 2018 the shares were: 13% from Europe/NA, 28% Asia, 25% Latin America, 25% Mexico [0]) and their scores are literally off the charts.
- A lot of states with small Black/Latino population portions have pretty low AHDIs [1]; the bottom 3rd includes Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio. On the other hand, DC, North Carolina, and Maryland have very high Black population portions (44%, 32%, and 22% respectively) and they're ranked 5th, 19th, and 20th.
- A more parsimonious explanation of the AHDI rankings is that states with better social safety nets and more labor protections do better than those without. For example, of the 11 states that decline the ACA's Medicaid grant [2], only 2 are in the top half of AHDIs, and the remaining 9 average to rank 39.
- Europe continues to see a huge influx of refugee immigration [3]. If immigration were a part of this story you'd expect this to lower its HDI, but it doesn't. Again it seems pretty clear here that the difference is socialism.
- Just as a matter of course, the AHDI breakdowns don't disambiguate recent immigrants from subsequent generations. There's no doubt the US has a lot of immigration from Central and South America, but they aren't all new, so you can't really make the claim that recent immigration accounts for the lower AHDI amongst them.
- Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) [4] would better address your criticisms because it measures the average person, thereby taking into account recent and historical disadvantages, and here we can see that aside from Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy (somewhat notorious as a grouping) Europe broadly outdoes the US.
[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_America...
[2]: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-acti...
[3]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/number-of-refu...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequalit...
because American law only allows for American Style Labor Unions, and changing American Law would be politically impossible as the American Style Labor Unions have outsized power in politics
So looking at "other models" is pointless
Sweden enacted in 1938 (Saltsjöbadsavtalet) a treaty where unions, employers and the government came to an agreement that agreements between unions and employers should be done without government interference. Instead of conflict try instead to find common ground where both parties benefits.
It is of course far from perfect, but I think it is still better than the alternative.