Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Have you ever worked in a company with a union?

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.

View on HN

I find it weird that nobody in the US seems to look beyond their country or similar systems for different models regarding this.

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.

> I find it weird that nobody in the US seems to look beyond their country or similar systems for different models regarding this.

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.

> Looking to European models would be great.

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.

> If unions were effective I’d expect at least somewhat comparable wages… but that’s not the case.

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.

>>Because wage is all you care for.

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.

Thank goodness you only need a majority of votes to unionize.

History shows the result of that is often the highly productive staff exits for greener opportunities where they are not penalized for doing more than the minimum not to get fired, and over all the entire operation suffers leading to outsourcing or closing of facilities.

We wish them well! Are those greener pastures the vast majority of startups that fail? Or enormous agile, nimble enterprises I’ve heard so much about (he said with a hint of sarcasm)? Lying to others is one thing, but don’t lie to yourself. A vocal minority is best served by the status quo, and they’ll do fine as consultants. Unions to protect the majority (and the evidence very clearly demonstrates these workers need protection from management and capital), with opportunity for those who would rather not be protected.

The situation is not binary; it is a spectrum.

Neither, I normally work for privately held companies with between 200-1000 employees and revenues between 500million and 1 billion per year

That seems to be the sweet spot to not get abused, either by management nor unions. Startups suck, Huge enterprises suck

> 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.

To me, working anyone in the EU, under the EU laws would suck, I would be "abused" by the government instead of corporations in that case and would not no avenue of escape at all

Your assimilation of government abuse as not being abused does not magically change that

Ah yes. The bad horrible no good government abuse of vacation, sick pay, overtime pay...

Forced vacations are usually to uncover fraud and maybe key man risk. Lots of places without unions do this.

Forced vacations are also a way to ensure that the employee doesn't burn out

> I have no children, I will never have children, and I rarely get sick, and I hate to trave

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).

>>Me, me, me, I, me, me.

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

If you're not interested in vacation or sick leave, a union could also help negotiate things that you do value, like [I'm admittedly guessing here] better 401(k) matching, after-tax 401(k) contributions, an ESOP plan, a profit-sharing plan, a more aggressive bonus structure, and so on. Companies are not just going to offer these kinds of things one-off to those few "Captains of Negotiation" and besides, workers shouldn't have to individually negotiate all these things. Yuck!

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?

Unions Negotiation based on majoritarian priorities, so if your desires match the majority of your co-workers then you will be represented in the room

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

> I am unclear why I should not be?

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

>>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

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

> No I want to be served by a Robot, and hope mcd;s l

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.

> I rarely get sick

You have rarely gotten sick thus far in your life.

Incomes are generally lower, but EU residents generally have a higher standard of living than US residents according to Human Development Indexes. Life expectancy is also better, infant and maternal mortality are lower, test scores are higher, etc.

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.

The EU has a higher quality of life. The US has a higher standard of living. Quality of life and standard of living are only loosely correlated.

The EU has both a higher quality of life and standard of living. Here's Investopedia's list of stuff [0] you'd measure for standard of living (FWIW it also mentions HDI as a good measure of standard of living, which the EU generally beats the US at, especially IHDI):

- 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...

The difference in HDI between the US (0.921) and say Denmark (0.948) can be entirely explained by the fact that a large portion of the US population is a formerly enslaved minority, and an even larger portion is recent immigrants from the developing world: https://measureofamerica.org/10yearsandcounting. That has nothing to do with socialism, but historical and geographic factors unusual to the US.

Oh that was a fun read, thank you!

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...

I don't think that's necessarily related to the prevalence of unions though and where it might be related it is far from the only factor as there are many other at play there from unrelated legislations and governance styles all the way to reserve currencies. Even just the fact that Europe was/is a fractured market preventing the rice of something akin to silicon valley.

>>I find it weird that nobody in the US seems to look beyond their country or similar systems for different models regarding this.

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

In the case of rail workers, there is a separate retirement system just for rail workers. Everyone else has a retirement system called "Social Security." If you have earned a retirement benefit (well, it is an annuity) with the railway worker plan, quit to work in a job covered by social security, it is possible to lose your railway annuity. This is why many of the rail workers "don't just quit". Additionally, there are anti "double dipping" laws that reduce your railroad annuity if you get social security.

I think the problem here is that US lacks a larger framework how unions and employers should solve differences.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement

I work in a white collar union in the US and this has not been my experience at all. I don't "work for my union rep", the "highest rank in the union" wouldn't decide what happens in case of layoffs, very little is based on seniority. Sounds like you have a very warped idea of what union work is like.

It's been my experience that seniority does play a role in unions, although it does vary depending on the job. Usually it's first dibs on some benefit, like OT or time off around holidays.

This is untrue. I've worked in union shops and work and pay there are very much based on seniority

I would love to see a copy of that union contract. I have never seen a Union Contract in the US where by Pay and employment protections where not based on Seniority

Are you not familiar with the Screen Actor's Guild?

Screen Actors Guild is not a traditional employment union in that your membership to SAG is not tied to your employment with given corporation. Members agree to only work with companies that have a contract with the Guild, and most members are "hired" by companies as contractors or via "loan out" companies or other such things not as w2 employees.

This makes the makeup, laws, and conditions of a SAG contract FAR FAR FAR different then what is being talked about here

The point is it's possible to have union contracts under US law where pay and title isn't based on tenure. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they can't happen.

I have never seen a competent person elected as president either, I suppose it could happen but it is not likely under our current system of laws

I suspect most white collar union work is more like mine. Seniority factors in in the sense that we get annual raises, and the more years you're around, the more annual raises you have received. But e.g. applying for internal jobs, getting OT or time off (as other comments have mentioned) seniority plays no role. Further, there are pay ranges for each job title, so it's quite common that a new hire into a more senior title is getting paid more than an old timer that for whatever reason is still in a more junior title.

You quite literally do work for your union by definition of unions under US law.

No, I quite literally don't work for my union. They don't sign my check, hire or fire me, manage my day-to-day work, or do anything else that constitutes employment.

You're making an irrelevant comparison. Rail worker unions are unique and governed by the Railway Labor Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

Or you end up like Europe. With long maternity leave, paid sick days, overtime pay etc.

Posts about unions on HN always skew towards negativity because in the US, unions are seen as bad. (Well done corporate america for that PR coup!)

They often can't see the benefits, which are often large and numerous.

Unions in the US are bad, in large part because of laws written to force things that way. Unions in Europe work different, but we legally cannot have that type of union so there is no point in discussing how unions don't have to be bad.

That's not a fair generalisation IMO. Most notably, moves to unionise workers at large retail companies in the US such as Amazon can only be a good thing.

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.

And much lower wages, no?

What good is a high wage when you either don't have the time to use it (crazy working ours/short vacations) or still need to spend it on things like medical care?

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.

Not sure about your friend but people generally get good healthcare as professionals. And anyway, that should not be the argument either way, universal healthcare is what one should strive towards, which has nothing to do with union or non-union membership.

> Yeah, thanks, no. Keep your higher wage.

Thank you, I will.

The railroad worker is not representative of the average union. It is an extreme outlier.

> That’s not to say you can’t collaborate and organize. Ive organized my coworkers to make changes before, no union involved.

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.

Unions work best when the people need some amount of training such that you can't just hire new people, but otherwise they are inter-changeable. If you work an assembly line your pace of work is dictated by the slowest station/worker, no matter how good you are at your job you are not better than anyone else. Tech work there are ways you can be better than someone else and so unions don't work as well. (don't confuse with don't work at all, just that they don't work as well because we are not all in it together)

> just that they don't work as well because we are not all in it together

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.

None of these downsides are really much different than just being an employee, except without the union, you have lower pay and benefits.

this is close to just straight up misinformation, but I'll point out the fundamental difference that you are ignoring in your analogy. You pay your union rep (via dues). It's not that you work for your union rep, it's that they work for you, just like you work for your company.

Also, aren't unions in the U.S. democratic in the sense that the union members elect their reps? AFAIK you don't vote for company management, so that's another power differential.

"Look what just happened to the railroad workers. The US government forced them back to work and gave everything to the companies." I'm sure the US government is going to step in at some point and force Activision to make a new CoD.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com