Hacker News Reader

Comment by doublepg23 | Hacker News Reader

It’s interesting seeing unionization back on the table in the 2020s.

I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros and cons firsthand.

We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all). Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the restroom. To address this they instituted a “log all bathroom breaks” policy _for everyone_ which caused the employee to not show up again.

However, the company kept the policy in place for weeks until I sent a strongly worded email to the union rep (who was unaware he was overseeing our store). He made a visit the next day and the policy was promptly changed.

So while I was glad to have a Union to override such policies I do wonder if the problem employee would have been around for so long without it.

View on HN

Usually union employees can be fired if there is "just cause". Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in. Did no one even try to fire him or was he related to someone in a management position?

Being in a union doesn't mean you're "untouchable", it just means you can't be fired without hard proof that the worker is not doing what they are hired to do.

This may be the intent of the rules/contract. But real world stories and experience show that unions tend to make bad employees untouchable, to the detriment of their fellow union members. And I say this as someone who generally supports unionization (but not necessarily the union management beast)

Having worked in non-Union and Union retail for that long I’m still on the fence. I’d probably lean Union but at the same time it really isn’t propaganda that there are downsides.

> Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in

Not with some of the one I have had to deal with. There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management.

In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision.

There are some unions that are taking a different approach and that are focusing one or or two issues that are important to them. They will be vocal about those, but be a bit less concerned by the rest unless there is some obvious abuse.

The thing is that it’s really hard to tell which way it’s going to fall.

And it’s also not obvious to tell which approach gives the best results.

> There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management.

As they should. This is the entire point of a union, to act as your collaborative defensive line against your employer. You argument is essentially the same as “well, if we had universal healthcare, homeless/minimum wage people would use it too!”

OP makes it sound like this person was egregiously not doing his job. I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine. This is anti-Union FUD.

> In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision

Yes, exactly. As they should. It’s the exact same logic as employers fighting every Unemployment claim, every workman’s comp claim, etc. If you don’t, you’ve moved the goalposts to a lesser defendable point.

> I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine.

But there are unions agreement that say: if you are fired for any reason, come and see us. Usually the question « how is this justified ? » is not really used as a way of asking « should we help you or not ? », but rather as « which page go the handbook should we leverage to justify that this is definitely an abuse from management ».

The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees.

> The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees.

It would be useful to include the rest of the context of my message instead of snipping out a single line to counter. As I said, of course they do; as they should. Just like it’s in the best interest of the company to assume all employees are scamming, scummy liars; it’s in the best interest of the Union to assume the employer is a money-hungry uncaring entity focused on maximizing its profit. Why should one side shoot themselves in the foot while the other maximizes their advantage? That doesn’t change the fact that if the employee actually wasn’t coming into work, was abusing privileges or was somehow abusive they are going to be fired; so what’s the problem?

Is this antagonistic? Sure. But we’re well past companies giving respect to employees and employees owing loyalty to employers. And, here’s the important bit: it wasn’t the employees that started nor perpetuated it.

I know in many union shops, there's a mutually-agreed process for termination. It's usually part of the Collective Agreement.

This process needs to be followed for termination.

Problem is, some middle-management type decides they want to fire a person (for cause), and doesn't follow the process. And even if they are correct in the substance of their action (ie: bad employee), they get stopped because they don't follow the agreed procedure.

So you have an incompetent manager trying to fire an incompetent employee, and this turns into the FUD of "unions protect bad employees!" When the reality is that the management is incompetent, and probably didn't even read the Collective Agreement.

Sounds like things are working as they should then? The agreement is in place to prevent people being fired without cause and in the improper way, so if management is trying to fire someone with cause but in the improper way, they get stopped.

Yes, when I say “didn’t show up” I meant he called in “sick” every week to the point my manger would need to schedule on the assumption he would call off.

Once he did completely stop showing up he was still on the schedule for months due to union contract stipulations as he was full-time.

The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager.

> he would spend 30min+ in the restroom

> The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager.

Did he have health issues? I have never seen a healthy adult hide in the Bathroom. Is this something that happens? Has an effort been made to figure out whats wrong with them?

I have also had a junior colleague and a family member go through stomach related issues where they required over 100 days of sick leave and 4 surgeries. If they were working for amazon warehouse, they'd be disposed of quickly.

I definately dont want to work for a company that timea how long I spend taking a shit.

For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering.

They are much more damaging and management never seems to catch on!

> For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering.

Is there a reason to assume the same ratio exists across all businesses?

There is a good reason to believe it's non-zero across all business, but only the first problem is ever talked about.

I suspect that rank and file employees are better at identifying the second problem than managers are. What it second problem is less common in places where unions are present? Maybe it's a tradeoff, you gain A but you loose B.

I am just saying this is never examined

I find this interesting, because in Europe unions protect everyone (or should in principle), there is no law difference between if someone belongs to a union or not, and if the company decided to be part of union agreements with the government, that means everyone gets to be part of the agreement, regardless of having a union membership card or not.

The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad company taking advantage of its workers.

If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.

Some unions can neglect certain locals, especially if the local is small and distinct from the union's 'main area'.

For example, if a group of retail employees forms a new local for a large office worker union, the large union may not put much effort or many resources into achieving a 'good agreement' for the retail employees (because it's not worth the prospective increase in dues). Then, the 'good employees' will leave out of frustration, and only 'bad apples' remain, until the retailer shutters the store for under-performance.

> The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company.

The worst case scenario is bad employees harming other employees or the public. People who create a horrible workplace for others, people who harm the people the company or organization is meant to serve, but can't be fired.

Having robust policies to make it clear this won't happen and is not a goal would go a long way towards countering anti-union sentiment.

> I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.

A union can get a monopoly over a certain employer, such that all hires are required to join the union or they don't get the job. Union dues can be half the annual salary with no benefit to the union member unless they remain a member for 10-20 years. Though this practice is technically illegal, it goes on without any Labor Department intervention. Why would you want to give up half your salary for no benefit until you've been working for years?

> Union dues can be half the annual salary

Come on, is that really the honest truth? What occupation or union has union dues at 50% of salary?

In the US, UAW's dues max out around ~1.5% of salary (or an hourly approximate equivalent), the teachers union maxes out at 1.6% of salary (highest possible dues cap out at $55/month max), the nursing union dues cap out at $65/month, our local teamsters are approximately ~1.45% of salary ($50/month for someone at a $20/hr job), and so on.

The "expensive Union Dues" mess is almost always FUD or outright lies. Union dues are usually pretty modest.

Anecdote time. I interviewed for a position that I wanted in the beltway area that paid $70K/yr in the mid-1990s. I had a lot of experience, loved what I did, and personally didn't meet any peers that were as accurate and as fast as I was. The only reason they interviewed me was because they wanted to hire me, and that was the only reason I travelled 400 miles to the interview other than to look for a place to live. Interview went well, and I thought I was taking the job, and when wrapping up, "oh, and by the way, we're a union shop. You'll be required to join the union, and the union dues are $45K/year." I immediately said, "you can't require me to join a union. That's illegal. Nor can you discriminate against me in hiring if I opt not to join." It went in one ear and out the other. I went home with a bad taste in my mouth, reported the employer and my interview experience to the US Labor Dept., but I have no idea if there were any consequences for them, and I seriously expect not.

> (the interviewer told me) "the union dues are $45K/year."

Ok, I understand that this is presumably an experience you had in your life once, but like, could you simply not hold a bad opinion against all labour rights forever, just because one person told you an (pretty obvious) blatant lie one time?

Are your experiences with a union so different? There are a lot of places that will not hire you unless you are a union member. It has become common, and it is very much like a cartel operates. There was a time when unions brought relief to the worker from employer abuse, and increased wages and improved safety standards. But that time is long, long gone, and the focus has turned entirely to money and time off. The only reason for a union to exist today is solely for it to exist. While you get your head around that syllogism, consider that while labor unions are designated non-profit, it says nothing about what its officers can earn.[1] Generally the practice seems to be to financially take advantage of the larger pool of recent members for the benefit of the smaller pool of long-term members while fleecing large employers of profit and growth incentive.

[1] https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-union-presidents-paid-c...

1) If you are an above average employee, your upside is limited.

2) If you are an employee, you'll pay higher prices in other places.

Unions are cancer. If I wanted socialism, I'd have stayed in my shithole country

Unions can also take advantage of employees, and set them against each other.

In my friends union shop, the union prohibits working from home because >50% of union members have to do hands on work and are jealous of the computer workers. The majority had the votes so the union fought against WFH, and management caved.

If problem employees are the cost of employers being reined in and not abusing employees with no recourse, so be it. All systems have some sort of drag on them, the question is not elimination of that drag, but how much you’re comfortable living with.

This employee and another… lackadaisical employee were both full time. Full time guaranteed more hours, sick pay, accrued paid vacation time, actual healthcare, etc.

Pretty cozy benefits for retail work which is thanks to the union.

At the same time multiple part time workers, such as myself, would pick up slack or work OT due to these unmotivated workers. It definitely lead to a weird culture.

I would strongly agree there is room for improvement with regards to the disparity you mentioned (accountability, benefits, workload equity), but also that without a union, you get the current socioeconomic situation: a total lack of labor power where you are at the mercy of a corporation’s whims, which is no way to go through life. Work should not be constant grueling or suffering. Maybe it should be more cozy.

High level, there’s room to improve where workers have a decent work experience and investors still see some benefit (even if it’s less than they would like to maximize for). These are not binary decisions.

> At the same time multiple part time workers, such as myself, would pick up slack or work OT due to these unmotivated workers. It definitely lead to a weird culture.

Isn't this part of the problem? It's managements problem to deal with, not yours, and you shouldn't need to 'pick up the slack.' Sure there are times when it makes more sense to just do it, but if it was consistent, and everyone else was picking up the slack, the union wasn't the only problem; Everyone that was constantly enabling this behaviour was at least partially responsible too. Once in a while is fine, but eventually you need to go to management and put your foot down.

And isn't it interesting that if you did put your foot down, it's your union that would also be protecting you against retaliation from management?

Organized labor is a mindset - management is the enemy, you are at war, their goals are not your goals. Why do you as a worker care about a problem employee? Are you feeling pressured to pick up the slack he leaves? Don't let management abuse you that way. Leave it undone. Are you personally invested in the smooth functioning of the store? Don't be. That's management's problem.

I think as engineers we like optimizing things. It feels almost intrinsically desirable for systems we encounter to be running well. And that gives us a level of sympathy for management's needs and goals that most unionized workers would interpret as betrayal.

I think the perfect balance is having the companies in deathly fear of unionisation without actually being bound by a union.

But unfortunately in 2023 we're now in a state where company leads don't respect their workers anymore and think they can get off with any kind of abuse, disrespect and exploitation. Time to remind them about the past I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com