Hacker News Reader

Comment by wahnfrieden | Hacker News Reader

You're anti union except for when conditions are bad for workers?

Are you against business owners coordinating too?

Unless you need a union, you don't want a union. They are at risk to fill up with toadies that line their own pockets and screw over the workers they're actually supposed to be fighting for (by colluding with shop management on contracts). It doesn't always happen, but it can and does in some industries (private security and boilermakers unions are known to be pretty egregious in the Midwest US). When this sort of corruption happens it's very difficult to dislodge and actually makes things worse for the workers.

There's actually a plot point in Disco Elysium about this exact problem - when you're talking to wheeling dealing Evrart Claire. Look at his character portrait closely - he was drawn to look like a grinning fat toad.

I love this comment because it is strongly hinted that Evrart Claire is the real deal and he likes to play the part of a corrupt Union boss

A thing I love about DE is how different the players interpret it. Personally I think no faction came out looking good in that game, which was probably the point.

It's absolutely the point

You can create horizontal union without salaries. This should solve the problem you are talking about.

I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding. In the case of unions, there is an adversarial party, so it is possible that gains could eventually be clawed back, but large, long-standing unions (like other organizations) do have a tendency towards bureaucratic bloat that might make someone take a position that resembles "I support the unions we don't have but not the ones we do".

> I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding.

what incentive mechanism could possibly facilitate this? because without one, it's not going to happen, whether you or anyone thinks it "should" or not.

this is an open question that seems to be rarely if ever discussed. when presented with any sort of "anti-x" organization (for example), I always wonder: why should I trust this organization as having the definitive position on whether their stated goals have ever been achieved? it seems brazenly obvious that, without any sort of incentive to the contrary, they'll just keep moving the x goalpost such that they can claim x is still an issue, worthy of there being an "anti-x" organization to fight it. this seems like quite the predicament, because obviously sometimes there are xes that need to be opposed by organized groups of people—but how can they possibly be held accountable for remaining on-mission, and, more importantly, for being an authoritative source on societal progress with regards to x?

I feel that way about a lot of organizations. Unless there's an ongoing need, they should fold up and be done. Corporations too. If this were how it worked, we'd all get products that last forever passed around as heirlooms.

Unfortunately everything living is afraid of death, and these organizations will come up with an ongoing need, real or not.

Those things don't conflict at all, or at least don't seem to - what are you getting at? Could you state your point more directly?

No thanks

the problem is the adversarial relationship between employers and employees.

what we really need to do is to change that relationship. unions can't help with that. instead a completely different model to run a business is needed, like for example worker cooperatives.

I agree, unions are more just harm reduction in a system plagued by hierarchy

Yes I'm also against cartels who coordinate their purchasing of labor.

https://www.ycombinator.com/library/F5-startup-compensation

Reply on news.ycombinator.com