Hacker News Reader

> If you can get replaced by someone cheaper, then you weren't worth what you were getting.

Spoken as someone with specialist skills that are in sufficient demand and business critical enough.

> I will never hire union labor ever. I would close down a business before I submitted to the extortion of unions.

So in other words, clearly people need contracts - and some will need unions -, since you're making it very clear you have preconceived notions about employee behaviour based on external factors that have nothing to do with their job performance, and you're not the only one.

Unions were formed because people realized their negotiating positions were excessively weak compared to the employer-side who held all the cards. E.g. getting to the 8 hour working day, for example, took American unions many decades of struggle to achieve (and the rest of the world commemorated that struggle by making May 1st the international day for workers demonstrations in direct response to the Haymarket massacre)

> Contracts protect the employees that strive to do the minimal possible under the terms of the contract.

Contracts also protects great employees of employers that strive to do the minimal possible under the terms of the contract.

Somehow you seem to expect that employees should trust you implicitly.

> If you don't like a company, you're free to quit, but in closed-shop states, if you don't like the union, too bad, you have to be a member (or pay the dues) if you want to be employed in that field in your state.

So why are you making your arguments about unions in general when you then go on to describe features of unions in some locations that are by no means universal?

There's no doubt that there are unions that have managed to push things too far, but your argumentation is like saying all companies are bad because some companies have been abusive.

Unions were formed because people realized their negotiating positions were excessively weak compared to the employer-side who held all the cards. E.g. getting to the 8 hour working day, for example, took American unions many decades of struggle to achieve (and the rest of the world commemorated that struggle by making May 1st the international day for workers demonstrations in direct response to the Haymarket massacre)

Unions (and companies, countries, etc.) can't ride the wave of their past successes forever. Saying that unions were a good thing 100 years ago is not an argument that they still are.

Let's stipulate to the first sentence of your comment (and ignore everything that comes after it). If you're adding value to an organization, you shouldn't need a contract.

Wonderful! There you are, being a positive influence on your organization, knowing that you shouldn't need a contract. But! Suppose some manager doesn't recognize that you're being a positive influence? Or just wants to throw his weight around? Certainly, a person in a position of power who wants to throw his weight around shouldn't target someone who's a benefit to his organization. But perhaps he's perverse, or doesn't care, or views you as a threat, or (again) has made a mistake in his estimation of who's "adding value" and who isn't. You shouldn't need a contract in part because your superiors shouldn't do that kind of thing. But hey! They might do it anyway! The wonderful thing about being contract-free, or in an at-will employment state (i.e. almost any state) is that there's no such thing as wrongful termination and you have no recourse if you're fired---"but I was adding value!", in particular, is not going to be effective. In this sublunary world, you'd have to be delusional to maintain that if you're adding value, you don't need a contract.

Actually, I can't resist; let's look at the rest of the first paragraph in this light. How do you know that union employees in, say, Flint, were uninterested in "adding value" to the manufacturers who shut down the factories? People working manufacturing jobs---a skilled trade, you know---take pride in their work and I'm willing to assert, just as blithely as you were willing to assert the opposite, that they'd be plenty willing to try to improve the product, improve processes, etc., if they were but asked (and lots of improvements can, indeed, come from the rank-and-file in that way). It's true, of course, that when residents of Michigan are asked to add value to the company by accepting wages no greater than those commanded in Mexico, they are likely to balk.

> Suppose some manager doesn't recognize that you're being a positive influence?

Then one of you is wrong.

Yes, bad managers make bad decisions. A contract doesn't protect you from bad managers - it merely makes it easier to stay around to be subject to their badness. Why do you think that's worth something?

Contracts actually make bad managers look better that they would otherwise. Yes, bad managers survive longer when unions are involved. Why do you want that?

Life's too short to work for a bad manager. Of course, if all managers are bad (for you), maybe they're not the problem.

> People working manufacturing jobs---a skilled trade, you know---take pride in their work and I'm willing to assert, just as blithely as you were willing to assert the opposite, that they'd be plenty willing to try to improve the product, improve processes, etc., if they were but asked (and lots of improvements can, indeed, come from the rank-and-file in that way).

We can test that hypothesis by looking at what they demanded through their union representatives. Care to predict the result of said "look"?

I'll save you the trouble - they didn't demand anything to improve product quality or increase productivity.

On a related note, the head of one of the US teachers unions said that he'd start caring about kids when they started paying dues.

I don't want to mar the conversation with a pro or anti union debate. Let's take it out.

You have to turn those "what ifs" into "so whats" because there is always the chance that a manager is going to fire you unjustly. If the organization is setup properly, the loss of your employment would adversely affect your department's profit numbers. Since the manager is responsible for those numbers, one can assume there will be repercussions for a decrease.

This all assumes that the organization is a well-oiled machine, but since a vast majority aren't, you have to assume that you will be fired for any reason. The good thing is that if you can provide value to one company, you may have a good chance at providing value to another company (especially if it can be quantified on a resume). These are known as transferrable skills, and they're what good employees retain in order to get a high-paying job.

Comparing Google to auto manufacturers that employ mostly union labor is not fair because the supply and demand curve for employees is completely different. When a potential employee goes into an interview at Google he/she knows that they are in short supply and high demand. This gives him/her leverage to negotiate salary, work conditions, etc. Google provides such a great work environment because they know this and are proactively meeting the demands of the candidates they're trying to attract.

Most employees at auto manufacturers do not have this same leverage. They can't threaten to leave for higher salaries or better working conditions because they are in large supply, small demand. Forming a union gives them this leverage so that they can negotiate at the same level as their employer.

I feel like the negativity towards unions is a result of some recently holding more power than the employers and getting unsustainable pensions and other extravagant benefits. But when the balance of power is closer then unions have been successful and often in necessary in making sure that employees are working in a safe environment, getting paid a living wage and generally not being taken advantage of.

TLDR; Labor unions are not all bad/good. They simply give employees the same leverage as their employers in industries where the supply for workers outnumbers the demand. It's not good for that balance to get out of hand in either direction.

Doesn't the supply and demand curve set the market equilibrium for the wage/contract,etc? Don't like the job...go find another one.

Wages are just part of the supply / demand curve. At the high end it's worth a lot of managment overhead to keep people happy, at the low end there is little incentive to do so.

American manufacturing didn't leave. The US manufacturing output has doubled since '75, and it's bigger than Germany, France, Brazil and India combined.