This is great news, unions not only improve working conditions, but also improve the final product by not having underpaid stressed staff with high turn-over.
It's a good sign for the future product quality of any company to see workers unionise.
But I’ve been annoyed at the significant shift in tone that software company executives’ have used when communicating with employees lately. For one, we went from being admittedly pampered compared to most other industries to getting threats of mass layoffs unless we do more and demand less.
I wouldn’t mind the idea of using the possibility of unions to have executives back off, but if people are going to pop off at mere suggestion of unions I don’t think we’d get very far.
We'll see. It's not like police unions are making life better for citizens.
Unions are there for one reason, the union members. This will most likely be good for the employees and good on them for acting in their best interest but it seems just as likely that a unionized rockstar is negative for the consumer in either increased pricea, extended timelines or minimum effort to meet exact requirements from employees.
The benefits that workers gain from unionizing come from somewhere.
Consumers usually are workers themselves so they also benefit from raising the bar of working conditions. Even if they don't like paying more, they are still receiving the benefit of living in a better society.
I'd argue GTA 6 is an inelastic good and people will play it no matter what, so I do think what you're saying applies here.
https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-o...
Notably, American police (the country that invented police unions) are a modern invention that largely exist as a output of slave catching and bounty hunting services.
I'd really like to know what kind of tangled logic it requires to believe that.
Regardless, police unions aren't the only example of unions who have worked against the benefit of everyone else but themselves. I only used them as an example because I didn't think anyone here would argue disagree that it's had negative outcomes.
What I didn't expect was to find someone arguing that a union wasn't a union. It doesn't matter if it's legal in other places, it's legal in the US. Just because Japan has made police _unions_ illegal doesn't make an US police _union_ not a union.
Police unions act just like every other union does: in the interests of their members.
Unions are illegal in lots of the world. Federal public sector unions weren't legal in the US until the 1960s. Did the fact that they were illegal in 1965 have any bearing on whether or not they should be allowed? Does the fact that something is illegal in the US have any bearing on whether or not Japan should allow it?
Slave patrols were a form of early organized policing, but only one of many and hardly the first. And certainly this isn’t to say that racial tensions didn’t drive various forms of law enforcement. But this idea that police in general and American Police in particular are some direct descendant of salve patrols or wouldn’t exist without the institution of slavery ignores so much of human history and the long history of organized forms of law enforcement that predates the American colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/police/Due-process-and-indi...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in...
This is a dog whistle if I’ve ever seen one. I’m not going to let that slide and your citations are not supportive of the strength of your claim
Are you suggesting that “urban hubs” and “immigration tension” are code words for “black people” and “slavery”? Because I regret to inform you that when New York City established the first US police department in 1845 (per britanica) the “immigration tension” at the time would have been the influx of Irish immigrants. And while Cincinnati had indeed had a white on black race riot in 1841, when it established its own police department in 1852 the anti-catholic / anti-German immigrant riots in 1853 and 1855 were the more contemporary “immigration tensions” I was referring to. Boston too when it founded its police department in 1854 was in the middle of a surge of Irish immigrants. Certainly these northern state city centers weren’t simply giving uniforms and badges to “slave patrols” when they founded their police forces, regardless of what other racial tensions may or may not have played a hand in the demands for a police force.
All of which is to say if you recall your American history, we have a long and storied tradition of hating on our immigrant populations and having conflicts with them. Yes white vs black was a problem at the time. And so was “white vs Irish” and “white vs German”. Our history is littered with racial tensions across just about every set of ethnic lines you could care to draw.
Edit:
I note now that my britanica link in my first post was the wrong one, this would be the more appropriate for the topic at hand: https://www.britannica.com/topic/police/Early-police-in-the-...
For all this consumer cares, great. Make it 20% more expensive. Make it 50% more expensive. A hundred. If that helps the greater union cause I can take more walks in the woods to pass the time instead.
And if a product requires human suffering to be so cheap, then maybe it shouldn't be so cheap.
I don’t buy the premise of workers ruining the lives of consumers; I think the real problem is them ruining the relative profits of shareholders.[1] But F me, I’m not gonna buy this privilege checking over a crime sandbox video game.
[1] This user in another subthread[2] is complaining that people are antagonistic against management. Of course, whatever is most expedient for anti-unionism, everything from woe-is-poor-person to you-need-management-you-peons.
You want to surround yourself with peers who negotiate for as high pay as the market will bear? That sounds like a sacrifice of shareholder value for selfish cause. Just because workers have leverage doesn't mean they should use it against shareholders.
which is precisely why many union advocates argue that police should not have unions. the police exist as the physical arm of the capital class in direct opposition to the labor class. they are class traitors. police unions are not the same.
The police aren't allowed to join a union
Edit: and a note to say that comparing all unions to police unions isn’t a good faith/useful comparison. It’s true that the quality of unions vary, but overall they do far more good than bad.
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.
A union's job is to protect the union. Nothing else.
https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/union-effect-in-california-...
https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-ri...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-13/unions...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/19/20727283/u...
Do you think Box has ever written about how Detroit unions fought EVs and AVs and automation that could result in cheaper cars?
Why do you think that is?
I think this is way different claim than "unions work for the society". Surely, there are a lot of organizations that work very well for their members. Not all of them are beneficial for the society though (criminal gangs aren't, for example). In your third link, there is a power struggle between two sets of people - movie studios and writers. One of them has achieved transferring some money from the other, using the power of unions. But how is it good for the rest of the public? Unclear.
The case in Vox starts with "I liked the union" (the same claim as above) and doesn't get more convincing as it goes. The best the author can do is "When you stack up all the research and look at the broader picture, though, the net effect of unions — bad examples included — is good for the typical worker.". But that, again, is not the question we started with - I am not arguing that the union can be good for those who get more money from the deal. I want to see proof it's also good for those who don't. And the best is something like "reduces income inequality" - which frankly is a very weak evidence, since obviously absolute inequality is bad, and absolute equality is bad, but there are a lot of gray in the middle, and how do we know whether a particular union makes us closer to the good side than to the bad side?
Are unions universally good? No, because humans are in the loop, and humans can do bad things.
Does that change the fact that the concept of a union is one of the greatest innovations in all of human history? No.
Can unions today help disparate human workers collectively improve their working conditions? Yes, because this is what unions were designed for, and I think is the key outcome the Rockstar folks are betting on.
For a recent example, read up on the Samsung union bargaining for company wide bonuses in the wake of the huge profits made off the surge in demand for memory.
Why are those people getting a huge check? Not because they worked harder. Because AI came along and made their product more valuable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/27/world/asia/samsung-ai-pro...
> But a smaller union associated with workers in the consumer electronics division — which boycotted the negotiations and whose 15,000 members were excluded from the vote — accused the lead union of neglecting their interests, and decried the deal as “discriminatory.” Under the agreement, workers in the consumer electronics division are expected to get payouts that are a fraction of those of their semiconductor division peers.
Why is it an unfair amount, though? Who gets to decide what compensation is fair and what isn't?
At least with the Samsung union, the decision is being made bottom up vs. top down.
After the first comment this really reads like "only Sith deal in absolutes."
https://www.ae.dk/debatindlaeg/2023-05-staerke-fagforeninger...
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.
Certainly you can quantify this poor quality and show it's due to unions and not, say, lack of resources?
> Transit unions (mandating 2 drivers per subway car, crazy benefits, etc)
2 drivers per subway car sounds like (at least with old tech) a good thing for everyone's safety.
> Auto industry fighting EVs.
Sounds like this was more the companies themselves, but I don't have the details.
In my view unions are largely a good thing to balance out companies power, but I've also heard stories where they have become too strong. There's nuance to the matter, but I feel like at least the US could use much more and stronger unions.
Teachers may be underpaid on a time/effort basis compared to other jobs, but paying them more doesn’t actually improve outcomes. I am no expert—not even a parent—but my understanding is that curriculum choice and implementation are really, really important. (Can’t say how important relative to, say, family situation.)
According to one news report I read, 50% of the public school teachers in California are actively ignoring the state’s recent switch back to a phonics-based language curriculum, and the union itself is anti-phonics. Is the union just representing the will of those 50% of law-defying teachers, or are the teachers inferring their behavior from a politicized union?
- adequately paid and educated teachers
- small classroom sizes
- available support for special needs kids
If all of these are in place, are the bad outcomes explainable by poorer socioeconomic factors? And are there any forced learning policies like standardized tests that promote rote memorization?
It just seems so far fetched that a teacher's union would single handedly sabotage the whole education system. Even if they push for a certain kind of teaching, it would simply not tank the whole ship, so to speak.
(I know I'm talking slightly past your points, but I'm mostly interested in the point of how much does the union actually affect the learning outcomes, all the other factors considered)
At the expense of the mental health of everyone involved. It's a video game, not a life-saving new medicine. Not worth it.
What’s an example of a unionized vs non unionized group producing the same thing where unionized is better?
Ignore my first hand experience with your political ideology, it doesn’t bother me.
But, I’ll tell you I’ve been at on-site RVs and BBQs with dozens of on the clock workers. I know a guy making 80/hr to nap and watch TV in his RV for six of his eight hour shift, and this was not uncommon. I know him, because he is THE GUY that can get a vital operation checked out and no one else.
I’m not debating history or ideology. Just experience of a long time working adjacent to UAW.
When I go to on-site to Mexico it’s like an entirely different industry.
The UAW does nothing good.
Looking at my 2018 Mexican-built Ford Fusion I've had no major defects. Looking at our 2020 UAW-built Ford Escape was nothing but quality issue after quality issue. When the trim literally falls off the windows, you know we've screwed the pooch. There were moments I genuinely wish I could have driven it back to Kentucky to go make some slovenly fuck repair what they didn't put on the thing right the first time. Quality is no longer "job 1".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Japan_Automob...
In fact part of the SCAP mandates after World War II two during the MacArthur occupation was specifically to form powerful unions in Japan
https://uaw.org/we-keep-toyota-running-workers-at-critical-t...
Seems hard to compare since there is no comparison in Japan that is not unionized
But given that China is now winning my original point stands
As a counter anecdote I’d point to Boeing’s non-union facilities, which have produced notably less reliable airplanes than their union locations ever did.
But the conclusion is muddied by the fact that Boeing has been making planes in the Seattle area for a century, so the talent pool is larger and more qualified than those they could find in or persuade to move to Charleston. Also, the whole Charleston move was one of many drastic cost-cutting efforts, including the spinoff of Spirit Aerospace that ultimately led to the door blowout on the Alaska Air MAX 9.
Aviation unions force very high standards and represent a lot of the developments in safety and procedures.
Nuclear power is heavily unionised, resulting in a very stable and highly qualified workforce.
Unions in film and tv have done great work defending artists rights and protecting actors, writers, crew, and others from predatory behaviour by studios.
Fire fighter unions stand against unsafe demands and protect the crews in ways the individuals can’t, resulting in meaningful change. (I’m aware of UK but projecting and assuming this applies internationally)
I could go on…
If that were self evident how come there has never been a company that started with employees unionized? To get this supposed benefit
Mondragon is a extremely large well structured cooperative that did exactly this and is a hallmark of success for anarchist cooperatives worldwide
Don't disagree with the rest of the comment though.
EDIT: also, I wouldn't consider coops an anarchist victory over traditional private companies anymore than democracy over monarchy. The corporation > worker hierarchy is still there, even with the different share distribution. It's a good demonstration of an alternative and underappreciated corporate structure, tho.
Boeing joined the chat.
and it's crap compared to Romanian or Polish which are not unionised (I think)
Here's a layup: art. Remember the writer's union strike in 2007-2008? All of the shows whose writers were on strike that still went on were terrible.
Edit: also, the purpose of a union is not to "produce something better". The purpose of a union is to protect workers' rights. They generally serve their purpose very well.
might want to check your facts before posting
Your hatred of workers striving for better working conditions is disturbing. Maybe there are more important things in life than conspicuous consumption and filling one's home with cheap garbage?