Hacker News Reader

Comment by dingaling | Hacker News Reader

> You pay for car insurance in case someone plows into your automobile - why wouldn't you do the same for your career?

Few people willingly pay car insurance; fewer still have any confidence that their insurance will pay-out. But we pay the premiums because it is a legal requirement, even though it might be more effective for some people to put that money into a bond instead.

It's a similar situation for unions; few people expect that a union really protect them from a determined private-sector employer, so they assess the cost-benefit of such "insurance" to be negative. Particularly when the premium, much as in your example, costs a lot in terms of minimum wage.

View on HN

> Few people willingly pay car insurance; fewer still have any confidence that their insurance will pay-out. But we pay the premiums because it is a legal requirement, even though it might be more effective for some people to put that money into a bond instead.

What country are you from? In the US most people who can afford it have more than the legally-required car insurance and insurance companies are expected to pay out in the event of an accident.

A bond isn't insurance because, on average, it won't cover your expenses (if you earn enough on it to pay for a catastrophe, that means you didn't need it). The whole point of insurance (and unions) is to share risk over a large number of people, only some (random) fraction of whom will ever "need" the insurance.

FWIW, if any Australians are reading this : Union fees are tax deductible. And your employer doesn't need to know your part of the union until absolutely necessary. Seriously, I know there is a lot of bad press about unions because of a few arseholes, but they are necessary and you may find you need them the longer Abbott is in power.

Just to add, union dues and initiation fees are also tax deductible in the U.S.; however, you can only deduct the amount above and beyond 2% of your AGI.

Is it really that different in other parts of the world? Over here a minimum car insurance is mandatory but pretty much everyone pays for increased coverage. You don't want to be on the receiving end of the bills after a chain reaction of traffic accidents.

Regarding unions, it's first and foremost not a question of protection from a determined employer, but protection from specific parts of the company doing illegal and/or wrong things.

As soon as your company has more than 10 employees, it gets a whole lot more complex than "employer" and "employee".

Huh? I certainly expect my car insurance to pay out. I expect them to pay the minimum they can, which for collision insurance means "not quite enough to actually replace my car", but I expect them to fully cover any liability I might have, up to the limits of the coverage I bought.

Actual experience has borne out these expectations.

But to pay that amount for prospect membership you on 50% more than median salary for the UK.

I remember one jokey comment that low pay in prospect terms means some one who isn't paying any higher rate tax :-)

> Few people willingly pay car insurance

By that rationale, no-one would by the more expensive fully-comprehensive insurance (where your own car is insured, not just third parties) but they do.

Many people only buy the comprehensive insurance because their loan contract and/or lease terms require it.

And that makes sense, you can just return the car and get a new one. And lease contracts fees reflect this. If you have a fixed term lease, then returning a car ahead of time costs you, so you opt to repair it, and probably the leasing company wants it repaired at a brand licensed garage, so higher prices on that means you're likely to get a proper insurance, but you get the lease for cheaper.

In the UK, fully-comprehensive insurance can often be cheaper than third-party only cover.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com