Good resource, but it's also a bit sad such a list is needed. The idea of banding 4together to collectively bargain against a soulless corporation shouldn't be such a controversial take. But I guess the sentiment of "“I can hire one-half the working class to kill the other half.” ended up being more true than the quoter ever intended it to be.
Actor’s guild evolved into gatekeeping and rent-seeking… We really don’t want that in tech… Unions don’t stop layoffs… would hold high performers back.
Very much not the ownership class here - I'm solidly in the worker class.
Unions prevent you from negotiating your own terms, keep talented people from raising to new levels, and prevent the removal of people who should have been fired long ago.
"Negotiating on your own terms" is definitely a wild thing to see as a positive. You may believe you have some special bargaining power as an individual but as proven by history and some basic power analysis your ability to better your position in life is absolutely more effective through a union. "Negotiating on your own terms" is fine if all the bosses find your personality pleasant and your sociocultural background comfortable. What happens is that talented people don't get their just rewards from hard work, educational background and talent because the bosses believe they can get away with it and know that the employee doesn't have much to bargain with on their own.
And the people "who should've been fired long ago" are also people who have lives and families and other obligations that make protections against arbitrarily firing someone a social good. Because unions force employers to fire people on the basis of quality of work and conduct (or economic concerns) rather than arbitrary personal preference and bias, your hard work is more likely to be noticed.
I live in one of the most heavily unionized places on earth in Scandinavia and have worked on both sides, as manager and as an employee, and if someone causes a legitimate problem, you can 100% fire them. You just have to do your due diligence and prove your case about the worker in question. The only thing is, if they have worked for a long time and you need to do a round of layoffs, the people who have worked the longest will not be the first to be fired. This helps protect against companies using layoffs to fire expensive employees and replacing them with cheaper newer hires.
In short, "individual negotiation" is basically saying the boss gets to decide.
Are you sure you've thought about this more than GP and are you absolutely certain you're smarter than everyone involved in this supreme court decision? If not, I would think of adding some nuance to my ideas if I were you.
Unions don't inherently prevent you from negotiating your own terms, keep talented people from raising to new levels, or prevent the removal of people who should have been fired long ago. There are some unions that have these problems, yes, but then there are others that don't. The big Hollywood unions (SAG, DGA, WGA, etc.) are examples of the latter.
Good resource, but it's also a bit sad such a list is needed. The idea of banding 4together to collectively bargain against a soulless corporation shouldn't be such a controversial take. But I guess the sentiment of "“I can hire one-half the working class to kill the other half.” ended up being more true than the quoter ever intended it to be.
It appears this post has been shadow removed from the front page - I assume somebody considered this "off topic"
can it be reported as on-topic to bring it back?
If unions didn't work, Amazon wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars union busting. https://www.epi.org/publication/corporate-union-busting/
Unions empower the middle class.
That's why the ownership class fights so hard against them.
This has been the response whenever I try and promote unions on HN:
Unions are frequently corrupt… arbitrary rules… no reason for a union; software development is not commodity labor.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46006351
Actor’s guild evolved into gatekeeping and rent-seeking… We really don’t want that in tech… Unions don’t stop layoffs… would hold high performers back.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34871573
A union is effectively a monopoly on labor supply… with all the same ramifications that a corporate monopoly has
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38070098
Not even convinced unions are a net good… (example: protesting automation)… unions obstructing progress.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42992992
Mixed bag… often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption… difficult to fire non-performers… stewards padding pockets…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29906713
[dead]
Very much not the ownership class here - I'm solidly in the worker class.
Unions prevent you from negotiating your own terms, keep talented people from raising to new levels, and prevent the removal of people who should have been fired long ago.
"Negotiating on your own terms" is definitely a wild thing to see as a positive. You may believe you have some special bargaining power as an individual but as proven by history and some basic power analysis your ability to better your position in life is absolutely more effective through a union. "Negotiating on your own terms" is fine if all the bosses find your personality pleasant and your sociocultural background comfortable. What happens is that talented people don't get their just rewards from hard work, educational background and talent because the bosses believe they can get away with it and know that the employee doesn't have much to bargain with on their own.
And the people "who should've been fired long ago" are also people who have lives and families and other obligations that make protections against arbitrarily firing someone a social good. Because unions force employers to fire people on the basis of quality of work and conduct (or economic concerns) rather than arbitrary personal preference and bias, your hard work is more likely to be noticed.
I live in one of the most heavily unionized places on earth in Scandinavia and have worked on both sides, as manager and as an employee, and if someone causes a legitimate problem, you can 100% fire them. You just have to do your due diligence and prove your case about the worker in question. The only thing is, if they have worked for a long time and you need to do a round of layoffs, the people who have worked the longest will not be the first to be fired. This helps protect against companies using layoffs to fire expensive employees and replacing them with cheaper newer hires.
In short, "individual negotiation" is basically saying the boss gets to decide.
This is what the GP is talking about. The supreme court of the united states ruled in favor of GP's position.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Are you sure you've thought about this more than GP and are you absolutely certain you're smarter than everyone involved in this supreme court decision? If not, I would think of adding some nuance to my ideas if I were you.
Unions don't inherently prevent you from negotiating your own terms, keep talented people from raising to new levels, or prevent the removal of people who should have been fired long ago. There are some unions that have these problems, yes, but then there are others that don't. The big Hollywood unions (SAG, DGA, WGA, etc.) are examples of the latter.