Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why would any sane person be against unions?

Because they, like any other organization, tend to become corrupt and exercise their power to the benefit of the "party insiders", at the expense of the everyday member. And I, for one, don't feel any need to have my pay rate negotiated based on some group average or least common denominator. And union dues.

I personally fully support the right of people to bargain collectively, but being a member of a union is not something I'm particularly interested in.



>> Why would any sane person be against unions?

> Because they, like any other organization, tend to become corrupt and exercise their power to the benefit of the "party insiders", at the expense of the everyday member. And I, for one, don't feel any need to have my pay rate negotiated based on some group average or least common denominator. And union dues.

Going to work without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. Are there incompetent lawyers? Does it cost money to hire a lawyer? Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't a stupid idea to try to represent yourself pro se.

I'd join a union if one were available to me, then I'd work in it to make sure it was well-run and effective.


The problem with your point of view is that it applies equally to the companies that hire you, and they have very little incentive to be on your side.


Sure, but why add one more variable to the equation? Eschew additional complexity. As long as I live in a "right to work" state and there is plenty of demand for the kind of work I do, I'd rather deal with companies on a one-to-one basis. If company treats me unfairly, I quit and go somewhere else.

And while the company may not be "on your side", companies are still bound by market forces, on both sides of the equation. You can't compete (for now!) without people, and if you constantly run your best people off by mistreating them, you aren't going to be very successful in the long run.


If that was actually true, employee abuse would be essentially non existent, especially in large successful companies, and unions would have little reason to exist.

Its not true.


> Its not true.

Real life isn't that simple. These things aren't binary, "it's true" or "it's false". There is a continuum along which things vary. The extent to which companies are compelled by market forces to treat their employees well is obviously something that varies by sector / geography / profession / etc.

I'm not saying that nobody is justified in joining a union, or that unions have no reason to exist. I'm just saying that relative to my combination of the above factors, I do not find any appeal in the idea of joining a union, when you balance it against the associated negatives.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: