> I also think using the "it could be worse" excuse to avoid working for better conditions that are totally feasible isn't a great thing to do.
Unions fuck up the incentives. Tenured positions are coveted and come with privileges that make the job easier and the position more cushy. New hires want those perks and will rest once they attain them. This is the opposite of what you want in a workforce: you want the top 50% to work hard and fight for raises and promotions.
In our industry, when we don't get the promotions or raises we want, we switch jobs. Job switching has been an incredible means of advancing our careers and being exposed to new tech and new problems. Because of tenure and different jobs using different unions, unions will lead to fewer job changes and more "lifers" that stick around at a single job for a long time. That ossifies code, stops the influx of new ideas and talent, and causes super weird code / business unit ownership drama. It's also super boring.
Tech companies aren't afraid of high salaries (evidently so!) as much as they are of non-fungibility and ossification of the workforce. Unions make slow businesses even slower. Because of this, unions lead to offshoring.
Unions have ground so many industries to a halt in the US. Manufacturing, automotive. Most recently, the film industry (particularly crew) have been offshored -- in the last several years productions have moved to Eastern Europe and Asia sans any US workforce. They fly the cast (without crew) out for the shoots. It's all because of unions.
If we wish this upon ourselves -- in one of the cushiest careers in the world -- we'll soon find all of our jobs moving overseas.
I don't understand how you can make these comments but not thread the needle that the problems you are worried about is strictly the result of capital. Acting as if labor creating a union means Capital should just pack up shop and leave is an extreme power imbalance.
This imbalance not only justifies the need for collective bargaining, but that there should be more regulations wielded against Capital to stop this imbalance.
A flourishing middle class helps a country prosper, a flourishing middle class means a strong labor class where Capital has limits and regulations on what they can inflict against civilians.
The capital flees almost in its entirety to non-union countries once unions grow in power, that's why.
Go ask the IATSE (film) folks how many jobs they're getting this year. (All their jobs left to developing economies in Eastern Europe and Asia. Cast gets flown out, but the crew are hired and based overseas.)
Unions contributed to the decline of US steel, US shipbuilding, US automotive, etc.
A worker can be both fungible and highly compensated. None of us are irreplaceable, and nor should we be. A union tries to put in artificial barriers where businesses need flexibility, and businesses really don't like that.
The union had no choices when capital decides they want more money.
Look at what you're arguing here dude. You're blaming workers for trying to protect their jobs when the issue is that capital is too powerful and needs to be regulated more.
Even more odd you're mentioning shipbuilding an industry that use to have its workers centrally planned by the US government to provide educated skilled labor but was killed off in the 80s by the pro-corpo Reagan admin.
I do agree with you that we should do this more, regulate companies harsher while giving more protections to workers.
> Even more odd you're mentioning shipbuilding an industry that use to have its workers centrally planned by the US government to provide educated skilled labor but was killed off in the 80s by the pro-corpo Reagan admin.
It was killed off by the Jones Act, which "shielded" us from having to be competitive. Tariffs are one lever for establishing fractional protectionism, but the Jones Act was absolute. It essentially turned our industry into the Dodo with no competitive exposure.
> You're blaming workers for trying to protect their jobs when the issue is that capital is too powerful and needs to be regulated more.
The rest of the world is already getting really good at film and entertainment. We're no longer in a blessed position of being number one with a wide margin, and our goods have to compete in a worldwide marketplace. You want to make our product even more expensive to produce at a time when it should be getting cheaper? That's literally going to kill our industry. And then those people will have nowhere to work anyway.
> regulate companies harsher while giving more protections to workers.
This kills the companies, and then there are no jobs.
Companies don't exist to provide jobs. Companies exist to create value for those buying their goods and services. The minute companies stop being about that, they get out-competed.
Jobs and the nature of work changes all the time. Regulations and unions make companies stagnant and ossified. When they're put into straight jackets, they can't move nimbly enough to provide value.
If you want unions, then you must also be a big fan of tariffs. Because switching to domestic only production and keeping our entire market isolationist is the only way an expensive and inflexible labor equation works out. It's big fish, small pond thinking rather than small fish, big pond. (Or actually giant fish, big pond - which is what we are, but will cease to be if we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.)
Do you want to allow affordable and advanced BYD cars into the American market? They weren't produced with unionized labor. Their employees are working their asses off. What do you think that'll do?
What about production companies, some foreign capital financed, that hire American actors and fly them to a cheap Asian or Eastern European country to be filmed with cheap local crew labor? How do we stack up against that? Do we need more unions?
Unions fuck up the incentives. Tenured positions are coveted and come with privileges that make the job easier and the position more cushy. New hires want those perks and will rest once they attain them. This is the opposite of what you want in a workforce: you want the top 50% to work hard and fight for raises and promotions.
In our industry, when we don't get the promotions or raises we want, we switch jobs. Job switching has been an incredible means of advancing our careers and being exposed to new tech and new problems. Because of tenure and different jobs using different unions, unions will lead to fewer job changes and more "lifers" that stick around at a single job for a long time. That ossifies code, stops the influx of new ideas and talent, and causes super weird code / business unit ownership drama. It's also super boring.
Tech companies aren't afraid of high salaries (evidently so!) as much as they are of non-fungibility and ossification of the workforce. Unions make slow businesses even slower. Because of this, unions lead to offshoring.
Unions have ground so many industries to a halt in the US. Manufacturing, automotive. Most recently, the film industry (particularly crew) have been offshored -- in the last several years productions have moved to Eastern Europe and Asia sans any US workforce. They fly the cast (without crew) out for the shoots. It's all because of unions.
If we wish this upon ourselves -- in one of the cushiest careers in the world -- we'll soon find all of our jobs moving overseas.