How Americans can be so anti-union by default is really beyond me when looking at the facts at the ground:
* A culture of overwork (especially in the game industry).
* No vacation.
* No parental leave.
* No sick leave.
* At-will-employment (which inherently causes massive under-reporting of things like sexual harassment in the workplace due to the fear of losing ones livelihood, and please spare me the "actually it's already illegal!", very few people are willing/capable of mounting a messy legal case on their own).
You are making seriously sweeping allegations, could you not? It's hard to have a serious discussion when someone goes generalizing 300 million people and all of their jobs.
>* No vacation.
>* No parental leave.
>* No sick leave.
All three of these are provided, I don't have a union.
>At-will-employment (which inherently causes massive under-reporting of things like sexual harassment in the workplace due to the fear of losing ones livelihood, and please spare me the "actually it's already illegal!", very few people are willing/capable of mounting a messy legal case on their own).
It's 2020, any allegation of sexual harassment is treated incredibly seriously across the board. Yea, I have no doubt it's a major headache. But an accusation of sexual harassment is a serious thing, it shouldn't be something we ever allow to be filled out anonymously, thrown in a complaint box, and assumed as true. It could lead to a firing and possibly criminal charges, lets not try and pretend that's not serious.
Part of why your comment bothers me so is that you are generalizing all Americans. The game industry may make sense to have a union, but you simply call out all Americans as being anti-union, as if it's something unfathomable. Different professions have different circumstances, not all of them need a union.
> All three of these are provided, I don't have a union.
You said it right, they are provided. In Europe they are not provided: they are your right and it cannot be taken away by your employer. Also an anecdote doesn't invalidate something that is true for a vast majority of the american workforce. But even if it was just a single person, it would still be a tragedy and a problem to solve.
>Also an anecdote doesn't invalidate something that is true for a vast majority of the american workforce.
You just love your wide sweeping claims don't you? No it is not true for the vast majority of the american workforce.
>You said it right, they are provided. In Europe they are not provided: they are your right and it cannot be taken away by your employer.
Can we please not move the goal posts, I thought this was a union discussion? If everyone in the U.S should have 4 weeks vacation, 4 months maternity leave, however much sick leave is deemed appropriate, that can be done at the legal level. You do not need unions to exist to do that!
> that can be done at the legal level. You do not need unions to exist to do that!
Unions allow workers to wield political power collectively as well. Union endorsements are valuable, union money, union member donations. Instead of having billionaires like Bezos or the Koch brothers buying up media and giving millions to candidates to push their agenda, ordinary people can be heard.
Why do you think so many old school union people were outright socialists?
Unions were always the way to gain those rights: weekends, 8hours a day, abolition of child labour, they were all fights won by unions. Now USA have weak business unions and no more rights are gained. Same is happening is happening in Europe where neoliberal governments are disgregating the rights won by unions in the last 2 centuries.
It's not moving the goal post: unions are about improving the conditions for workers and when they are powerful enough, they can demand the State to crystallize their rights in law so that the battles don't have to be done over and over in each factory and office. That's the endgame, the rest is just preparatory.
Honestly, OP's comments didn't come across as anti-union at all to me. They came across as not blindly pro-union (ie, they're always the right answer), but they also said that a union might be right for the game develop industry.
The US has federally mandated (job-protected, but not necessarily paid) parental leave, and a number of states have mandated paid parental and sick leave.
Of course, these are largely a product of lobbying by unions, which don't just do collective bargaining.
"Under the FMLA, most new parents can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without the threat of job loss. That’s most parents, not all parents. Employees qualify for leave under the FMLA when they’ve worked 1,240 hours over 12 months at a company that employs more than 50 people. With part-time workers and small business employees left in the lurch, only about 60 percent of American workers are entitled to leave under the FMLA.
The FMLA does not require your employer to pay you while you’re home with your kid. So even if you’re legally entitled to take leave, you might not be able to afford it."
Not to mention that with at-will employment this is essentially a moot point. If you qualify for FMLA and take paternal leave, they can still just fire you "just because we felt like it".
That's not really true with the civil standard of proof, which is preponderance of the evidence. If you can provide any evidence which tends to suggest that you were fired for an improper reason, the employer must overcome that with greater evidence that the firing was actually made for a reason that is not prohibited.
It's not like criminal law where violations have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so merely presenting a plausible alternative consistent with (even if not the most likely conclusion from) the evidence is adequate to avoid liability.
I would point directly to the rampant and historical abuse that has plagued union leadership in the US, in a litany of business sectors as the primary reason. One of the largest in the country, the UAW, is currently going through quite a turnover as multiple layers of leadership are being indicted for everything from fraud to racketeering.
Information about historical scandals is very searchable on the Googles.
Americans are very used to switching jobs to take better options and do not suffer bad bosses for long. I would say it is pretty rare to actually have a job with no vacation or leave.
Unions in the US can feel stifling, as they only rewarding if you can stick with the same job and position for a long time. It's not a very American mindset to stay with a job and make demands when you can just bounce to a slightly better one. And few people idealize working in the same job for 30 years.
Video game workers are probably an exception in that they are willing to agree to terrible terms in order to chase what they perceive is their dream job.
It's not a very American mindset because the unions have been stomped on and it's hard to find a decent job now.
Used to be that a (white cis male) person could go get a union job out of high school and they were set until a comfortable retirement with pension. Good luck finding that sort of security now.
I have a relative who is a Teamster and pays $16k in Union dues a year. He said the math on his benefits only works out for him if he works for more than 15 years in the same position. Obviously different for different unions, but the vast majority of benefits in most unions go to those with seniority.
What!? That is over 60× the membership cost of UNITE (the largest British union).
Apparently, comparisons between the US and Europe don't work here either.
Maybe this is because "union shops" are allowed in the USA. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids them (the right to free association is taken to provide the right not to associate).
> Maybe this is because "union shops" are allowed in the USA.
Not only are they allowed, but they're almost universal. Unions in the US (for various historical reasons) refuse to represent a bargaining unit unless they can claim the majority of the bargaining unit, which means that, in a unionized shop, every single employee must be covered by the same union.
Unlike in Europe, there is no competition between unions for workers in the US.
The facts on the ground is most people don't deal with that in their job. We don't have a culture of overwork, we get vacation, parental leave and sick leave. There are exceptions, but those are entry level no skill required jobs.
Sexual harassment is treated firmly in every company I've been in - even entry level jobs. There is no fear of retaliation for reporting it. (generally it is impossible to prove so the reporting doesn't go anywhere)
health care. It's a big problem. This is why many unions are pro-M4A. You start taking away the big things the company can hold over your head in a negotiation.
In tech we have those things you mention, mostly. We also have a labour market with massive demand. If that demand falls/supply increases then companies will start cutting costs.
When a lot of the people on HN actually experience some uncertainty, their attitudes will probably change.
In some parts of the US, the answer is "Our industry". There are areas where a reasonable argument can be made that overweening unions played a key role in setting up the local economy for cataclysmic failure. Detroit is an example.
That said, video games production doesn't look like that right now. It's just perhaps worth considering that people's fears might not be wholly meritless, baseless, and without foundation.
But again. This doesn't hold up to a straight forward comparison to many European countries. If labour costs would be so detrimental to employment we'd still be queuing to the transatlantic ocean liners.
We could always compare unemployment rates in the US to those in France for a straight forward comparison to a European country. Then we could compare full-time employment rates for another straight forward comparison to a European country.
The American experience is that labor can and occasionally has set itself up for massive failure in the past. The idea that there's literally nothing to lose fails a basic sanity check against not-so-distant American history.
It may be worth considering the possibility that some people might might legitimately, earnestly, and honestly perceive there to be real risks. A pitch to such people of "You have nothing to lose!" runs the risk of coming across as, optimistically, ignorant. Perhaps such things could be worth considering for a person as informed and thoughtful as yourself?
> We could always compare unemployment rates in the US to those in France for a straight forward comparison to a European country. Then we could compare full-time employment rates for another straight forward comparison to a European country.
Sure, go a head. Historically as well. Furthermore, what kinds of jobs are those actually? What is the quality of the jobs? Do they enable a dignified existence and so on?
> The American experience is that labor can and occasionally has set itself up for massive failure in the past. The idea that there's literally nothing to lose fails a basic sanity check against not-so-distant American history.
Do you have an example where it was obviously due to unions?
I wrote a more detailed response, but I have deleted it, as it was a distraction. Getting into the details of Detroit's economic history or a deep comparison between the US and French economies struck me as perhaps not as helpful as it could be while providing an endless profusion of points for differences of opinion to distract. I hope you'll forgive this editorial decision.
Please accept my sincere apologies if I have been in any way less than clear. All I ask if that you consider if it may be worth considering the possibility that some people might might legitimately, earnestly, and honestly perceive there to be real risks. People may have what seem to them to be good reasons to fear that they may actually have something to lose. Some of these reasons might be rooted in history in living memory.
Please, don't hesitate to ask if there's something you would like me to clarify about this core point.
No worries. I can of course understand that some might think so. I'm just cynical enough to assume that a corporation will move to a lower-cost country independent of the added 15% or whatever the amount in added labour costs that various benefits may add. If there's a profit increase waiting, they'll grab it.
If there's something wrong with the statistics given in the source, point it out. If you've got statistics that you think are more accurate, give sources, and say why you think they're more accurate.
But this drive-by snide comment is pretty worthless. You can be better than that.
Given the flow of the argument in this subthread, it seemed at least somewhat relevant. You seem to be trying to dismiss the point, not by argument, not by evidence, but merely by being dismissive. That's not a very convincing approach.
because brining up youth unemployment and nothing else is an honest argument about the merits of unions?
It's low effort. It's not useful. It provides no evidence for the argument being put forth. Really it's not even making any sort of argument. It's just a fact presented in the hopes that people will buy a tenuous at best relationship without further insight.
So jahaja raised the question, "What do you have to lose?" (by unionizing). And in response, Kalium said, "Our industry". That is, unionization often raises costs for companies (better pay, fewer hours and more benefits cost), and those costs could result in fewer jobs.
jahaja replied that "this doesn't hold up to a straight forward comparison to many European countries. If labour costs would be so detrimental to employment we'd still be queuing to the transatlantic ocean liners." Which seems to be saying that unions in Europe aren't costing jobs, so why should they in the US?
In reply to that, AndrewGaspar compared unemployment rates between the US and Europe. They are relevant to the question of whether greater unionization will cost jobs.
So: It is very much making an argument - that greater unionization costs jobs. And Europe was introduced by jahaja, a union proponent, not by the anti-union types.
But you, why do you keep trying to dismiss the topic without actually answering the point? The question is whether greater unionization hurts employment, your side raised the comparison of Europe, and the European unemployment statistics are grimmer than the US ones. Are you actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you going to keep trying to distract from the question at hand?
(Many of us would take your approach to mean that you know you that unions can cost jobs, you know the European data supports the point, and you just want to hide behind smokescreens because you know you don't have an answer. That's the impression you're giving. So, last chance: Do you want to concede the point? Or do you want to try to refute it?)
I did however say "many countries" not Europe as a whole. Since there's vast differences both in unionization and recent economic developments. There's clear and obvious reasons why for example Greece is where they are.
I mean, if unionization (and in the end high labour costs) really significantly hurt the economy and employment numbers it would be trivial to see through comparisons and we would already empirically know it.
Hmm. Say, the US, Canada, and western Europe, on a scatterplot that shows unemployment rate vs union membership rate. Anybody got that data somewhere?
Best I could find: Union rates: France 8.8%, Germany 16.5%, UK 23.4%, US 10.1%. Unemployment: France 8.9%, Germany 3.3%, UK 3.8%, US 3.5%. I must admit, that doesn't look much like correlation.
> But again. This doesn't hold up to a straight forward comparison to many European countries. If labour costs would be so detrimental to employment we'd still be queuing to the transatlantic ocean liners.
You can't use a "straightforward comparison" to Europe because labor law is so different in the US. European unions are legally required to compete with each other for workers, whereas American unions almost exclusively represent members where they assert exclusive right to representation.
That's a massive difference in incentives, and it makes for very different dynamics.
I don't think all Americans are inherently anti-union, just not inherently pro-union. Some of the issues you cited are real, and I think some of it can be addressed by unions. However 2 issues I see:
1) Unions aren't appropriate for all places.
2) The currently implementation and behavior of unions in the US are not all that great. For example I'm turned off of unions based on personal experience.
So for me, given the choice to vote I'd vote against an union at my current work place.
* I have over a month of vacation and sick time, not including holidays
* 1 month 100% paid family leave, with 13 weeks at 80% pay and an additional 13 at 50% pay, not including New York City paid family leave.
* Sick leave is rolled into paid time off or disability.
* At-will employment works both ways. If I get a better offer, I can leave.
Vacation, sick, and parental leave policies are not up to European standards yes, but it's a hell of a lot better than most people's 2 weeks of vacation.
Do you have any sources to back that up? The film industry is one of the most heavily unionized industries in America (if not the most!) and indie films are as popular as ever. The only way I can think of a union hindering independent content is that more people actually enjoy the company they work at and attempt to "strike it out on their own" less often.
I am saying that running your own show or a show with other people you value working with does not need to be under the thumb of union rules or overarching corporate pressure.
There is no scenario in entertainment where unions "keep to themselves". A union started will soak up the entire industry and now my show with people I respect, admire and fair equity shares now has time limits and controls none of us decided or agreed to because a union(s) can excommunicate us from the entire working industry.
The industry should self-regulate under threat. Implementing a union will benefit few but the union leaders. The film industry is a prime example of what happens and films like Star Wars barely exist in the face of union pressure. George Lucas hired Irvine Kershner to direct because he knew all about Hollywood, but was 'not Hollywood'. Gary Oldman turned down a SW role due to union rules. The public has no idea how cliquey and regulated the film industry is, thanks in part to the studio model and union rules.
I'd sooner call for a tech union and see a whole bunch of engineers get a proper cut of the $100 million+ companies that get sold without them seeing a dime.
Game industry artists are very skilled and can get work elsewhere for much easier conditions. They choose to stay and work hard and can choose to negotiate better salaries. I can't comment on mega-corps that there are limits to negotiations, in the independent part there is a lot more leeway. The conditions will always be difficult, timing is the difficulty that we can't control.
> I am saying that running your own show or a show with other people
If you're running your own thing then you aren't a worker. You aren't part of the union. Your input on union activities is not valuable, because you are the opposition.
The world is a good place with good people in it. The perception of bad actors and bad intent is your worldview, not mine. You have too much to gain from painting the world as a bad place, it's not trustworthy. The innocent everyday man aiming to be king of the union has all the personal motive in the world to manufacture a utopian vision of worker's rights. The real world has good people bearing a cross of suffering to generate something of meaningful value in this world.
They also have the incentive make those things happen.
The boss doesn't. The boss has incentive cut costs and increase profits. Even if the current boss is good person, the next one might not be. Situation might change the boss might go after workers to save profits.
We aren't on the same side of the table.
Look at Google. Good job, stable, good pay, solid benefits. Sounds great.
They were also engaged in massive wage fixing and are now firing union activists.
Some of the biggest companies in the American tech space value things other than money as the highest priority. Steve Jobs famously was product focused and warned against excessive greed.
Elon Musk poured his own money into his projects to the point of becoming bankrupt and was helped out by others who believed in the product.
Cutting costs is the antithesis of what these guys are doing, making outrageous profit is the marketeers and advertisers that came to slash and burn Apple. These guys making reasonable profits and achieving good things are doing so at the expense of greed. The world is a good place.
Google's "don't be evil" has left me uncomfortable when combined their actions.
Cadbury pushed a whole bunch of innovative workplace conditions and purchased a collection of houses to supply the workforce, without the pressure or installation of unions.
There will always be a fundamental conflict between what the worker can get from a company and what the company can get for it's goals. Unions can't change that and nor can bosses. We can see the good in the world for what it is.
Remarkably ignorant. Mining billionaires have said they could pay more tax. Bill gates is one of the biggest proponents of a robot tax and patent reform. Elon is a billionaire in Tesla stocks, not liquid cash. Tesla pays payroll tax and a bunch of other taxes.
What would you do with more taxes to save the world?
> Do you think union leaders get a cut of every member's pay or something?
Isn't this exactly what happens? You pay the union a percentage of your salary, which is then used to among other things pay union leaders salaries. And just to note, union leaders typically earn a lot more than union members, making this transaction regressive in nature.
Wow, this is a very cynical interpretation of union leaders salaries. The previous posts implies that they are enriching themselves through members dues in a caricature manner.
Can you explain to me why a union leader should earn many times more than the median union worker? Enforcing that they don't earn more than median workers would increase solidarity and be more fair, but as far as I know no unions have such a policy. Why do you think they don't do it?
I don't think they should. I think it should be quite frugal. Some pay too much, some don't. It's in any case vastly different than the multiplier that the execs get.
* A culture of overwork (especially in the game industry).
* No vacation.
* No parental leave.
* No sick leave.
* At-will-employment (which inherently causes massive under-reporting of things like sexual harassment in the workplace due to the fear of losing ones livelihood, and please spare me the "actually it's already illegal!", very few people are willing/capable of mounting a messy legal case on their own).
...and so on.
What do you actually have to lose?