Support NeoGAF

[SkylineRKR]

I was with an union for 2 years or so. They basically do nothing. They take money (18 euros month, but you can get returns on tax), and they only support you after 18 months of membership. The things they do is advise you to seek a lawyer. Pretty much things you can do on your own.

They do fight for higher wages, More day offs etc. But everyone is entitled to these changes.

But basically, if a boss decides to fuck you over, an Union doesnt really matter.

 

[FingerBang]

Unions are great on paper if your understanding of the market is stuck to the 19th century. They serve no purpose in the current economy and in the end, make things worse for everyone. They bring the kind of regulation that makes hiring harder while forcing human capital (and money) to be wasted on things that don't bring a good return.

They can have SOME KIND of sense for factory workers for negotiating better conditions, but for White collar jobs?

If you don't like it, leave and find another job. If you can't find another job in the same field, change field.

I know plenty of devs who left gaming because they don't like the long working hours. The reason ther is crunch, is that there's always a 22 year old willing to work for peanuts 80 hours a week just to make games. The reason testers aren't values is because there's a ton of supply. A union won't fucking solve that.

 

[Solarstrike]

Unions built nations, especially the United States. There's so many cement shoes you could open a shoe store

 

[PlayStaytion]

Now make the doom guy more bad ass.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Paid maternity leave for at least 39 weeks at full pay.

Euros get 39 weeks of maternity leave and they still aren't having babies

 

[Roni]

I'm a software developer. What the fuck do I need a union for? Safe working conditions? I sit in a comfy chair in an air conditioned office. I have zero reasons to give a union a dime of my money.

You still haven't noticed corporations screw over workers whenever it's convenient for them? C'mon, now...

 

[IDKFA]

Euros get 39 weeks of maternity leave and they still aren't having babies

It varies between counties, but that is around the average in the UK.

However, you have to consider other costs. Childcare is insanely expensive here and can cost almost at the high end of £1000 per month.

 

[Signalis]

What will actually happen now that they are unionised? Work less, complain less, extort the company? Makes better games?

 

[Topher]

You still haven't noticed corporations screw over workers whenever it's convenient for them? C'mon, now...

That's why I don't work for mega-corporations. You really think the CWA is going to prevent workers from getting screwed over? C'mon now

 

[Roni]

That's why I don't work for mega-corporations. You really think the CWA is going to prevent workers from getting screwed over? C'mon now

Great, you don't. Other people do; and they need the unions.

And, yeah, unions do improve the the workers' bargaining power when contracts are drafted and when legal action is required.

 

[Felessan]

You still haven't noticed corporations screw over workers whenever it's convenient for them? C'mon, now...

You rather prefer get screwed by corporations and unions?

I see it as a scale where on one side is relatively safe but low pay job (blue collare, govt etc) and those unionized. On the other side is high pay high risk job, like those up-or-out ones (lawyers, financial markets, consultants etc) and they never unionized.

Where gamedev or IT in general go depends on them. Unionization means that in the long run they will be considered "average" and payment will be as if everyone is mediocre.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Unions built nations, especially the United States. There's so many cement shoes you could open a shoe store

 

[Roni]

You rather prefer get screwed by corporations and unions?

I see it as a scale where on one side is relatively safe but low pay job (blue collare, govt etc) and those unionized. On the other side is high pay high risk job, like those up-or-out ones (lawyers, financial markets, consultants etc) and they never unionized.

Where gamedev or IT in general go depends on them. Unionization means that in the long run they will be considered "average" and payment will be as if everyone is mediocre.

That's the same reductive argument used against government of the people, by the people, for the people.

"Government doesn't work, we need to get rid of it".

Yeah, government doesn't work; then we need to fix it. Not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's the same with unions.

There's at least 2 millennia of written history with very clear examples of what happens to workers and the public when they aren't represented. I don't want to go back to that.

 

[AmuroChan]

As with most things in life, unions are not a blanket good or bad. There are good unions. There are incompetent unions. And there are corrupt unions. Second, unions are effective so long as they have leverage. Sports unions, for example, are highly effective unions because they have enormous leverage. You can't just replace a LeBron or Ohtani with someone else. In terms of skill sets, they're in the 0.000001% of the population. A union for fast food workers, on the other hand, has little to no leverage. That skill set is infinitely replaceable. The company can lay off half the staff and replace them with kiosks.

 

[Topher]

Great, you don't. Other people do; and they need the unions.

And, yeah, unions do improve the the workers' bargaining power when contracts are drafted and when legal action is required.

Yes, I was clearly talking about me. Other people can decide for themselves if they "need" a union or not. I don't see the need. For me, it starts with working for companies not known for fucking their employees over. I said later in this thread that yeah, folks working for Microsoft probably should be in a union. You'd think working for a $4 trillion corporation would mean more stability. Nope.

 

[Hypereides]

Its interesting how differently unions are perceived in the US compared to Europe.

 

[Felessan]

That's the same reductive argument used against government of the people, by the people, for the people.
"Government doesn't work, we need to get rid of it".
Yeah, government doesn't work; then we need to fix it. Not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's the same with unions.

It's not like that. Some stuff should be equalized, and unionization is a part of it. Some stuff should be kept competitive and unions have no place there.
Personally I start to work in quite early It when it was a place for nerds - meaning "not for everyone" and everything reflected that - it was a job for dedicated and passionate, and very small compared to now - you either do or wtf are you doing here, go find a normies job (often complain in comparison of 90's gamedev to current age gamedev). Then I moved to trading and it's a zero-sum game "survival of the fittest" job. You can't unionize sheeps with wolves in zero-sum game as you return will be zero (negative as costs of operation exists). It doesn't even make sense to try make everyone stand on equal ground there.

Some areas are competitive by nature and it's really bad if they are being equalized to pretty shit levels.

There's at least 2 millennia of written history with very clear examples of what happens to workers and the public when they aren't represented. I don't want to go back to that.

And we know that communism failed hard as market strategy.
Communism is essentially unionization of all and it was a very bad choice.

 

[Dorago]

Unions only exist to contain productive energy and organization potential of talented young men.

Capital LOVES foisting this communist filth on any productive industry where drive and talent could once allow you to succeed.

The DEI push made at least 80% of the workforce in these companies unproductive, and I can't imagine how they are going to survive when labor costs go exponential.

 

[Roni]

And we know that communism failed hard as market strategy.
Communism is essentially unionization of all and it was a very bad choice.

Don't do that. Don't bring up a strawman that hasn't even been mentioned thus far in the conversation. I'm not defending communism here, unions can and have worked in free market democracies and that's exactly what we're talking about here. A lack of unions will realistically bolster corporations to lobby for less laws that protect workers and bring everyday people closer to modern slavery. Where the choice is between starving on the street or taking whatever job is available, regardless of how demeaning or unhealthy it is. Having unions doesn't take the world to the brink of global communism.

It's not like that. Some stuff should be equalized, and unionization is a part of it. Some stuff should be kept competitive and unions have no place there.
Personally I start to work in quite early It when it was a place for nerds - meaning "not for everyone" and everything reflected that - it was a job for dedicated and passionate, and very small compared to now - you either do or wtf are you doing here, go find a normies job (often complain in comparison of 90's gamedev to current age gamedev). Then I moved to trading and it's a zero-sum game "survival of the fittest" job. You can't unionize sheeps with wolves in zero-sum game as you return will be zero (negative as costs of operation exists). It doesn't even make sense to try make everyone stand on equal ground there.

Some areas are competitive by nature and it's really bad if they are being equalized to pretty shit levels.

Sheesh... This sheeps and wolves talk is a pretty blatant exposition of a mentality which doesn't hold all people to be equal. And an "us versus them" mentality is the foundation for appalling acts.

 

[Felessan]

Don't do that. Don't bring up a strawman that hasn't even been mentioned thus far in the conversation. I'm not defending communism here, unions can and have worked in free market democracies and that's exactly what we're talking about here. A lack of unions will realistically bolster corporations to lobby for less laws that protect workers and bring everyday people closer to modern slavery. Where the choice is between starving on the street or taking whatever job is available, regardless of how demeaning or unhealthy it is. Having unions doesn't take the world to the brink of global communism.

Like I said - unions are good in some areas and bad in others. And communism just shows how bad things are when every area covered by unions and everyone equalized
Unions are good for standardized jobs with relatively easily replaced personnel - so called massive professions.
Unions are usually bad for specialized/complex job as they often work on selection basis and for most of career path you are expected not only to perform your job, but also to grow and reach required skills/professionalism to be able do a really complex tasks associated with this job. And if you can't - you better go work in B/C grade companies or even change field.
It's like education works - there is a mandatory curriculum but everyone gets selected in the process, usually in school and then when going to university/doctorate and people graded by their abilities and determination/focus. And no one gives power to students to unionize and than equalize result of this grading as there is no point in scientist who struggle with school curriculum.

And besides - company can only fuck you if you need it more than company needs you. For up-or-out jobs those who remain cost company a lot of efforts to raise and it's a huge loss if they leave, so companies tends to not be too aggressive in people exploitation.

Sheesh... This sheeps and wolves talk is a pretty blatant exposition of a mentality which doesn't hold all people to be equal. And an "us versus them" mentality is the foundation for appalling acts.

And people are not equal, mother nature made it sure - people have vastly different abilities.
I am pro for equality where everyone can get the same opportunities and whether can you grab them or not is up to you.
I am not a fan of equity where no winners and everyone gets same participation trophy - it kills motivation to struggle and achieve.

 

[dgrdsv]

It's a shame a studio with such a good FPS engine has always limited itself to mostly Doom and Quake. Two massive downtrending kinds of shooter games. This isnt the 90s anymore when they were on everyone's top fav shooters lists. They could had made those Rage games into something bigger and better, but bailed on that series (unless they got a Rage 3 in the works). Or try a new shooter IP.

What's "Doom and Quake"? All games in Doom IP are different kinds of shooters (well, aside from 1+2). All Quake games are different types of shooters.
Doing a new IP just so that the name would be different is almost exactly what they've tried with Rage, and the result was mediocre. You can have the same game as a Quake or Doom game.
If you want them to stop doing what they know how to do best and do something else entirely then you're better of playing different games from other developers.

I dont know how adaptable id engines are, but just imagine if that slick engine could be used for RPGs or sci-fi games like ME. But I guess Bethesda's hitchy Gamebryo engine does complicated games like that.

id engines are used almost exclusively by id these days b/c they don't have the man power or financial backing to support 3rd party studios.
And tbh id Tech hasn't been very interesting since Carmack sold the company and left it to Bethesda to run.

 

[Roni]

Like I said - unions are good in some areas and bad in others. And communism just shows how bad things are when every area covered by unions and everyone equalized
Unions are good for standardized jobs with relatively easily replaced personnel - so called massive professions.
Unions are usually bad for specialized/complex job as they often work on selection basis and for most of career path you are expected not only to perform your job, but also to grow and reach required skills/professionalism to be able do a really complex tasks associated with this job. And if you can't - you better go work in B/C grade companies or even change field.
It's like education works - there is a mandatory curriculum but everyone gets selected in the process, usually in school and then when going to university/doctorate and people graded by their abilities and determination/focus. And no one gives power to students to unionize and than equalize result of this grading as there is no point in scientist who struggle with school curriculum.

And besides - company can only fuck you if you need it more than company needs you. For up-or-out jobs those who remain cost company a lot of efforts to raise and it's a huge loss if they leave, so companies tends to not be too aggressive in people exploitation.


And people are not equal, mother nature made it sure - people have vastly different abilities.
I am pro for equality where everyone can get the same opportunities and whether can you grab them or not is up to you.
I am not a fan of equity where no winners and everyone gets same participation trophy - it kills motivation to struggle and achieve.

People not being equal doesn't imply a hierarchy as your sheeps and wolves analogy does. Where one is weak prey and another is strong predator.

These so called sheep are people with different outlooks and capabilities in areas you simply don't value, either because you were taught not to or because you've fallen to the good old trap of assuming your qualities make you superior to others.

Religious people think they're better because they're holier. Rich people think they're better because they have money. Intelligent people think they're better because they know more. Strong people think they're better because they can muscle others around and round 'n round it goes.

People endure lives where there's no comfort, no improvement and they keep on keeping on. That shows resilience, which is a quality all its own.

So, yeah, mother nature made everyone different. But that's far from meaning better or worse.

Unions are good for every sector, because stakeholder value is always more important than the employee. Since the pandemic executives are more than willing to lay off chunks of an organization to pad profits and beat labor into submission.

Sticking together is the only way to mitigate the advantages those with money have over those without money. 1 billion in the bank is only useful if there's someone willing to do whatever you tell them to for 1 hundred. Which is also why capital is always so obsessed with preventing birth rates from plummeting. God forbid the narrative of "there's not enough to go around" goes away and now people can actually start saying no to capital.

 

[proandrad]

US factory workers unionized too. Guess what happened to those jobs.

 

[Felessan]

People not being equal doesn't imply a hierarchy as your sheeps and wolves analogy does. Where one is weak prey and another is strong predator.

It does.
Some people better suited for particular job and thus placed higher in hierarchy in that particular job. And some jobs put a lot of efforts to select the most capable ("wolves"), weeding out less capable ("sheeps").

These so called sheep are people with different outlooks and capabilities in areas you simply don't value, either because you were taught not to or because you've fallen to the good old trap of assuming your qualities make you superior to others.

Those people can go and make the best of their abilities in the fields where they are good at. And they will be the wolves there (and I probably be a sheep).
My field of work needs people with strong math/analytical skills, not those who born dancer or performer. And as I dance like a bear and perform even worse I'll be a burden in theater so I don't work there.

Religious people think they're better because they're holier. Rich people think they're better because they have money. Intelligent people think they're better because they know more. Strong people think they're better because they can muscle others around and round 'n round it goes.

I believe that every person has its own strengths and should be where those strengths are. And some places are just not for some people as what they need is what a person weak at and what strength person has is of no need there.

Unions are good for every sector, because stakeholder value is always more important than the employee. Since the pandemic executives are more than willing to lay off chunks of an organization to pad profits and beat labor into submission.

There is no place for union in competitive environment where your growth is often your colleague demise. And those industries put so much efforts in talent growth so those survived up to certain level become stakeholders themselves.
I have yet to see any industry lay off strong overperformers with proven track records because any competitor will be more than happy to grab them.

Sticking together is the only way to mitigate the advantages those with money have over those without money. 1 billion in the bank is only useful if there's someone willing to do whatever you tell them to for 1 hundred. Which is also why capital is always so obsessed with preventing birth rates from plummeting. God forbid the narrative of "there's not enough to go around" goes away and now people can actually start saying no to capital.

You can cooperate with others for your own benefit without unions
Management don't have unions and they manage to get themselves a proper benefits (management is just another selection ladder type of job)

 

[Lucie Goosey]

Cool, I fully support them. Too many instances of abuse in the games industry.

 

[Roni]

You can cooperate with others for your own benefit without unions
Management don't have unions and they manage to get themselves a proper benefits (management is just another selection ladder type of job)

You better hope things improve; because the worse things get, the more likely people will turn to unions.

 

[simpatico]

Cool, I fully support them. Too many instances of abuse in the games industry.

You could just paypal them a small amount each month instead of consenting to get less product for your money.

 

[_Ex_]

Microsoft will systemically dismantle and dissolve this studio over this.

 

[digimaster7]

So am I, wtf are you talking about? I even work remotely and I'd still join a union if presented with the option. I'm inherently selfish and want as much money as possible. Historically speaking, a union would increase my pay, reduce my work load, increase my time off. Of course I'm joining. In fact, you'd be an idiot not to join.

In an unrelated note, listening to Americans talk nonsense about unions while cheering for their favorite NFL, NBA, NHL teams is peak obtuseness. All of those players are in a union and negotiate CBA's to split revenue and profits in their favor. They see all that and then talk rubbish about unions. The indoctrination is wild.

Oooorrr you could get fired on the next round of layoff.

"you'd be an idiot not to join" tell that to those rockstar employee that just got fired trying to unionize. The world is not that simple, there's always that other bad ending posibilities. Well those employee's time off are definitely increased though so I guess you're correct on that part

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/bbc-grand-theft-auto-game-creator-sacked-us-for-trying-to-unionise.1691372/unread

unionizing is a gamble, if you win you win big, if you lose you lose everything so just be careful

 

[Hypereides]

(...)

There is no place for union in competitive environment where your growth is often your colleague demise. And those industries put so much efforts in talent growth so those survived up to certain level become stakeholders themselves.
I have yet to see any industry lay off strong overperformers with proven track records because any competitor will be more than happy to grab them.

(...)

That "proven track record" becomes largely negligible or a pretty toilet paper, in the big leagues, the moment you slip-up or express a concern/disagreement a couple of times. Happens more consistently than not. Modern day industries don't really value talent. A person is just an useful cog in the machine until arbitrary metrics decide the person in question isn't, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Microsoft recently let go off the inventor behind TypeScript. So much appreciation for a "proven track record".

This phenomenon also isn't alien to the western AAA segment of the video gaming industry either where it happens on a very, very frequent basis. Overperformers and talent are/is absolutely not valued. Look no further than John Carmack (speaking of ID soft) or Corrine Yu. Its one of the reasons they are stumbling around at the moment. Meanwhile all that "discarded" talent redistributes itself into adjacent segments/fields where they find success and aren't subject to unflexible KPIs with a work environment built on fear and distrust.

Contrary to belief, these kinds of ethics and policies do not instil and result in higher productivity. It only nurtures and cultivates a counterproductive environment built on dread.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Cool, I fully support them. Too many instances of abuse in the games industry.

"Get back to work!"

 

[Felessan]

You better hope things improve; because the worse things get, the more likely people will turn to unions.

I don't really care whether people unionize or not. It's their choice and their consequences, being unionized means they are collectively responsible for results. I will treat them fairly but in no way will join them.
I prefer my own way - work hard, crunch, get more responsibilities, learn stuff even if it's not mandatory, push yourself, connect with people - and get more benefits and faster than others. Basically I play2win on the work and not just exchange 40 hours a week for salary.
Those who strive don't really like unions as you are forced to carry a burden of lazy and stupid.

Anecdote story - my old guild in early days of WoW, which was mixed casual-hardcore, actually had players "unionized" and tried to force "equality" into raiding participation as hardcore crowd "monopolize" it and only took those who they wanted to take in and others were left behind. And... it was a disaster. In half an year guild lost all competitiveness in raiding as hardcore raiders just left for other hardcore-only guilds where they are not forced to carry casual part of the guild with no skills, dedication or discipline but lots of complains and demands.

That "proven track record" becomes largely negligible or a pretty toilet paper, in the big leagues, the moment you slip-up or express a concern/disagreement a couple of times. Happens more consistently than not. Modern day industries don't really value talent. A person is just an useful cog in the machine until arbitrary metrics decide the person in question isn't, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Microsoft recently let go off the inventor behind TypeScript. So much appreciation for a "proven track record".

I said overperformers and not talents. The problem with talent is that they often think they can and they do what they want, especially if they have one or two grand successes.
And overperformers do what company wants them to do - it's overperformance against KPI and not some random stuff important to universe but not the company.
KPIs are basically "help your management to help company earn money" and those who do them right are valued. And companies wants results to be stable and controllable and not some random lucky strike that talents tends to stick to.

 

[taylor34]

I said overperformers and not talents. The problem with talent is that they often think they can and they do what they want, especially if they have one or two grand successes.
And overperformers do what company wants them to do - it's overperformance against KPI and not some random stuff important to universe but not the company.
KPIs are basically "help your management to help company earn money" and those who do them right are valued. And companies wants results to be stable and controllable and not some random lucky strike that talents tends to stick to.

What???

You think management actually knows who the high performers are, lol?

That is rarely the case. They know who they like the best and that's it. Those people they like are made managers and promoted.

The last company I worked at didn't promote any of the high performers. I knew who they were because I had metrics I had collected (management didn't even collect metrics). They only promoted their friends to management, and it caused the department to go downhill.

The guy I know who made it the highest in a large company, VP level? He was drinking buddies with a high level manager who promoted all of his friends to management (including this guy). It was reported to HR and most of them got demoted except for my friend who got to actually move up due to the people who got demoted. So he ended up in a VP position eventually. I'm not saying he wasn't good (he was) but that wasn't the core reason for his initial move up, lol.

If these companies actually were keeping KPI's correctly they wouldn't be hiring so many H1-b's because most of them aren't up to par. The fact that they are tells me no one is tracking anything or they don't care, lol.

 

[Hypereides]

(...)

I said overperformers and not talents. The problem with talent is that they often think they can and they do what they want, especially if they have one or two grand successes.
And overperformers do what company wants them to do - it's overperformance against KPI and not some random stuff important to universe but not the company.
KPIs are basically "help your management to help company earn money" and those who do them right are valued. And companies wants results to be stable and controllable and not some random lucky strike that talents tends to stick to.

I'm fully aware what purpose KPIs serve and more than often the way they are interpreted are more counterproductive than not. Sure, its a convenient overview to attempt to "measure" and visualize performance, but it becomes a very reductive tool and reduces an employee into weightless datapoints without further considerations.

KPI misinterpretations have indiscriminately resulted in killing off many "exceptional synergies" and removed golden geese who actually brought in that company value. Management layer decisions in recent times have often let go key employees without thinking about it twice. They rarely think 5 or 10 years forwards into the future about the outcome of those misinterpretations.

 

[A.Romero]

It's a very complex issue that has many sides.

Game development is about to be radically change with technology in the next few years on top of that, during the transition, it is entirely viable for the industry to increase their outsourcing tactics. They have been doing it for decades and they just can open a new studio somewhere else if they don't want to outright outsource it.

Also China is also advancing a lot. I'm generally pro-union, specially on industries that have a history of abusing workers but we can't pretend it won't impact competitiveness for American based studios or European or in general unionized studios.

It's up to consumers, really. If we really care about workers conditions then we will buy from studios that ethically manage their resources but considering the best sold game in history comes from a studio that is known for crunch I wouldn't have my hopes up.

 

[Felessan]

What???

You think management actually knows who the high performers are, lol?

That is rarely the case. They know who they like the best and that's it. Those people they like are made managers and promoted.

The last company I worked at didn't promote any of the high performers. I knew who they were because I had metrics I had collected (management didn't even collect metrics). They only promoted their friends to management, and it caused the department to go downhill.

The guy I know who made it the highest in a large company, VP level? He was drinking buddies with a high level manager who promoted all of his friends to management (including this guy). It was reported to HR and most of them got demoted except for my friend who got to actually move up due to the people who got demoted. So he ended up in a VP position eventually. I'm not saying he wasn't good (he was) but that wasn't the core reason for his initial move up, lol.

If these companies actually were keeping KPI's correctly they wouldn't be hiring so many H1-b's because most of them aren't up to par. The fact that they are tells me no one is tracking anything or they don't care, lol.

Some managers really know who performs and who are not.
Hardcore people tends to go to hardcore guilds, and casuals are left with casuals guild leaders - same applied to companies/departments.
Overperformers are not those who work more, you can work twice as much and only do 20% more work, or you can work 50% of time and make 500% of value. And many outperformance metrics are hard to measure, because it's a value creation and not just amount of work. Problem solving, negotiation skills, deep knowledge sharing etc. are highly valuable and not really reflected in metrics, but your manager will know it for sure if you solve his problems.

BTW - I drink with high level management of mine too (though it will not help me with promotion) handling visibility to management is important too.

 

[MacReady13]

Unions were ONCE a much needed thing in industries that were fucking over employees. Today, they are a complete waste of time and resources. This can only be a bad thing at id and I'm sure it will hold up production of games even further. These union fucks are basically activists and will go against anything the company wants all just to be contrarian cunts.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

It varies between counties, but that is around the average in the UK.

However, you have to consider other costs. Childcare is insanely expensive here and can cost almost at the high end of £1000 per month.

Yeah I legit don't know how my coworkers are pulling it off my guess it's all on credit,

I can't wait to see what the corpos do in 40-50 years from now when they realize there isn't any more wage slaves left to buy their products because fair wages weren't being paid over decades to the point people just stopped giving birth and raising more wage slaves into the system.

 

[DeepEnigma]

These union fucks are basically activists and will go against anything the company wants all just to be contrarian cunts.

That's the rub in current year with the "micro aggression" types in the games industry.

 

[Kacho]

Unions were ONCE a much needed thing in industries that were fucking over employees. Today, they are a complete waste of time and resources. This can only be a bad thing at id and I'm sure it will hold up production of games even further. These union fucks are basically activists and will go against anything the company wants all just to be contrarian cunts.

 

[tr1p1ex]

IF this helps them make better games then I'm all for it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

US factory workers unionized too. Guess what happened to those jobs.

Exactly.

What unionization does (at least for certain sectors and countries) is just protect workers in the short term. Businesses cant do 180 planning changes in a week. But when shit hits the fan all it takes is one exec to say..... fuck it, let's put together a plan to shift production from Iowa to Taiwan and the countdown begins. It costs too much and too much union hassles. It might be 1 year, 3 years, maybe 7 years to figure it out (shifting car plant production to a new plant takes years to get it up and running). At some point a long time ago one company started it off and look how it is now. Even for high value stuff like PCs, cellphones and chips are all made in Asia. So it's not just junk like dollar store stuff. Overseas contracts dont go on strike.

Shifting production overseas is great too because it wont even be owned factories or people on the payroll. They just contract it out making it even better. So not only are costs better, but employee commitment is zero. It's not even their employees.

The only thing they got to figure out is the logistics, costs and timing of overseas shipping and ports. But when companies go through this major hassle it shows how much it's worth it to still do it.

And that's blue collar stuff. White collar workers where most of their stuff is simply digital files which can be combined in servers from anywhere of the world makes it even easier for companies to go overseas. You already see it now how some big game corporations built their games from multiple studios in different cities around the world. All unionizing gaming will do is make the games companies itching to do more overseas studios. And they arent going to need 5 years of sourcing new factories or worry about container ships.

and if they dont want to go overseas, they'll try to AI as much of it they can.

 

[Lucie Goosey]

You could just paypal them a small amount each month instead of consenting to get less product for your money.

I would rather people enjoy their work life more in exchange for me getting half of the product I pay for.

As a child who grew up to two parents who worked their asses off to provide for their kids but it did not bring them any joy which then translated to them enjoying parenthood less, I would sacrifice a lot for the people of this Earth to have more enjoyable fatherhoods/motherhoods and childhoods.

Now as a father to a one year old I took the opposite approach. I've sacrificed productivity for a low stress, flexibile work life, and spending more time with my kid.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The thing about unions which those of you who dont work at big companies or are in management dont realize is costs is only one part of the equation. And if you work at a big enough company, the costs can be absorbed and pushed down to customers most of the time. The vast majority of people dont even think of employee costs and ratios.

Past 5 years, price increases due to higher cost of goods from suppliers and packagers of 5% here, 8% there etc.... werent even that big of a deal. Most companies did multiple price increases for the same products. Customers will usually go with it (but that assumes the company you work for can push it down nicely, not all can).

The problem unions bring is stubborness, hard to get rid of bad employees, and worst of all striking and not working which screws up the production chain (like a car plant saying they arent working for a month) and that spreads to every other department, including co-suppliers who are part of the chain. Union kinds of roles arent part of the execution or admin or customer selling, which is the office part who gets affected too. That's the issue. So if a set of of employees doesnt give a shit about the company or the rest of the non-union people just trying to work too, then they arent that committed.

So when a company is threatened, they'll just change course with less hassles. Just like a company will fire a non-union guy with a bad attitude even if he's cheaper than a higher salary guy. It's not always about costs. It's about quality work with as little hassles as possible to keep business going. If it was all about cost savings, every non-union worker would be getting paid dirt cheap, be fired every year or two when a new college can fill in for a fraction of the salary and be hammered by draconian bosses. I hope that's not the view all you union guys think non-union role are like.

I'm not saying it's never about costs. That's why when it comes to layoffs it's a combo of bad workers and overpriced people. Makes sense though. If a guy is making $150,000 and stinks, why wouldnt the company want to replace him with someone better for $100,000. If he's being paid good money, makes sense to me he should doing a great job to keep it.

Think of it like hiring someone to renovate your house. You want someone who is good, doesnt give attitude and is cheap right? So do I. That's the best combo to have. But in reality, it's more like if I want someone good and friendly, he'll cost a bit more. That's fine. I can absorb that. But in no way am I paying high prices for someone with attitude, might not show up for work, can do suspect work and he charges a high price simply due to "I've been doing this job for 25 years so I should get paid more than a guy doing it for 5 years). And worst of all, if I want to get rid of him if he's not doing a good job so far, I cant rid of him. No thanks bud. I'll look elsewhere.