> This is a direct-join union, meaning that workers can sign up on their own. This allows folks to bypass traditional unionization processes like elections and employer consent.
Good reminder that the word "union" is overloaded and doesn't always mean what you might assume.
People who join a union like this don't have union representation or union contracts with companies. They rely on individual members to take action in various forms within there own companies. In theory they could call for a strike and ask everyone who is a member to strike from their respective companies, but in practice it's more about raising awareness and making noise in hopes of driving change.
So while technically it's a union, it's not comparable to what most people think of as a union in the United States.
Most people in the united states think of unions as some kind of entrenched bureaucratic entity that's not capable of effecting change. Typically we say "the union" as if there can only be one, and once it's corrupt, there's no recourse. Often our laws reflect this, striking as part of a "wildcat" union can be illegal. It leads to this feeling that you have to know the right people to unionize.
It's a problematic perspective. "The" union might be an impotent lost cause, but "A" union can appear suddenly, strike hard, and dissipate once the need for it has gone. This seems more like the latter.
As you correctly point out on a fundamental level unions are just workers of a particular skill organizing to address issues these workers want to see adressed, and by them bekng many they strengthen their bargaining position. Unions can devolve into dysfunctional bureaucratic entities, but so can literally everything else where people come together for a cause — so that is no argument against unions.
Every employee is replaceable, banding together with others that might replace you instead of letting them play you like a fool is a power move.
I feel like focusing on "workers of a particular skill" is a bit too narrow. A strike could be like...
> These people have disabled a critical part of your supply chain and they will restore it if you improve the working conditions for these other people.
...where both groups of people are part of the same union despite having very different jobs. If you can achieve solidarity across sectors, you can strike much more effectively than by merely refusing to work.
In some countries/industries you have to be a member of an union by the law. Just by working in industry, union is forced upon you by law, and you have to pay their fees. The only way out, is to form your own union, with all paperwork. It really sucks for self employed folks.
The word is extremely overloaded. China has a lot of “unions” that exist to protect companies, avoid strikes, and stifle complaints not represent workers.
That doesn’t have any relevance for American unions, but people seems to think any issue they ever had with a union applies to every union.
I can see why you might think they are similar on the surface.
However those are paperwork exercises without any leverage that run into legal issues inside the US. “Anyone who signed a labor peace agreement with ProTech Local 33 has 90 days from the ruling to sign a new pact with a legitimate union or risk losing their license”
The Chinese version is stable as they are being actively propped up by the state.
This is old (2012) but gives some of the background.
The Lack of Genuine Worker Representation
The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is China's only legal trade union, and it is required by the Trade Union Law to "uphold the leadership of the Communist Party." Because one of the ACFTU's priorities is to organize and mobilize "vast numbers of workers to make contributions to the sound and rapid development of the economy," and to foster "harmony in labour relations" so that such development may take place, the vast majority of "trade unions" in enterprises effectively remain under the de facto control of management.
We have a similar thing in Switzerland for the gastronomy (food and drinks) industry. The industry is pretty abusive - here and abroad - so the "union" makes sure there's protections for workers.
Because of this, there's free management training, free skilled training, and holiday and pay minimums. Plus, free advice and legal support for workers.
Now, I'll give you, SAG, WGA, and DGA don't control all film and television production and there are plenty of non-union jobs available. But most of the film and television you consume is union work.
Every player in the NFL is required to be a member of the NFLPA.
> Now, I'll give you, SAG, WGA, and DGA don't control all film and television production and there are plenty of non-union jobs available.
The thing about the "hollywood" unions is that they are very supportive of the others. So when the recent writer's strike was taking place, the actors also supported them as well as the directors by not working without their writers.
If the auto union workers strike, the steel workers aren't stopping work in solidarity. If the stevedores go on strike, the truck drivers don't go on strike in solidarity.
Not any more. That's called a "secondary boycott", and has been illegal in the US since 1959. Before that, it was common for union truckers to refuse to cross a picket line. When a company's workers went on strike, deliveries by Teamsters stopped.
American labor law was written when unions were much stronger. It assumes strong unions and strong employers in conflict, with the NLRB as referee. That hasn't been true in the US for decades now.
The NFLPA functionally only deals with one company (the NFL) so it's not really a great example. Most professional sports leagues have a players' union specific to that league.
Coaches and other front office personnel aren't required to enter a union to work for a club.
There is a union for coaches and it's entirely voluntary. Which is why you won't see Belichick in most Madden games as his contract has to be negotiated separately.
And just to be clear - there is an actual law forcing you to join these unions and pay their membership fees? (Not in the US, maybe this law is actually common knowledge that went completely over my head so far!)
My understanding is that it's not so much a law as it is a contract between the union and the employer that prohibits the employer from hiring people who don't join the union.
Ah ok, but that seems very different from the comment I was replying to, which said "In some countries/industries you have to be a member of an union by the law. Just by working in industry, union is forced upon you by law, and you have to pay their fees." - that seems pretty drastic, so I was specifically curious about examples of law-mandated union membership/fee payment.
The terms you want to look for are "closed shop" and "union shop" (the difference between the two is that a union shop allows non-union members to be hired, but they have to join the union after being hired).
I was specifically looking for examples of the original commenter's referenced law-mandated unions: "In some countries/industries you have to be a member of an union by the law. Just by working in industry, union is forced upon you by law, and you have to pay their fees."
Closed shops and union shops just seem like an arrangement between employers and unions, not something forced upon you "by law"?
It’s crazy how the definition of a union varies so much across contexts, contries/indus. Some prioritize bargaining power, while others focus more on advocacy and awareness.
Just by working in industry, union is forced upon you by law, and you have to pay their fees. The only way out, is to form your own union, with all paperwork. It really sucks for self employed folks.
The first statement is true in a few industries, but the second statements are false in any industry in which the first statement applies. If union membership is mandated, you don't get a choice in the union you join.
And for the last bit about self-employed folks: the only industries which mandate union membership in which it is also possible to be self-employed are the Hollywood guilds, which set compensation minimums. Hollywood union members are free to negotiate higher compensation, and many do.
The worst thing about all the anti-union FUD that gets spread on HN is that they assume that tech workers would be in the same kind of union as janitors, when the most similar structure would be the Hollywood guilds.
There's a great video of a longshoreman union rep bragging about crushing America so 'his guys' could get by, all the while with totaly lost irony he said this on TV while wearing a gold chain, Rolex, and living in an absolutely lavish mansion.
Given that particular strike was against in part automation it was that they wanted their port to become less competitive and eventually be destroyed by ports employing automation and not even jobs left for their kids to fix or engineer the machines.
A small amount of it does go to your 401(k), yes. A much larger amount goes to executives, largely through stock-based compensation, and much wealthier investors.
You are on a site for venture capitalists (i.e. company owners), tech startup founders (i.e. company owners), and tech startup / FAANG employees whose TC has a large component of stock (i.e. company owners). Just a wild guess but they probably don't see a problem with money going to the company owners.
How do you think unions start? Yes, an entire workplace can just up and decide some day to unionize but more often unions start as non-bargaining unions and then at some point get enough support to bargain with the companies.
> more often unions start as non-bargaining unions
Source? I'd guess most unions start as collective-bargaining unions because if they can't colletively bargain I'm struggling to see their point over, like, a conference or subreddit.
uhhh you should really look into how that works. The union playbook is to organize in secret because retaliation is in the HR playbook. All sorts of fun and completely (not)illegal retaliation like firing organizers.
Not quite, this is what themselves say about the structure:
> A direct-join union means that UVW-CWA does not represent a single workplace, but rather, anyone in the video game industry. This differs from other union models, which organize workers in a single company or even a specific department or office. This means UVW-CWA seeks to make change directly through worker power and public leverage against the companies of our industry without the limitations of traditional labor law and collective bargaining rights.
> Historically, workers in the U.S. and Canada organized their unions this way until their efforts resulted in the codified labor law we know today in the United States. Other countries also utilize direct-join unionism! [...] By being direct-join, UVW-CWA is able to grow more easily, have a wider base of membership, and is not limited to the constraints of the certification process.
So while it's true it doesn't have the typical benefits of another form of union, it doesn't seem useless at all. Biggest benefit is that exploited people get used to organizing together for a common cause, this will have a far wider impact than just in the video game industry.
Because nothing terrifies corporate executives more than a loosely organized group of scattered workers with no legal standing, no collective bargaining rights, and no strike protections. Truly, the next great labor revolution will be built on the unshakable foundation of good vibes and a mailing list. In practice, I don’t think things will be that easy.
Good reminder that the word "union" is overloaded and doesn't always mean what you might assume.
People who join a union like this don't have union representation or union contracts with companies. They rely on individual members to take action in various forms within there own companies. In theory they could call for a strike and ask everyone who is a member to strike from their respective companies, but in practice it's more about raising awareness and making noise in hopes of driving change.
So while technically it's a union, it's not comparable to what most people think of as a union in the United States.