> I have a hard time squaring how you can be in a union with an adversarial relationship to management, whilst at the same time being an owner of the company. It's one or the other.

Unionized ESOP companies aren't uncommon.

You've got it a bit backwards about the adversarial relationship: having an ESOP and a union isn't some kind of organizational impossibility, and it can decrease the probability of a serious dispute between management and the union. [1]

[1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr347.html

Interesting, yeah those are good points. I can certainly see it reducing the severity of disputes in theory.

In practice though I'm skeptical. I've read a little about the history of UAW. They really seemed to view workers vs mgmt as an adversarial zero sum game. Meanwhile Toyota were developing their production system using the kaizen principle of bottom up continuous improvement. Unions played a huge role in making US autos uncompetitive against the Japanese brands for a long time.

I want to be pro-union but it's hard when you observe their real world behaviour. All too often they slowly strangle their company, making it less and less competitive and innovative and ultimately dooming it to defeat by new entrants who aren't yet encumbered by unions.

So it depends a bit on whether you talk about real world US unions like the UAW, or about what unions could be in theory and might be in other parts of the world.

Eg German unions have a reputation, at least compared to the US, of cooperating much more with their host companies. Similar also for Scandinavian unions.

It could also be the case that US unions operate in a country where power is held by a class of people who would really prefer their serfs to STFU and get back to whatever dangerous, ill-paid task they were assigned. When the most egregious wrongs are simply illegal and never happen then it is much easier for capital and labor to have a less adversarial relationship, but when you operate in a country like the US I would assume it is necessary for a union to be a bit more aggressive in its actions and objectives.

Oh, German unions have their problems as well.

> It could also be the case that US unions operate in a country where power is held by a class of people who would really prefer their serfs to STFU and get back to whatever dangerous, ill-paid task they were assigned.

What makes you think European business owners are less greedy or evil? Capital is internationally mobile, and it's the same index funds owning a good chunk of all companies everywhere, too.

Business owners in Europe are not any less greedy or evil, they are simply constrained by laws and the political environment to be unable to commit the worst offenses.

Not sure. Workers in the US are better off than in Europe.

And within Europe, the places with the best off workers tend to be the ones with pro-business laws, like Switzerland (and in contrast to Greece or France).

It could also be the case that most people commenting do not have experience with very many unions and have adopted the portions of a goofy pro- vs anti-union argument that has existed in popular US culture since right-wing think tanks began poisoning public political dialogue in the seventies.

> In practice though I'm skeptical.

> They really seemed to view workers vs mgmt as an adversarial zero sum game.

That doesn't really affect the feasibility or otherwise of running an ESOP as a union shop. On the contrary, I imagine that if you view the entire thing as zero-sum, you might be more prone to think about what is going to happen to your stock's value if you strike, or take steps that negatively effect efficiency.

If you're not thinking zero-sum, you can use some pretty handwavey logic for thinking the next bonus you demand doesn't really negatively effect people like your coworkers or the shareholders, since you're merely being compensated for your inherent greatness that will inevitably lead to the company's greater success, blah blah... congratulations, you appear to be in senior management.

> Meanwhile Toyota were developing their production system using the kaizen principle of bottom up continuous improvement. Unions played a huge role in making US autos uncompetitive against the Japanese brands for a long time.

It doesn't seem unfathomable to me that a unionized company could develop something like the Toyota Production System. The German companies tout having learned from Toyota, and I don't know how true that is, but the successful, modern German car companies are all unionized. (in the greater context, Tesla is still nonunion and didn't appear to pay any attention to TPS when they brought their production online, which is maybe interesting)

Ford sold 900,000 F150s in 2019.

Toyota sold about 336,000 Camrys.

They sold a little over 110,000 Tundras.

About 200,000 Tacomas.

And Ford gets GIANT markups on the F150s, they are super profitable for them and the best selling truck for many many years now. Toyota, Honda aren't even close to American truck and SUV sales.

So explain to me again how US autos aren't competitive with Japanese brands?

"For a long time" was the qualifier. I was talking about the 70s and 80s when Japanese imports were disrupting the market.

Look outside the US and you can easily see how US Auto is uncompetitive.

Individual employees have every bit as adversarial a relationship to management as union members. They just have much less bargaining power.

These may all be fine arguments as to why a high-level(!) software developer might not want to join a union.

None of what you wrote applies to assembly line workers. And arguably, it doesn't apply to junior software devs either.

> I just need to convince the company to bump one total comp package, mine

> ...

> Also, I have an easy time convincing the company that I am leaving (or not joining), if they don't accede to my demands.

And when your aggressive negotiating is too much of a hassle for the company they just have to fire one "problematic" employee, you. And unless you have created a hellhole of a system architecture in your project that only you can maintain as insurance/backup to your aggressive negotiation, you will be surprised to see just how replaceable you are.

To be honest, I do most of the aggressive negotiations before I join the company.

So if that's too 'problematic' for them, they don't need to hire me.

If you want to negotiate just as aggressively while working for them, you have to have your outside options all lined up. Basically, yes, if you threaten to leave, you should not be surprised if they call your bluff and take wish you farewell.

Always be aware of your BATNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat... and make sure it's a good one.

Unions threaten that all employees will quit all.the.time. It’s called a strike. It’s their primary bargaining power. Yes, the workers will eventually come back to work, but only after they gain some concessions from management, and it can be a long time before they come back.

I know about strikes. They are different than everyone quitting.

> Yes, the workers will eventually come back to work, but only after they gain some concessions from management, and it can be a long time before they come back.

Workers don't get paid while on strike (they get some money back from the union that they saved there themselves). There's no guarantee that management will make concessions.

Yes, it can be a long time before workers come back.

Why are these things at odds? It seems like the ideal outcome for the union would be to have a significant ownership stake in the company and share in its success, rather than have an adversarial relationship and drag down profits. Making the company uncompetitive in the market is bad for the union in the long run.

Representatives of the union see the world differently. They don't see collaboration on the same goal, they see rich management exploiting employees to get even richer.

So it's really an us vs them mentality. Either I get richer, or you get richer. Don't expect these people to start reasoning about making the company they work for competitive.

At least this is the case in europe.

Interesting that this would be the case in Europe. Germany has had 'codetermination' laws for decades, where they have (typically union) representation on the boards of large corporations[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

This doesn't invalidate my remark though. Nothing says these union board members are there to make the company more competitive. They are there to provide better working conditions.

Still, the point stands that of all the European states, labor is arguably strongest in Germany, and at the same time Germany industry is extremely competitive. If strong labor was a huge competitive disadvantage you'd think Germany would be falling behind, but instead it's quite the opposite.

Unions don’t have to be adversarial...and it is often driven by management, as you are seeing here.

what? how is that not stopping people unionise?

If I join a union at work, it has no bearing on my stock options. In the uk its illegal to discriminate like that, precisely because employers like tesla would make it economically impossible to join a union.

As an aside, if you take away the shares, there is little incentive to work together to increase the share value. So of course unions are going to be incentivised differently.

Only, employee-owned co-ops demonstratee that you actually can have it both ways.