The Gamespot one is really poorly written. Not sure if it's AI bad or human bad. An example:
> Laid-off union members will also get an additional four weeks of pay–regardless of how long they worked at the company–hybrid schedules that allow them to work from home, and formal systems to settle disputes within the workplace.
They can choose to work their allotted 0 hours any time of the day they choose. Has to be at home though, mandatory "do not work" from home orders apply.
Are there any unionized game studios that continue to produce highly acclaimed games?
Bethesda used to make great games, but the last great game they made was Skyrim in 2011, they unionized in 2022, and just recently they had some big layoffs.
CD Projekt made the highly acclaimed Witcher 3 in 2015, Cyberpunk disappointed on it's release in 2020, although it's reviews are mixed. CD Projekt unionized in 2023.
Blizzard have been in decline for a long time, they mostly focus on maintaining the cash cows games WoW and hearthstone. Although Diablo has is mostly well regarded(ignoring immortal). They haven't made any new ambitious game for a while. Their last attempt at making something ambitious was Titan, a cancelled MMO that they worked on for 6 years and supposedly spent $80 million on, cancelled in 2013.
The decline seems to begin well before the unionization, so I wouldn't say it's causal, it's more of a symptom of the company no longer being a place that can foster high functioning teams, where people feel like they are valued and working on something important.
> Are there any unionized game studios that continue to produce highly acclaimed games?
In order for that to happen, a game studio that is currently producing highly acclaimed games would have to unionize. All of your examples seem to be of studios that are past their peak... Does unionizing turn that around? Seems like no, but what does?
Anyway, Acclaim Games shut down in 2004, and again in 2010. There's a new Acclaim as of 2025, so maybe there's a chance highly Acclaimed games will come out, but I don't think they're unionized, and it might just all be vapor and puffery.
Aguably those things would have happened with or without a union. E.g. it's extremely rare that any studio could repeat a masterpiece like Witcher 3, and CDPR's earlier Witcher titles also are fare away from that quality.
From what I've seen, success and following decline are directly related. Once a studio becomes successful, they start to attract the sort of people (especially in leading positions) who are great at selling themselves but not much else, and the studio founders haven't learned yet to separate the chaff from the wheat. And then after a while suddenly the company is full of 'mercenaries' which only care about their own carreer advancement but not about the games they create.
Unionization seems to be a secondary effect of strategic failure. If there is a causal relationship, I think it happens in reverse.
Walking the game theory backward, if the team was executing successfully and productively and everyone is getting paid fat bonuses then I don't think there is much motivation to get political in the workplace.
Only after the soul has been completely extracted from a company/team does this process seem to occur.
I think Valve sets a good example for an alternative, while not union they operate with a flat structure and is not publicly traded which sets them apart. They're kinda like an elite guild of game developers.
I'm not sure I follow the correlation or causation logic here. By the evidence presented the conclusion I would draw is it's very difficult to have repeated success. All your stated failures predated any unionisation.
If anything to unionization seems correlated simply to how long a company has been around.
There aren't many studios that have managed long term repeated success.
The best contenders would be:
Nintendo EPD, Nintendo's internal studio.
~40 years of sustained high quality games.
FromSoftware is also about 40 years old, although didn't really see breakout success until Demon's Souls in 2009.
Naughty Dog, founded in 1989, released Crash Bandicoot in 1996, and have continuously maintained a high bar.
Rockstar is 27 years old and makes great games, though it's been about 6 years since they released a game. Also I believe they have recently begun to unionize.
Valve is also worth a mention, they never really dropped the bar in terms of quality, they just lost interest in making games because they make so much money from Steam.
Fair point on WoW and I totally forgot Starcraft 2.
Diablo 3 I played extensively, yet I felt somewhat disgusted by the end of it.
But it's a product of that time. If I think about the games I played recently, nothing holds except Warcraft 3 with the custom maps.
I have little time so I play only what I consider "top" for my taste and drop everything else, even in the "good" category.
Due to that my last few years have been games that last me hundreds and hundreds of hours with high satisfaction, or shorter games with high satisfaction.
Either way, I would never play diablo 3 the same amount of time I did back in the day, the only reason I played was because of the friends I had
I guess we will find out when GTA 6 comes out as Rockstar has become unionized.
Although actually…Rockstar didn’t become unionized until most of GTA 6 had already been completed. So I guess we’ll find out when their next game comes out.
the expectation combined with more studios doing stuff, the fact that video-games don't have 100 years (so it's a maturing art form, somehow) and also investment money... i believe there's much more chances of quality declining on companies by the hook of investors or at least less innovation (which seems to drive a bunch of 'unicorns' on this field)? graphics kinda topped by now, there's no more magic on realism/fancy graphics! maybe at some point role-play/storytelling will get more complex/infinite with AI but it's not clear how or if it'll, as we have player driven multi-player video-games for quite a while, like Albion or some much older: https://www.havenandhearth.com/portal/ ... maybe man vs. the machine in a sensible way and not those engines stomping pro-players on Dota
I don't think "raw, unfettered capitalism" and unions are orthogonal.
Actually, quite the opposite - in a free market, labor is free to organize in any way they want. If they have enough leverage over the employer, they'll succeed.
The anti-free market part is the regulatory quagmire that the US has in place for organized labor.
I think that's the thing that most people take umbrage with.
I don't know for sure, but I've heard from knowledgeable folks that it is more effective in Europe.
They are a little bit, because collective action is very hard. If everyone chooses to participate and pay the cost of organizing it is worth the cost and a union will happen. But if a number of people choose not to then everything falls apart, as it is no longer worth it for anyone to pay the cost and the union can't function. Often the benefits of a union are also a public good, meaning everyone gets the benefits of a union fighting for better working conditions whether they pay the cost or not. If so, then there's little incentive to pay and the union will have trouble keeping itself alive.
Unions need some external extra incentive, like the state forcing them to exist or subsidizing the cost of organizing, to exist long term.
> I don't think "raw, unfettered capitalism" and unions are orthogonal.
In a vacuum, no. If the most profitable approach means involves maintaining an "all star" cast to keep the best team happy, then everything works out. That's the athlete/celebrity model.
But current dynamics has games divorced from quality to generate the most profit, and companies work to minimize expenses instead, via the assembly line approach. Devaluing labor to maximize money makes unions inevitable.
This is probably the beginning of the end for Blizzard as an identifiable company. MSFT will just absorb WoW, Overwatch, and Diablo and spin up new internal studios to support them rather than have their feet held to the fire by a union. They did it with Halo. Of course, it produced garbage, but that never stopped Microsoft.
Use to be a huge Blizzard fan back in the day. Can't get behind basically anything they are doing today. Time will tell if something like this just reinforces whatever is broken or results in real improvement. I'm cynical on the matter.
I remember when Warcraft 3 came out and a news outlet mentioned something on the lines of "gamers' trust in Blizzard borders on religious faith" and it sounded true.
It's unbelievable how far from that trust and love they have fallen.
This is really needed right now. I suspect with studios adopting AI en masse for software development and the creative side of things the studios that unionise and/or treat their real workers well will come out on top. We need studios filled with talented and passionate people who aren't worried about getting laid off next week and not making rent.
Would be crazy to work for a company where you had confidence that like half your colleagues would be "laid off" after successfully delivering a project.
No need, Jason Hall said that a single World of Warcraft cosmetic mount generated more profit for Blizzard than the entire release of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
The Starcraft site is clearly doing some sort of intentional glitch out ARG, and the rumour going around is that they are doing some sort of singleplayer shooter set in that universe.
Well 40k sell branding to just about anyone who is willing to pay. On other hand I have heard that they are increasing prices on everything physical...
Big corporate gaming studios get my full support for unionizing, those people need collective bargaining. I am a skeptic of many unionizing efforts, but not this one.
Spectacular. Many people have been disappointed with moves by Blizz in the last 5-10 years and anything that improves livability for those that make what used to be great games is a huge win
in australia workers seem to have more rights. they have industry awards that specify minimum wage and safety conditions etc, they have the legal right to strike and the legal right for union/collective bargaining if they choose it, aka freedom of association. when i look at employment conditions in the US, it boggles my mind how workers there basically have zero safety net. its an extreme example of giving all the power to the employer.
Maybe Americans get higher incomes because US companies structurally sell to larger markets than Australian companies, so - at least for those roles with scale / leverage - the role is more productive & the absolute value that the employee can extract is high, even if the proportion of the overall value extracted by the worker is similar to or lower than the proportion extracted by an Australian worker.
Maybe if Americans had stronger unions, perhaps American workers could benefit from both higher incomes - due to the increased scale & opportunities of the US market - & increased protections relative to Australian workers.
Another thing that is quite different between the US & Australia is that in the US, the public is generally a lot more trusting of business over government. US business interests have a long history of influencing US public opinion- there's examples of stuff like business interest groups creating educational materials & getting them into schools, so kids learn early about the wonders of capitalism & free markets. It's unsurprising that you might not find unions so popular in such an environment. A book that details quite a lot of that history is Kerryn Higgs' book Collision Course: Endless Growth on a Finite Planet [1].
One of the reasons that unions in the US are unpopular because they function as the funding arm of one of the political parties. In some states you have to join these unions to get a job at a state agency or at a government funded school. This is obviously incredibly corrupting, where the unions donate huge amounts of money to politicians who then feed back more money to the union members, and it's all paid for by taxpayers.
There's also ridiculous rules that many of them have adopted. My favorite example is that in my state a teacher was awarded the "Teacher of the Year" award, which is a pretty prestigious award, and requires you to be nominated by your students. Before the next school year she was fired because they had to make some cuts and the union had set it up so it was a Last In-First Out arrangement. So the teacher of the year was let go as that was her first or second year teaching. The teachers union prioritized its older members at the cost of that school losing their best teacher.
American unions are very different, in my experience, from what I saw from the European companies I've worked for. Those employee unions seemed solely focused on the people working at the company and did a good job representing their interests and solely their interests. If that's how unions in the US functioned, many people would have a much different opinion of them.
There are plenty of legal "safety nets" for American employees, regardless of if you're in a union or not. Could they be better? Sure, anything can be improved, just like every other country on Earth.
What kind of boggles my mind is that people online think they have an understanding of almost every part of American society because of what they read online or saw in the news. I wouldn't for the slightest second think I would have a clue about the working conditions in Australia, nor would I think I have the ability to read stuff online and get an actual understanding of it.
The most glaring example of this were all the people who came here for the world cup, afraid of all the crime and all that nonsense, and realized that living in America is actually pretty fucking great.
> its an extreme example of giving all the power to the employer
And yet, we make the most money, which seems to kind of go against that idea. If all the power was with the employer, you'd expect low wages, not high ones.
Apologies if that was a harsh response, it's just tiresome reading all of these foreign online "experts" on American society.
Comparing US safety nets to those of “any other country on Earth” is just patently absurd and disingenuous. EU has mandated - mandated - 4 week paid leave. In the US you are obligated to exactly 0 days of paid leave.
I get that this is HN and most people here haven’t worked the bottom-of-the-barrel retail jobs that this applies to, but there is very little difference in take home pay for this income regime after accounting for necessary expenses such as housing, transportation, and food; in some cases EU take home is even higher. https://boundlesshq.com/blog/us-vs-europe-employment-costs-s...
Like, sure, if you want to larp as a low income oligarch the US is the best place to do that. Otherwise, you’re going to be regularly crying after 10 hour shifts because you’re in the red each month after necessary expenses. Most people would like tech talent fall into the latter category out of schadenfreude or profit motive.
What's disingenuous is comparing government mandated minimums and acting like that has any reflection on what the situation is for the vast majority of people. In addition, plenty of states and localities have their own requirements for PTO, sick pay, etc. You act as if the US is some homogenous place.
> I get that this is HN and most people here haven’t worked the bottom-of-the-barrel retail jobs
I worked 50+ hours a week while pursuing my CompSci degree. The place I worked was officially commission based (Circuit City) so it didn't matter how many hours they put me on the schedule. I was frequently working 9am - 9pm retail shifts. My easy shifts were 10am-9pm or 12-9:30. Life is hard, but somehow I managed to get my degree while working that schedule for years. My favorite thing was when we did entire store inventories. It was required to be there, but we didn't get paid. Was it legal? Who knows!
I wish I had the pay and benefits that every single major big box store provides now. It would have been glorious. $15-$20 an hour to start, plus full benefits, PTO, sick days, paid breaks(!), etc etc? Heck, quite a few would have helped pay for my tuition too!
> Tech needs to unionize.
There is no job sector in the US that needs unions less than tech. I'm not sure how you can go from talking about "hard" retail jobs to the absolute cushy profession we enjoy. Sitting around in a comfortable office or working from home, poking at a keyboard, attending meetings, stock awards, ridiculously high pay for the amount of effort it requires - the list goes on and on.
It's interesting to observe that there seemingly is a very high relationship with groups of people producing garbage and seeking extra protection through other means to "level the playing field" aka force everyone to be on their level.
Might be a better article on this: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
The Gamespot one is really poorly written. Not sure if it's AI bad or human bad. An example:
> Laid-off union members will also get an additional four weeks of pay–regardless of how long they worked at the company–hybrid schedules that allow them to work from home, and formal systems to settle disputes within the workplace.
Laid off workers get to utilize hybrid schedules?
They can choose to work their allotted 0 hours any time of the day they choose. Has to be at home though, mandatory "do not work" from home orders apply.
Are there any unionized game studios that continue to produce highly acclaimed games?
Bethesda used to make great games, but the last great game they made was Skyrim in 2011, they unionized in 2022, and just recently they had some big layoffs.
CD Projekt made the highly acclaimed Witcher 3 in 2015, Cyberpunk disappointed on it's release in 2020, although it's reviews are mixed. CD Projekt unionized in 2023.
Blizzard have been in decline for a long time, they mostly focus on maintaining the cash cows games WoW and hearthstone. Although Diablo has is mostly well regarded(ignoring immortal). They haven't made any new ambitious game for a while. Their last attempt at making something ambitious was Titan, a cancelled MMO that they worked on for 6 years and supposedly spent $80 million on, cancelled in 2013.
The decline seems to begin well before the unionization, so I wouldn't say it's causal, it's more of a symptom of the company no longer being a place that can foster high functioning teams, where people feel like they are valued and working on something important.
> Are there any unionized game studios that continue to produce highly acclaimed games?
In order for that to happen, a game studio that is currently producing highly acclaimed games would have to unionize. All of your examples seem to be of studios that are past their peak... Does unionizing turn that around? Seems like no, but what does?
Anyway, Acclaim Games shut down in 2004, and again in 2010. There's a new Acclaim as of 2025, so maybe there's a chance highly Acclaimed games will come out, but I don't think they're unionized, and it might just all be vapor and puffery.
Aguably those things would have happened with or without a union. E.g. it's extremely rare that any studio could repeat a masterpiece like Witcher 3, and CDPR's earlier Witcher titles also are fare away from that quality.
From what I've seen, success and following decline are directly related. Once a studio becomes successful, they start to attract the sort of people (especially in leading positions) who are great at selling themselves but not much else, and the studio founders haven't learned yet to separate the chaff from the wheat. And then after a while suddenly the company is full of 'mercenaries' which only care about their own carreer advancement but not about the games they create.
Unionization seems to be a secondary effect of strategic failure. If there is a causal relationship, I think it happens in reverse.
Walking the game theory backward, if the team was executing successfully and productively and everyone is getting paid fat bonuses then I don't think there is much motivation to get political in the workplace.
Only after the soul has been completely extracted from a company/team does this process seem to occur.
I think Valve sets a good example for an alternative, while not union they operate with a flat structure and is not publicly traded which sets them apart. They're kinda like an elite guild of game developers.
Patched Cyberpunk is the best game after Elden Ring of the last 10 years
Cyberpunk created a beautiful city and world but it feels so empty with no real interactions possible with the NPCs. Not unlike the GTA games.
I'm not sure I follow the correlation or causation logic here. By the evidence presented the conclusion I would draw is it's very difficult to have repeated success. All your stated failures predated any unionisation.
If anything to unionization seems correlated simply to how long a company has been around.
That's a fair criticism.
There aren't many studios that have managed long term repeated success.
The best contenders would be:
Nintendo EPD, Nintendo's internal studio. ~40 years of sustained high quality games.
FromSoftware is also about 40 years old, although didn't really see breakout success until Demon's Souls in 2009.
Naughty Dog, founded in 1989, released Crash Bandicoot in 1996, and have continuously maintained a high bar.
Rockstar is 27 years old and makes great games, though it's been about 6 years since they released a game. Also I believe they have recently begun to unionize.
Valve is also worth a mention, they never really dropped the bar in terms of quality, they just lost interest in making games because they make so much money from Steam.
Isn't Activision Blizzard, which implies they make call of duty which is one of the games that makes the most money out there?
I don't like any of that, but they do make money.
As for good games, the last one was warcraft 3 maybe
Yeah they still make good money.
I think calling WC3 the last good game is immoderately scornful though.
I regret the time I spent playing WoW, but it was category defining and a cultural phenomenon.
StarCraft 2 was excellent, perhaps to this day the best RTS ever made.
Diablo 3 was highly regarded.
> Diablo 3 was highly regarded.
Lol, Diablo 2 was the last good Diablo (it has a great remaster now btw).
Fair point on WoW and I totally forgot Starcraft 2.
Diablo 3 I played extensively, yet I felt somewhat disgusted by the end of it.
But it's a product of that time. If I think about the games I played recently, nothing holds except Warcraft 3 with the custom maps.
I have little time so I play only what I consider "top" for my taste and drop everything else, even in the "good" category. Due to that my last few years have been games that last me hundreds and hundreds of hours with high satisfaction, or shorter games with high satisfaction.
Either way, I would never play diablo 3 the same amount of time I did back in the day, the only reason I played was because of the friends I had
Diablo 3, no, it was horrible
The rest you've mentioned were bangers in their own ways however.
All those studios were actually already on a downward trend I'd argue. Unionisation may turn it around
CPR is about to release The Witcher 4, probably it’s going to be a masterpiece.
I guess we will find out when GTA 6 comes out as Rockstar has become unionized.
Although actually…Rockstar didn’t become unionized until most of GTA 6 had already been completed. So I guess we’ll find out when their next game comes out.
Remember that correlation != causation.
They might also have unionized due to the bad conditions while developing GTA 6, which could also lead to it being a bad game. Who knows though.
I don't really know what unionization has to do with making good games. We've seen plenty of studios fall from grace with raw, unfettered capitalism.
It ultimately will come down to if it can retain talent and don't do a soft reset every project.
the expectation combined with more studios doing stuff, the fact that video-games don't have 100 years (so it's a maturing art form, somehow) and also investment money... i believe there's much more chances of quality declining on companies by the hook of investors or at least less innovation (which seems to drive a bunch of 'unicorns' on this field)? graphics kinda topped by now, there's no more magic on realism/fancy graphics! maybe at some point role-play/storytelling will get more complex/infinite with AI but it's not clear how or if it'll, as we have player driven multi-player video-games for quite a while, like Albion or some much older: https://www.havenandhearth.com/portal/ ... maybe man vs. the machine in a sensible way and not those engines stomping pro-players on Dota
I don't think "raw, unfettered capitalism" and unions are orthogonal.
Actually, quite the opposite - in a free market, labor is free to organize in any way they want. If they have enough leverage over the employer, they'll succeed.
The anti-free market part is the regulatory quagmire that the US has in place for organized labor.
I think that's the thing that most people take umbrage with.
I don't know for sure, but I've heard from knowledgeable folks that it is more effective in Europe.
They are a little bit, because collective action is very hard. If everyone chooses to participate and pay the cost of organizing it is worth the cost and a union will happen. But if a number of people choose not to then everything falls apart, as it is no longer worth it for anyone to pay the cost and the union can't function. Often the benefits of a union are also a public good, meaning everyone gets the benefits of a union fighting for better working conditions whether they pay the cost or not. If so, then there's little incentive to pay and the union will have trouble keeping itself alive.
Unions need some external extra incentive, like the state forcing them to exist or subsidizing the cost of organizing, to exist long term.
You might be surprised to learn that much of the regulatory quagmire you speak of was devised by supposed proponents of the free market.
> I don't think "raw, unfettered capitalism" and unions are orthogonal.
In a vacuum, no. If the most profitable approach means involves maintaining an "all star" cast to keep the best team happy, then everything works out. That's the athlete/celebrity model.
But current dynamics has games divorced from quality to generate the most profit, and companies work to minimize expenses instead, via the assembly line approach. Devaluing labor to maximize money makes unions inevitable.
Cyberpunk may have had a bad launch, but in 2026 it is a great game, and worth playing. One of the best games I've played in years.
I remember it being called "Cedarpunk" on account of its rendering issues.
This is probably the beginning of the end for Blizzard as an identifiable company. MSFT will just absorb WoW, Overwatch, and Diablo and spin up new internal studios to support them rather than have their feet held to the fire by a union. They did it with Halo. Of course, it produced garbage, but that never stopped Microsoft.
Use to be a huge Blizzard fan back in the day. Can't get behind basically anything they are doing today. Time will tell if something like this just reinforces whatever is broken or results in real improvement. I'm cynical on the matter.
I remember when Warcraft 3 came out and a news outlet mentioned something on the lines of "gamers' trust in Blizzard borders on religious faith" and it sounded true.
It's unbelievable how far from that trust and love they have fallen.
This is really needed right now. I suspect with studios adopting AI en masse for software development and the creative side of things the studios that unionise and/or treat their real workers well will come out on top. We need studios filled with talented and passionate people who aren't worried about getting laid off next week and not making rent.
The time to unionize was 15 years ago. But the majority didn't want to because they got theirs and screw everyone else.
Now with downsizing and AI knocking at the door, funny how willing everyone is to unionize.
About time tbh. I don't work in game dev, in part because of the horrorshow of game dev management.
Would be crazy to work for a company where you had confidence that like half your colleagues would be "laid off" after successfully delivering a project.
I'd never ship then, consciously or not.
You'd fit right in then
Does Blizzard plan on releasing a good game soon?
No need, Jason Hall said that a single World of Warcraft cosmetic mount generated more profit for Blizzard than the entire release of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
The Starcraft site is clearly doing some sort of intentional glitch out ARG, and the rumour going around is that they are doing some sort of singleplayer shooter set in that universe.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/113435/blizzards-next-starcra...
StarCraft: Ghost?
Most of SC Ghost's plot was absorbed into a special DLC campaign for Starcraft 2. They'd need to do something else.
(The site also seems to indicate the new game's plot takes place about 75 years after the end of SC2.)
I hear they may be re-re-re-releasing WoW Classic again.
Meanwhile the 40k universe keeps releasing game after game. Obviously not all good, but it’s better than being stagnant
Well 40k sell branding to just about anyone who is willing to pay. On other hand I have heard that they are increasing prices on everything physical...
Overwatch had so much promise. I could have seen an Arcane style series featuring characters. But no. I'm not expecting anything good from them again.
definitely not now
Big corporate gaming studios get my full support for unionizing, those people need collective bargaining. I am a skeptic of many unionizing efforts, but not this one.
Spectacular. Many people have been disappointed with moves by Blizz in the last 5-10 years and anything that improves livability for those that make what used to be great games is a huge win
Union release: https://cwa-union.org/news/releases/blizzard-entertainment-w... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49627164)
in australia workers seem to have more rights. they have industry awards that specify minimum wage and safety conditions etc, they have the legal right to strike and the legal right for union/collective bargaining if they choose it, aka freedom of association. when i look at employment conditions in the US, it boggles my mind how workers there basically have zero safety net. its an extreme example of giving all the power to the employer.
Americans trade higher worker income for decreased protections.
Is that actually true though?
Maybe Americans get higher incomes because US companies structurally sell to larger markets than Australian companies, so - at least for those roles with scale / leverage - the role is more productive & the absolute value that the employee can extract is high, even if the proportion of the overall value extracted by the worker is similar to or lower than the proportion extracted by an Australian worker.
Maybe if Americans had stronger unions, perhaps American workers could benefit from both higher incomes - due to the increased scale & opportunities of the US market - & increased protections relative to Australian workers.
Another thing that is quite different between the US & Australia is that in the US, the public is generally a lot more trusting of business over government. US business interests have a long history of influencing US public opinion- there's examples of stuff like business interest groups creating educational materials & getting them into schools, so kids learn early about the wonders of capitalism & free markets. It's unsurprising that you might not find unions so popular in such an environment. A book that details quite a lot of that history is Kerryn Higgs' book Collision Course: Endless Growth on a Finite Planet [1].
[1] https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/3683/Collision-CourseEndle...
One of the reasons that unions in the US are unpopular because they function as the funding arm of one of the political parties. In some states you have to join these unions to get a job at a state agency or at a government funded school. This is obviously incredibly corrupting, where the unions donate huge amounts of money to politicians who then feed back more money to the union members, and it's all paid for by taxpayers.
There's also ridiculous rules that many of them have adopted. My favorite example is that in my state a teacher was awarded the "Teacher of the Year" award, which is a pretty prestigious award, and requires you to be nominated by your students. Before the next school year she was fired because they had to make some cuts and the union had set it up so it was a Last In-First Out arrangement. So the teacher of the year was let go as that was her first or second year teaching. The teachers union prioritized its older members at the cost of that school losing their best teacher.
American unions are very different, in my experience, from what I saw from the European companies I've worked for. Those employee unions seemed solely focused on the people working at the company and did a good job representing their interests and solely their interests. If that's how unions in the US functioned, many people would have a much different opinion of them.
They would not. If its harder to fire people, then there would be less employee turnover, which is where all the income growth comes from.
There are plenty of legal "safety nets" for American employees, regardless of if you're in a union or not. Could they be better? Sure, anything can be improved, just like every other country on Earth.
What kind of boggles my mind is that people online think they have an understanding of almost every part of American society because of what they read online or saw in the news. I wouldn't for the slightest second think I would have a clue about the working conditions in Australia, nor would I think I have the ability to read stuff online and get an actual understanding of it.
The most glaring example of this were all the people who came here for the world cup, afraid of all the crime and all that nonsense, and realized that living in America is actually pretty fucking great.
> its an extreme example of giving all the power to the employer
And yet, we make the most money, which seems to kind of go against that idea. If all the power was with the employer, you'd expect low wages, not high ones.
Apologies if that was a harsh response, it's just tiresome reading all of these foreign online "experts" on American society.
Comparing US safety nets to those of “any other country on Earth” is just patently absurd and disingenuous. EU has mandated - mandated - 4 week paid leave. In the US you are obligated to exactly 0 days of paid leave.
I get that this is HN and most people here haven’t worked the bottom-of-the-barrel retail jobs that this applies to, but there is very little difference in take home pay for this income regime after accounting for necessary expenses such as housing, transportation, and food; in some cases EU take home is even higher. https://boundlesshq.com/blog/us-vs-europe-employment-costs-s...
Like, sure, if you want to larp as a low income oligarch the US is the best place to do that. Otherwise, you’re going to be regularly crying after 10 hour shifts because you’re in the red each month after necessary expenses. Most people would like tech talent fall into the latter category out of schadenfreude or profit motive.
Tech needs to unionize.
> disingenuous
What's disingenuous is comparing government mandated minimums and acting like that has any reflection on what the situation is for the vast majority of people. In addition, plenty of states and localities have their own requirements for PTO, sick pay, etc. You act as if the US is some homogenous place.
> I get that this is HN and most people here haven’t worked the bottom-of-the-barrel retail jobs
I worked 50+ hours a week while pursuing my CompSci degree. The place I worked was officially commission based (Circuit City) so it didn't matter how many hours they put me on the schedule. I was frequently working 9am - 9pm retail shifts. My easy shifts were 10am-9pm or 12-9:30. Life is hard, but somehow I managed to get my degree while working that schedule for years. My favorite thing was when we did entire store inventories. It was required to be there, but we didn't get paid. Was it legal? Who knows!
I wish I had the pay and benefits that every single major big box store provides now. It would have been glorious. $15-$20 an hour to start, plus full benefits, PTO, sick days, paid breaks(!), etc etc? Heck, quite a few would have helped pay for my tuition too!
> Tech needs to unionize.
There is no job sector in the US that needs unions less than tech. I'm not sure how you can go from talking about "hard" retail jobs to the absolute cushy profession we enjoy. Sitting around in a comfortable office or working from home, poking at a keyboard, attending meetings, stock awards, ridiculously high pay for the amount of effort it requires - the list goes on and on.
It's interesting to observe that there seemingly is a very high relationship with groups of people producing garbage and seeking extra protection through other means to "level the playing field" aka force everyone to be on their level.