Unions in the 21st century: A potent weapon against inequality

I'm concerned with the a priori assumption that inequality of outcome is bad, partly because it leads directly and necessarily to idealistic, and frankly unequivocally unacheivable, communism.

But I'm not trying to argue here, I'm trying to understand. People here that think inequality of outcome is a thing to be fought, help me understand when enough equality of outcome is enough. At what level of outcome distribution will the fight be won? When is the fight concluded and victory acheieved?

Note: it's important to distinguish equality of outcome, which is a belief of the modern left, from equality of opportunity, which everyone on the political spectrum has been in favor of for at least a generation.

Where do you get the impression that the "modern left" values equality of outcomes tout court? In my experience, the argument is rather that inequality of outcomes is evidence of inequality of opportunity, or other injustices. You can argue about that, obviously, but in any case it is not the same as heedlessly enforcing equality of outcomes.

I've been invited to join unions a number of times over my career and despite supporting collective efforts, and have declined every time.

In manual labour industries where the difference between a good worker and a poor worker is a similar unions make sense. For example, a new bricklayer may lay 10 bricks an hour, while a quality bricklayer may lay 60 bricks an hour. But there will still be a limit on how much 'better' someone can be than someone else.

However, in white-collar jobs the difference in out put between a poor worker and a good worker can be astronomical - hence the myth of the 10x programmer. Personally, I am pretty good programmer to the point where I'm now running a start-up and doing quite well. When I came across management that treated me poorly, I left and found a better job - I didn't need a union.

However, far too often I've seen in white-collar jobs where there are unions, they protect people who shouldn't be protected. Poor workers whose output is well below the median, or whose behaviour is professionally terrible. Or they focus on niche issues while ignoring the needs of everyone.

So for me, joining a union would have offered nothing to me, while they can boast greater average output or higher memberships. So why join at all?

If union, especially white-collar/knowledge worker unions, want to become and remain relevant they need to get comfortable setting minimum performance to stay in the union and up hold those performance targets and even pre-emptively sanction underperforming workers before management does.

It's more like 20-25 paid vacation days per year in most countries. Except Andorra I think

Manual labor Unions set productivity standards to qualify. They demand the appropriate training, where applicable, before such an individual can even join the union.

"The 10x programmer" is a myth, as you yourself acknowledge - there is still a limit to practical human productivity. But I see no acknowledgement of such protections which ensure workers' productivity, and keeping unskilled scabs out of skilled-workers' unions.

Skilled Worker Unions have weathered genuine attacks against such unskilled scabs with audition periods, training requirements, and rigorous professional quotas.

In those cases where Union Coders genuinely suck, it is because the Union was organized without regard to how such Unions work.