Kickstarter’s staff is unionizing

Exactly this.

First job I ever had was in the financial industry but was part of a larger conglomerate in the media business. As such, we were forced into the union that the writers for the media company were all a part of. Its unusual to have a union is a "professional services" type role. Speaking first hand, I can tell you the union did absolutely nothing for us except collect a portion of our wages. They didn't care about us. Perhaps it was because we were the smaller/niche part of the larger business and their focus was on the writers that far outnumbered us. Or maybe they were just shitbags. But when it came time to discuss keeping the reps we had, I asked why we should keep them since there was no clear benefit. They basically admitted they did nothing for us by promising to make our unit a focus going forward. Uh huh. Well, an opportunity showed up where we got bought out by a competitor (purely in financial services) and we took that opportunity, as per the labor laws, to determine whether or not we wanted representation at the new entity. We voted them out by a wide margin with 80% in favor of getting rid of them. My salary increased after that, and substantially so in the years since (although I did leave soon after).

The NLRB really, really didn't want us to get rid of the union and tried hard to convince us to keep them, which is weird because that's not their role. The NLRB is just supposed to oversee the process to make sure the rules are being followed. Also, we were given a mere one day to file the petition - the day the new entity was legal. If we didn't do it that day, we'd have to wait an entire year to revisit the issue! One of the many reasons it's hard to get rid of parasitic organizations one they get their hooks in.

There really isn't a need in most cases to be unionized. The primary focus of unions was always working conditions and fair wages. Working conditions are light years beyond what they once were so unions have focused basically myopically on always fighting for higher wages and benefits. But the only time I think this is appropriate is in cases of similar, easily comparable work - meaning things that are usually "blue collar". It's hard to compare a lot of professional and "creative" jobs or the people filling those positions. I think people should be forced to negotiate for their own wages in most cases. Only simpler, lower-wage type work where people may not have the personality, skillset, and ability to negotiate for themselves as to avoid taking advantage of people makes sense to me.

Part of the problem is it's too easy to just leave the industry altogether to get better working conditions, and then after a few years out you don't have the skills (or the willingness to be screwed over) to go back in.

The all too common path seems to be enter the industry for a few years, endure crap that none of your friends that do similar jobs outside of the industry endure for a lot less money, actually want to plan for the future at some point, then get a job outside of the industry, and even though you love games, you just can't go back to getting mistreated.

That was what I did, and lots of other coworkers I had, and is why the industry seems to have a huge dearth of senior talent.

So the people who would be most willing to unionize are no longer in the industry to do so.

Unions also negotiate workplace conditions, like no unpaid on-call duty, guaranteed vacations, etc. Many talent-based unions also provide (optional) retirement funds or health benefits so that members aren't tied to a single employer solely for healthcare.

> The idea that unions are inherently, universally good is just as silly as the idea that unions are inherently, universally bad.

This is something I think a lot of idealistically pro-union people don't understand, at least in the college/grad school circles I've discussed it with. The concept of a union is good, sure. But unions themselves are businesses, and it's their business to be needed and to convince people to join and pay dues.

That's the wrong analogy - it's not about loosening the laws. It's about reducing the overhead/framework for something that is no longer as necessary.

It should be "homicides are down, should we reduce the number of cops and investigators?"

And the answer is probably yes. But of course we know that in practicality no municipality would say they are letting a bunch of cops go because crime is down. Even though they arguably should. Or at the very least, don't replace them as they retire and let the number naturally decrease. Because the number of people who will go out murdering people solely because there are less cops is near zero. That's not really a driving factor.