Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

It's one thing to say that in tech people can have different performance levels. But stuff like PTO, actually meaningful sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, retirement benefits, healthcare, workplace safety, overtime work, using people for work they have not been hired, equipped or training for - there everyone is in the same boat, but tech's aversity to unions has an effect like the infamous "crabs in a bucket" mentality.

Even wages... it's not "just" performance levels that dictate these. Unions also serve for those who are not as conflict-happy or those who cannot negotiate due to external factors (e.g. visa enslavement, they have family to take care of and can't afford the potential of being out of work for a couple weeks while they set up new employment)... unions sacrifice a bit of individual wealth for common wealth for everyone.

For example, I was browsing /r/antiwork the other day and someone received a bill from their union after they chose to leave the job. The bill demanded the payment of $200 in union dues that were unpaid from their paychecks. The commenter did not have enough money to pay

To put it bluntly... this is exploitation. The responses were that the poster had two options (1) pay the due or (2) never work in any industry for which this is the union (and some other unions may not want you if you're out of date with the other union).

People have a right to work. No private organization, profit or non-profit, should be able to prevent you from doing that. I understand why a union may take a bit off the top of a paycheck, but to demand fixed sums after quitting under threat of never being able to work in that field again? That seems exploitative. We would never let a private for-profit business get away with threatening their employees as such.

Moreover, according to other unions I've interacted with, they claim that if you don't follow union policy, they can 'expel' you from the union after you go through 'trials'. Typically, tnis is if you cross a picket line. Now, I think it's usually in one's best interest to strike if the union is striking. However, this is a free country. No one should be able to prevent you from working. No private organization should be able to put you on trial with the consequence being that, if you lose, you cannot work. While organizations can expel members, that should be the extent of their punishment. Working is a necessity to earn an income. To deprive someone of that because they're not part of your club is morally wrong.

In my opinion, if we allow for closed shops, then unions should be obligated to represent any worker there, whether they have paid any dues or not. Union dues should primarily descend from paychecks. No worker should get a bill. No one should be able to be expelled from a profession simply for not following union labor policy (and realistically, there are only a handful of reasons a janitor ought to be expelled from the profession). Unions ought to be regulated like health insurance companies and be forced to advocate for anyone working in the field.

If there are 200,000 devs who want to work in game dev and 4,000 roles then wages will be depressed by over-supply. This is observable in all sorts of industries, often bordering on exploitation of people who desperately want to work in a specific area and are willing to work on low/no wages to get experience.

You'll also see companies over-paying when key skills are hard to source as the natural complement.