Nice sterotypes. Now let's think for a bit... (Score 1)

There's a lot being said on this thread based on predjudices and stereotypes about unions. Most of it looks pretty knee-jerk, based on media and political portrayals of unions. But it's largely ignoring the core economic and political problems. Let's step back for a second and think about the real issues here.

Unions were not created to guarantee jobs.

Unions were not created to guarantee pay bands.

Unions were not created to eliminate drive or incentive.

Unions were created to address the power imbalance between the individual (small, low power) and the corporation (large, high power). As long as every individual fights for his or her interests alone against the company, he or she is at a radical disadvantage. Unions were created to address this imbalance through the power of collective bargaining. If all of the workers can present a united front, they have a much better chance of getting what they want/need.

Furthermore, by banding together, the workers can combat a "tragedy of the commons" effect -- companies that don't radically exploit their workers are at a disadvantage relative to companies that do. Therefore, every company has independent incentive to ruthlessly exploit their workers (e.g. 90 hour work weeks, short/no vacaction time, minimal benefits, etc.) Note that this is exactly the same disadvantage that the US is at with respect to employers in lower-cost countries with fewer employee protections and benefits. If, however, the labor pool uniformly rejects those practices on the part of all employers, then the employers have independent incentive to play by a common set of minimal guidelines (or else lose access to the labor that they critically need).

The alternate approach to balancing the power of companies is through governmental intervention, which can establish a uniform floor for acceptable practices. This has many of the same benefits and detriments as the union approach, but it has the drawback of often being harder to achieve and having a slower reaction time than a grass roots movement.

Have unions been abusive on their side too? Absolutely. Have they made extortionate demands and forced contracts that remove incentive? Sure. But those are not the critical features of unions. The important thing is that unions represent a large power base with a set of interests that opposes (and balances) the power base and interests of the corporations. Every power base inevitably acts in its own, selfish interests, so you inevitably get some abuses on each side. But when there's no balance of power, one side has essentially free reign to fulfill its interests to the arbitrary detriment of the other side.

Those of you who don't believe this would do well to meditate upon the checks and balances system of the US Constitution.

It also wouldn't hurt to read a little history and check out working conditions before unions and government regulation. Worker exploitation in the tech industry now really isn't that different from exploitation in the textile mills of the nineteenth century -- you're just being paid better now and are less likely to be mauled by your equipment, so you think you've got a better deal. But if you're "90 hours a week and loving it", then you've given up a huge slice of your life because it makes someone else's life better. You may think you have a choice, but the power really isn't in your hands these days, and there's basically nobody out there rooting for the hackers.