Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience.

> Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem.

I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.

▲

Muromec 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better?

On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others.

The thing is real, but so are the people.

Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recognise this thing at work.

	▲	aliasxneo an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? The union should help them find roles they can be successful in. It should offer them more specialized training, mentorship programs, and other ways to help build up their skills. If they refuse to take any of these seriously, they should be fired. To me, that's the difference between poor performing and intentional laziness.
	▲	mc32 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There should be disincentives for poor performance, options to improve performance (training, counseling, etc.) and incentives for good performance (better raises, perks, etc.) to incentivize good employees.