Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech Workers' Values

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 276 posts

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#191

Post by pseudalopex »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #175
pseudalopex wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US jurisprudence requires unions to represent non-members whether they want to or not. I don't like agency fees, but they're a response to a free-rider problem. Yes, a union is pretty much a corporation that supplies labor. The biggest difference is how they're governed. Nobody bats an eye if a supplier negotiates an exclusive contract.

Agreed. I think exclusive supplier contracts are pretty dumb, too - At least without clauses for 'Price match or get out'. And the solution to the former should be (and I'll admit this is a stretch) to fix that problem, or better yet: simply to make your union's services so attractive and obviously a public good that the significant majority want to be sure it sticks around. Yes, the free rider problem is universal -…

Whatever you or I think about exclusive supplier contracts, is there a single state that forbids them except for unions?

Seniority rules are something unions negotiate for. Contracting firms stick warm bodies on projects all the time. That's between the supplier and the customer, not imposed by the federal government.

I agree it would be better to fix that, but as you said, it's a stretch. Good luck getting Republicans or Democrats to go for it.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#192

Post by chimeracoder »

matt4077 wrote: post #100
bosie wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> employees lose the right to negotiate their own compensation. I have never heard of that. Why would that be?

In some US states, unions are allowed to agree on so-called "union security" rules in their negotiations with employers. These require all employees covered by the union's agreements to be members. Other, so-called "right-to-work" states have outlawed the practice. The clauses make sense for the union and their members because you cannot restrict the benefits of union representation to only members. That creates "fre…

> I'm unsure if you are typically allowed to make your own agreements with the employer when there's union representation.

No, in closed shop contracts, this is expressly prohibited. Violating this and negotiating with your employer directly could be considered grounds for termination of union membership (ie, termination of employment). The employer would also face consequences as well.

> whatever has traditionally been agreed upon for steelworkers etc. may not be the best model for tech workers.

That's true - unfortunately, the NLRA (the law which regulates union operations) is very rigid, and it does not provide different stipulations for different industries.

There's a reason that virtually all NLRA-regulated unions in each state enact the same corporate policies for membership, the same contract structures, etc. - those are the ones which turn out to provide a stable (in the literal sense) balance of power under the laws.

It's very unlikely that an NLRA-regulated union in the tech industry would operate differently, in the long run, from the NLRA-regulated unions in every other industry.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#193

Post by xapata »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #158
civilian wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main objection to unions is that, once they're in a company, employees lose the right to negotiate their own compensation. I want to be able to skip my union dues and deal directly with the company. OR I want to be able to make a union of my own, especially for a functional or values-based subset of coworkers, and have us negotiate separately. This is not just a tech-unions-related complaint, this is a critique of…

Well the whole idea of trade associations and unions has it's roots in anarchic-socialism. The idea being that collective bargaining lifts the floor for the worker. The idea here is that the person at the top with outsized bargaining power is voluntarily relinquishing it to the person at the bottom in order to increase general welfare. If you don't believe in that, then that's great, but that's kind of the direction…

Even that "top" person might gain bargaining power by being part of a collective.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#194

Post by BadassFractal »

ignoramceisblis wrote: post #177
st3v3r wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

And you're attacking someone simply for stating that they think "Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do." From left field, you're bringing up and arguing against "having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others". And declaring that you know what EduardoBautista "wants": "no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You…

Definitely not alone, thanks for writing that.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#195

Post by chimeracoder »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #157
stale2002 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, band together and fix the power balance on your own, but don't force me to join one. I am perfectly OK with "fighting" the power imbalance on my own, using a skill called "negotiating my salary" and "voting with my feet".

Neither of those things are forbidden by unions. Actors are unionized and negotiate their salaries. And of course you're always free to quit.

> Neither of those things are forbidden by unions.

They can be - and most unions do prohibit negotiation with employers. SAG-AFTRA is the exception, not the rule, due mostly to the temporary, part-time, and gig-based nature of their work.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#196

Post by chimeracoder »

spangry wrote: post #170
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #10

We believe that employees should come together and clearly define the values and policies they'd like to see their companies uphold. A tech union isn't the perfect metaphor for this, but it's not far off. If it's going to do anything but be window dressing then it needs to have the teeth of union - so just call it what it is. I've argued for a while that tech workers need a union, but the chorus on HN and other place…

I agree with the what (I think) the parent post is getting at: if you're going to form a union, form a union . As in, a labour monopoly. This might sound radical, but I think there is good reason for developers and tech workers to consider this. There are strong network effects and nearly unlimited economies of scale in most tech markets. In these cases, given enough time, the end result will be a monopsonist employe…

> In these cases, given enough time, the end result will be a monopsonist employer.[0] This results in lower employment, lower wages and, ultimately, the replacement of labour with additional accumulated capital (e.g. ML algos) and/or cheaper substitute labour (e.g. imported foreign workers).

Unions that have closed-shop contracts with employers are, by definition, monopsonies on labor. Employees are required to be union members in order to be employed, and the union is the sole purchaser of the employee's labor (before reselling it to the employer).

Some of the earliest and most successful unions formed in industries in which there already was a single, monopsony employer for an unionized market (think: "company towns" in the Rust Belt). But that's a very different situation from taking a competitive market and turning it into a monopsony.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#197

Post by AndrewKemendo »

stale2002 wrote: post #178
alphonsegaston wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can create a union to reflect whatever values (e.g. negotiating compensation) you see fit. Don't believe the narratives proffered by anti-union forces for their own benefit. Actors are all in unions and employ an entire sub-class of workers (agents) to negotiate compensation for them.

Cool. How about we base this union on the values of not forcing people to join it? I'd be OK with that. Please keep these efforts focused on voluntary interactions.

A union can't force you to join it so in that regard it's completely voluntary.

It does however pressure companies to only hire union workers, or pressure the government to give preference to union workers. That's the whole point of a union, to check and co-opt the monopoly/oligopolic power of corporations and the government and giving it to the collective workers.

You might philosophically disagree with that approach and think that a more anarchic market is better, but a union is not a violent coercive group.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#198

Post by oddlyaromatic »

stale2002 wrote: post #150
bigtimeidiot wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have done just fine negotiating my salary on my own, thank you very much. And many, many other people haven't. Those people will unionize and won't care a lick to see you go.

Awesome. They can do that, and I will work for the multitude of companies and startups out there that will not unionize. You can't unionize every startup in the world, and non unionized employees will be able to demand a premium. Other people are free to burden themselves with union rules, and I will be free to accept the higher salary that I can command because my competition is hindered. It is a competitive advanta…

It's people like this commenter who need to be won over if a union would have any chance in tech. But I don't know how to do it. At my first ever job everybody at the company was an automatic member of a union (it was a grocery store in my home town). I knew that when I took a paid break, or a vacation, or got time and a half for night work, I was benefiting from industrial action taken by those who went before me. I remember being a kid and seeing my aunt and her coworkers picketing over a pay dispute. I made better money because it was not just me negotiating on my own, other people went without pay to force the company to do better. It was and remains a successful chain. Currently I support people with disabilities who work in similar jobs and are protected by the "burden" of union rules.

I wonder if tech contains too many people who think they are too smart to get screwed to gain critical mass for a union. Maybe everybody thinks they have a competitive advantage... What's weird is that this is also how the employers like it. So is everybody winning, or does one side just think they are? I have never before heard the complaint that unions reduce wages. Maybe I'm missing something because employers should be all for that!

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#199

Post by alphonsegaston »

chimeracoder wrote: post #195
alphonsegaston wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those things are forbidden by unions. Actors are unionized and negotiate their salaries. And of course you're always free to quit.

> Neither of those things are forbidden by unions. They can be - and most unions do prohibit negotiation with employers. SAG-AFTRA is the exception, not the rule, due mostly to the temporary, part-time, and gig-based nature of their work.

Sure - but we're talking about a new union for tech workers here. It can be what we want it to be. There's no reason to lock ourselves into some kind of historical determinancy. SAG-AFRTA never did.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#200

Post by rhino369 »

cyphar wrote: post #96
yanilkr wrote: post #38

Tech workers have something so much better than that. Freedom. If you do not like the values of the current company find a new one or start one. Mob rule knows no fairness. When your ideas are vague, people fill them up with their version of fairness. Employees who are just starting out do not know anything about making sacrifices to build something bigger than themselves. If they collectively form a gang and overrid…

You could make the same argument about most engineering disciplines. Yet other engineers have unions, because historically they've had unions and they've worked out well. The only reason that software engineering unions aren't common is because we didn't adopt them at the beginning. Quick reminder that unions are the reason that many of the benefits you have in the workplace today are standardised across the workforc…

Do most engineering disciplines have strong unions with large membership? It doesn't seem very common in EE.
Post reply on HN