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

201–210 of 276 posts

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#201

Post by chimeracoder »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #199
chimeracoder wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

There is, and that's the NLRA. It's a very rigid law, and there's a reason that basically all unions formed under the NLRA, regardless of the industry, have converged on the same sorts of membership agreements, employer contracts, and corporate policies.

You can start off with whatever you like, but pretty much any NLRA-regulated union will end up with the same result; it's not a coincidence.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#202

Post by pseudalopex »

chimeracoder wrote: post #190
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.

> 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. They get around that by structuring all of the benefits in the employment contracts to cover only their members, and by negotiating exclusive employment contracts with employers (so that there are no non-members). Put another way, 94% of people who are repr…

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation considers anything but "open shop" to be "forced unionism" and lists 28 states as free from that scourge.[1] No exclusive contracts, no agency fees.

[1] http://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#203

Post by aanm1988 »

civilian wrote: post #57
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…

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…

> My main objection to unions is that, once they're in a company, employees lose the right to negotiate their own compensation

So don't have the union do that.

Have the union worry about coming down on places that fire members for refusing to work 60 hours a week, want you to train your replacement, force shitty unpaid oncall schedules, etc...

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#204

Post by aanm1988 »

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.

because then it has no power.

That's the whole point. Individuals have no power. You can fool yourself into thinking that extra 20k a year you managed to get is power.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#205

Post by aanm1988 »

carlosdp wrote: post #91
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?

Because they would need to join the union and the union negotiates compensation for everyone, that's one of the main purposes of a union.

Plenty of unions and associations don't do this. A reasonable method for this would be for a union to negotiate per level salary bands, and yearly merit increases.

Within the band the company pays whatever they think you are worth.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#206

Post by webwright »

badloginagain wrote: post #64
xienze wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This sounds like it's going to have exactly zero to do with what a labor union would normally be concerned with -- pay, working conditions, etc. Instead, I have a strong suspicion this is going to be some sort of enumeration of the progressive ideals that all tech workers "should" be concerned…

I don't see what that would really accomplish, though. All companies already publicly advertise the 'moral' beliefs you mentioned, yet continue hiring white male whiteboard challenge mavericks.

Here's the kind of thing it could accomplish:

https://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14490950/travis-kalanick-ube...

If tech workers express collective displeasure about a company, it meaningfully hurts that company's ability to recruit/retain tech workers.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#207

Post by ThrustVectoring »

oddlyaromatic wrote: post #198
stale2002 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a difference between what's best for the group and what's best for individual members of the group. This conflict comes up over and over again, as it arises from straightforward principles from game theory.

If everyone bargains collectively, overall compensation goes up as companies have much worse alternatives to negotiated agreement. However, these companies are generally very willing to bribe people into breaking solidarity, and so it's often personally lucrative to be the scab crossing picket lines.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#208

Post by aanm1988 »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #70
amorphid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefits would a strong Tech Workers' union to provide? And what percentage of one's income would be membership dues be?

Floors for wages, combatting H1-B abuse, fighting against toxic cultures driven by an untouchable management class. In terms of dues, unions are democratic, so you can debate, decide, and vote on what you think is appropriate.

Return to 40 hour work weeks, eliminate unpaid oncall, paid overtime.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#209

Post by chimeracoder »

pseudalopex wrote: post #202
chimeracoder wrote: post #190

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. They get around that by structuring all of the benefits in the employment contracts to cover only their members, and by negotiating exclusive employment contracts with employers (so that there are no non-members). Put another way, 94% of people who are repr…

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation considers anything but "open shop" to be "forced unionism" and lists 28 states as free from that scourge.[1] No exclusive contracts, no agency fees. [1] http://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states

> The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation considers anything but "open shop" to be "forced unionism" and lists 28 states as free from that scourge.[1] No exclusive contracts, no agency fees.

I think you're conflating open shops and right-to-work laws, but besides that, the point is that there is no free rider problem even in states with right-to-work laws, because the union can structure their contracts with the employer so that non-members don't receive any benefits. Sure, they'll represent non-members, but there aren't any reasons the non-members would ever need them to, because the benefits literally would not apply in the first place.

Unions don't really talk about this, because the free-rider problem is a convincing argument to use in favor of mandatory dues withholding, but in reality it's an issue that they already have the tools to avoid.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#210

Post by st3v3r »

rfrank wrote: post #172
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.

No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry? Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and…

No, the reason it's laughable is that the ones expected to bridge this divide are the ones who believe in rights and human dignity for everyone, not the ones who believe that others should be treated as second class citizens. Look at what happened when Obama won. Those on the left were expected to reach out to those on the right, and they did so. But then look at what happened when Trump won: Once again, the ones expected to "reach out" were those on the left! Not the ones who had just won the election, and had just come off an unprecedented level of obstructionism.

So don't lecture me about how we're not bridging the divide. Start lecturing people like this first: https://mic.com/articles/172706/craig-brittain-revenge-porn-... They represent the people you're chastising us for not reaching out to.

I am sick and tired of being told I need to accept garbage people like these, without any effort made to make them accept others. It's not happening anymore.

Post reply on HN