Live data from Hacker News

Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

salon.com

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#141
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard too many stories of overworked programmers (lots of stories if you google it), especially in the gaming industry, and let's not forget Amazon's NY Times story a few years back, to think that there is no worker exploitation going on in the industry like you say.

I think your examples are valid. I wonder though if it's a choice for someone to work 80 hours a week at $40k to make video games versus 37 hours a week at $80k doing forms over tables stuff for The Bobs. Is that a choice or exploitation?

It's a choice to get a highly competitive "dream job" that's full of long hours and crap pay. It's exploitation when you're given crap pay, work extremely long hours, your company clears close to two billion dollars in profit that year, and then lays you off (to use recent news about Activision Blizzard as an example).

I'm not necessarily against companies making money, because fully automated gay space communism isn't yet a practical option. I'm not against working long hours, and I'm not against prioritizing things other than money in someone's career choice. That's all valid! What I do have a problem with is companies taking advantage of people and hurting them.

I would suggest reading about crunch I the video games industry, and remember that people take big pay and benefits cuts just to work in these places. Here is one to get you started: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2018/01/16/c...

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#142
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Point me to the clause in the Constitution where it says anyone has a right to healthcare or that the federal government is allowed to dispense it. The latter, and it's the militia clause read together with the elastic clause. Arguably, depending on whether one views health status identification and health maintenance as more essential to training or organization of the universal militia, it may require the states…

The latter what? What does the militia clause have to do with it, outside of providing healthcare to the military? The necessary and proper execution of which federal power? The federal government no longer calls up a militia, so you can make no pretense of this being anything but an unconstitutional reach. Also, militiae are not composed of all the populace, therefore you could at most justify a certain subgroup. Ar…

> The latter what?

The federal government is allowed to dispense it as opposed to anyone has a right to it.

> What does the militia clause have to do with it, outside of providing healthcare to the military?

The military clauses would be what authorizes healthcare to the military. The militia is not the military (and the militia clause is not the military clauses), and is universal.

> The necessary and proper execution of which federal power?

The militia power, as specified in the militia clause, hence the “read together with”.

> The federal government no longer calls up a militia,

The militia power expressly is not just about calling up and using a militia, but keeping one in readiness should a desire to call it up be made in the future. (Also, the federal government does calls up part of the militia, what is in current statute defined as the “organized militia”.)

The militia power does not go away just because Congress does not anticipate a near-term need for a call-up.

> Also, militiae are not composed of all the populace, therefore you could at most justify a certain subgroup.

Arguably, the Constitutional militia is universal, and the statute purporting to limit the scope of the “unorganized militia” (currently to able-bodied males 17-45 [0]) is simply an application of the power to organize the militia based on anticipated likelihood of call ip, and does not alter the Constitutional scope of the militia.

[0] the “males” part being in tension with the recent ruling against the male-only draft registration, as draft registration is also an exercise of the organizing part of the militia power.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#143
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you discover later on in your career that seniority and respect of your peers is not transferable between companies, that hopping to the next job from the job board is vicious circle of working on dull dead end projects under authocratic and dumb at times people (with long length of service at the company), you might change your mind. Also you’ll discover that life is more complicated than „just walk away or sta…

>seniority and respect of your peers is not transferable between companies, that hopping to the next job from the job board is vicious circle of working of dull dead end projects under authocratic and dumb at times people (with long length of service at the company) I haven't found this to be the case at all. I know many people who jump companies every 3 years or so, make more money each time they change, get to work…

It will plateau though. You can't get 10-20% bumps every time you switch in perpetuity. Most of us would be making over a million a year after 40 years if that were true.

Just as a counterexample, my job changes early in my career netted me raises of sometimes 50% but each subsequent one increased less on a percentage basis. My last job change (now have 20 years experience) was +0%, and I give even odds that it will turn negative soon as I get older.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#144
post #16

Unpopular opinion: As a recent graduate (last 5 years), I can't agree with most works desire to unionize for one reason: demand for your skills. When I was looking for my second tech job, I turned on that switch in my LinkedIn that lets recruiters contact me. I was immediately inundated with 10-20 messages a day from recruiters asking if I could speak with them about . For me this was the most insane luxury in the wo…

The relative ease of finding employment shouldn't factor into your desire to unionize. In fact, quite the contrary: It's less difficult to organize when you're the strongest. But more importantly, these are the "halcyon" days of finding tech work, and they are fleeting. There is absolutely no guarantee the job market will look this promising in a few years. Things seemed to be on an endless upward trajectory in the 9…

* Things seemed to be on an endless upward trajectory in the 90s and then it all came crashing down.*

It the job market for developers only came crashing down if you didn’t have the skillset needed and/or were looking for a job at one of the $cool_unprofitable_startups. There was plenty of demand for your regular old corporate developers. The company I was working for didn’t even blink during the dot com bust. We were a boring old profitable company that did bill processors. I’ve been in the industry for 20 years and have never found it difficult to find a job.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#145
post #16

Unpopular opinion: As a recent graduate (last 5 years), I can't agree with most works desire to unionize for one reason: demand for your skills. When I was looking for my second tech job, I turned on that switch in my LinkedIn that lets recruiters contact me. I was immediately inundated with 10-20 messages a day from recruiters asking if I could speak with them about . For me this was the most insane luxury in the wo…

Once you discover later on in your career that seniority and respect of your peers is not transferable between companies, that hopping to the next job from the job board is vicious circle of working on dull dead end projects under authocratic and dumb at times people (with long length of service at the company), you might change your mind. Also you’ll discover that life is more complicated than „just walk away or sta…

Why do I care if the projects are a dead end of a check is appearing in my account twice a month? My job is just a way to have money in my account. I don’t look for “excitement” in my job. I’ve been working for over 20 years. I think I am “later in my career”.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#146
post #16

Unpopular opinion: As a recent graduate (last 5 years), I can't agree with most works desire to unionize for one reason: demand for your skills. When I was looking for my second tech job, I turned on that switch in my LinkedIn that lets recruiters contact me. I was immediately inundated with 10-20 messages a day from recruiters asking if I could speak with them about . For me this was the most insane luxury in the wo…

>> As an engineer you don't make those decisions, you just implement them. Don't like the decisions, go somewhere else. Want more/total control over decision making? Start your own company. Don't you want more out of the roles in your career? I want to work at a place that wants my best self, ideas, opinions and all. I don't want my only career options to be a paid typist or an entrepreneur.

No. I want to get paid enough to enjoy my time with my family and friends. I don’t look for fulfillment out of my job.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#147
post #26
post #2

This trend bothers me. Employees are not shareholders, or if they are, they ought to do this in their capacity as shareholders. If they want to govern the company, they ought to buy in or move to management. Or, they can always move companies. This is always an option. Also, socialism is an awful idea. I can't believe people actually support it. I have a massive moral objection to its core tenets: what right have you…

Your employer is able to bargain with you as one massive, collective organization with all its resources to bear. Why should you have to negotiate with them as a one atomic individual person, when you and your coworkers can instead get together and negotiate from a much stronger position?

I can already negotiate better than my coworkers. Why should I tie my compensation to theirs?

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#148
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your employer is able to bargain with you as one massive, collective organization with all its resources to bear. Why should you have to negotiate with them as a one atomic individual person, when you and your coworkers can instead get together and negotiate from a much stronger position?

I can already negotiate better than my coworkers. Why should I tie my compensation to theirs?

Because if you and your co-workers all negotiate together, you have more bargaining power and can extract much greater concessions.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism is when the government owns production. capitalist are allowed to aggregate in the form of corporations why shouldn't workers be allowed to aggregate.

They are able to incorporate just as well.

I'm sure large corps would make that a clause in your employment contract against that.

Re: Tech workers are organizing and demanding democracy in the workplace

#150
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, companies that oppose employee unions should hire and employ only shareholders, with a number of shares commensurate with the importance of their work roles. That door swings both ways. Unions are not an exclusively socialist construct. I support unions as an anarchist, because I recognize that it is both useful for corporations with concentrated capital to exist and necessary to counterbalance their powe…

> F U, I got mine I don't have mine, but I hope to some day. Under socialism, that won't happen. Here's a great objection: I want to be rich some day. Very rich. I suspect this is the case with many of us. Under socialism, that can't happen. And so, I will never support it. Your whole idea is that socialism will clear out the elites in power. It won't. You'll end up with a bastardized version that oppresses everyone…

Clear out, no. Replace, yes. The socialism-inspired civil wars of the past did not get rid of elites-in-power as a concept, but they did get rid of some of the specific individuals that previously qualified.

Each time, the socialism did significant damage to the economy... as measured by the elites, anyway.

Nobody, except those who already got it, has gotten theirs since the 1970s. The theory behind trickle-down economics is demonstrably false. When you give rich people more control over resources and production, they keep all the additional profits, because they can, and then use some of those to gain more control over resources and production. Socialists, while incorrect in many (most?) areas of economics, at least realize that the people who do the work should get paid fairly for it, even if their calculations for "fair" are frequently inaccurate. The socialist war is the ultimate penalty for unfairness in the economy.

The system will never find a higher peak without a good, hard kick, off of the local maximum it seems to be stuck on. It doesn't need to be a socialist revolution that does it, and everything would probably be better off if it wasn't them, but they're the only ones that seem to be in position to get the job done now. And once they do, then the non-socialist, non-mercantile-elitist armies may begin to fight, if they have enough numbers, or enough clout with the socialists to steer them away from the cliff peacefully.

You're not going to be rich someday, because your parents weren't rich, and you grew up in the wrong postal code. That's the current regime in the US. Accept that, statistically speaking, everyone that has bucked the trend to achieve extreme upward mobility has been in the right place, at the right time, with the right ideas, and the right skills, to take advantage of an ephemeral opportunity. Most people still can't afford to be prepared for anything, and also look up from their daily toil long enough to recognize an opening.

You cannot get rich with a lifetime of hard work and wise investments; if you do that, never make a single mistake, and never get screwed, you can retire comfortably, snugly ensconced in hopefully the higher end of the middle class. It's a fine goal, achievable, and not something socialism does well. You can get rich by getting lucky, and buying the right lottery tickets. You can get rich by abandoning your ethics and screwing over those still attempting hard work over a lifetime. For instance, blow a bubble in the mortgages market and erase the majority of net worth for a lot of middle-class families, and then place bets on how many extra defaults and foreclosures there will be because of it. Nobody went to prison for that. It won't be me that does it, but I definitely won't cry if those even peripherally responsible, and those following in their footsteps, ever get shoved up against the wall.

I'm not an elite in this system. I won't be an elite in any system that replaces it, socialist or not. I have accepted that I am a nobody, and will be forgotten before my corpse cools. And I have also accepted that religious fantasies of justice-after-death are bullshit, psychologically crafted to discourage vigilantism and mob behaviors. So when there is an obvious asshole that clearly requires a humility-boosting supplement, for whom the gods fail to send a nemesis, and for whom the prosecutors fail to send marshals, and for whom the helpers fail to send redeeming inspiration, that guy is going to be an exemplar of a strategy for winning the game of life. In the meta-game, successful dickwads encourage other players to become dickwads. I can see the endgame, and I don't win; I don't have enough points, don't have the right cards to play, and I'm not good enough at cheating to not get caught. But I can pick one player that's still in the running, and make it more difficult for them to win.

Post reply on HN