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

New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#41

Post by anamax »

CountSessine wrote: post #21
minhazm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all software engineers there had to be part of the union. Is that legal? Can unions or companies force you to join the union as a condition of employment?

Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.

You write "compensated to 'opt-out'" like it's a bad thing.

Unions are a tool, not a goal.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#42

Post by mkr-hn »

Kalium wrote: post #28
the_duke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the time to unionize! The employer has limited leverage to bust any union efforts. When the employment market is weak and you are scrounging for a job it's a lot easier to threaten/scare everyone into submission.

This also describes an environment where the union doesn't seem to be offering any significant benefits to developers. If unionizing doesn't improve your working conditions, what's the point of the union?

Unions are insurance against capitalist hubris.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#43

Post by Kalium »

ceejayoz wrote: post #37
Kalium wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also describes an environment where the union doesn't seem to be offering any significant benefits to developers. If unionizing doesn't improve your working conditions, what's the point of the union?

Forming the union when you have leverage helps later when you don't .

If a union formed when you have leverage doesn't deliver when you do, why would you expect it to deliver when you don't?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#44

Post by Kalium »

axutio wrote: post #35
Kalium wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also describes an environment where the union doesn't seem to be offering any significant benefits to developers. If unionizing doesn't improve your working conditions, what's the point of the union?

I think the idea is that you form the union when you have leverage and don't need it so that if you ever lose leverage as an individual in the future (e.g. if the developer labor market becomes oversaturated or demand for developers tanks), you will still have some leverage as a member of the collective. Seems kind of like insurance - you pay for it when you don't need it so that you have it when you do.

Oh, I get the idea. We're just talking about a situation described by the commenter above where the union is already formed. It is apparently unable to provide any substantial benefit except the hope that it might be useful at a future date.

This leads me to wonder if it's really doing anything of value for the workers it's supposed to be defending, supporting, and empowering. Like the insurance policy that you suspect will be cancelled the first time you try to make a claim.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#45

Post by aaomidi »

Kalium wrote: post #28
the_duke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the time to unionize! The employer has limited leverage to bust any union efforts. When the employment market is weak and you are scrounging for a job it's a lot easier to threaten/scare everyone into submission.

This also describes an environment where the union doesn't seem to be offering any significant benefits to developers. If unionizing doesn't improve your working conditions, what's the point of the union?

I'm pretty sure going from "we can terminate your employment without cause" to "okay these are the reasons we will terminate your employment" is a HUGE stress relief for people.

Unions, even when they're not doing much, bring in stability.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#46

Post by woodruffw »

Kalium wrote: post #28
the_duke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the time to unionize! The employer has limited leverage to bust any union efforts. When the employment market is weak and you are scrounging for a job it's a lot easier to threaten/scare everyone into submission.

This also describes an environment where the union doesn't seem to be offering any significant benefits to developers. If unionizing doesn't improve your working conditions, what's the point of the union?

At the bare minimum: unions increase job security and provide a formal disinterested (or even positively interested) recourse mechanism against your employer. They also decrease your employer's ability to leverage the collective pressure of other employees against you.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#47

Post by vmception »

CSMastermind wrote: post #7

I'm surprised they weren't already in one. I worked at a competitor (the Wall St. Journal) years ago and all software engineers there had to be part of the union. Unions in the news industry are extremely common and powerful. My subjective experience with it was that union membership was mostly inconsequential for developers. The market for programmers is so strong that people would just leave if they weren't treated…

Yes but it is time to revisit that logic.

Software engineers are well compensated relative to the rest of the population but that should not be a factor at all. Its all about value delivered relative to that organization, in aggregate.

Wages have stagnated for 30 years. There is a lot of catching up to do:

Until a single earner can afford a family home outright, in 5 years of compensation, down the street from where the company office is, then we can comfortably ignore any annual compensation package no matter how fantastic the dollar amounts seem, and collectively push for more.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#48

Post by atlantas »

oh_sigh wrote: post #12

Since people talk about this being the start of a wave of tech unionization, how will success or failure be determined for this union? It would be cool if we could see some OKRs for the union and check in a year if this actually did anything.

What do others currently do to measure the results?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#49

Post by mkr-hn »

andrew_ wrote: post #40
Spooky23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re living in a happy time. Ask a former high flying IBM engineer from what Binghamton or Poughkeepsie, NY was like circa 1992 when IBM detonated the mainframe business. Or anyone from DEC or HP. If you don’t think that will happen to the current cohort of tech giants, you’re engaging in magical thinking.

I get your point, but that was 30 years ago. When I played basketball, we used to say "two buckets is luck, three is a streak" - we've been in favorable markets, with a few temporary dips, for 20 years. I'd call that a streak, more so than magical thinking.

All it takes is a structural shift. Blockbuster had a 29-year run, most of which was after it wiped out the independent stores that predated it.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#50

Post by andrew_ »

mkr-hn wrote: post #49
andrew_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point, but that was 30 years ago. When I played basketball, we used to say "two buckets is luck, three is a streak" - we've been in favorable markets, with a few temporary dips, for 20 years. I'd call that a streak, more so than magical thinking.

All it takes is a structural shift. Blockbuster had a 29-year run, most of which was after it wiped out the independent stores that predated it.

Do you have an example of industry-wide, pervasive structural shift? Sincere question, as Blockbuster is a good example, but relatively isolated. By the time Blockbuster was done, viable replacements had already arisen.
Post reply on HN