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

71–80 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#71

Post by afavour »

morgante wrote: post #52
kortilla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.

Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.

Huh? If there’s no union you’re forced to accept whatever contract the company boss decides upon. At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. In either situation if you don’t like the end result you can just quit.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#72

Post by NoThisIsMe »

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?

To advance organized labor for all.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#73

Post by ethbr0 »

Kalium wrote: post #54
woodruffw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understood the parent comment, there are two kinds of leverage being discussed here: there's the leverage that individual tech workers currently have (as high demand, high income laborers in a hot market) and then there's the leverage inherent to collective bargaining. I believe the GP was saying that unions can deliver when circumstances give individuals large amounts of leverage, but they don't need to. But we…

I understood the point. My counterpoint is that if a union doesn't use the leverage of collective bargaining to deliver when it's in a good position to do so, it rather weakens the argument that the same union will decide to use its leverage when individual leverage evaporates. Organizations run on precedent, policy, and consistency. Arguing for the potential for inconsistency seems to me to be a rather weak reed. Es…

As parent said, in good times (demand >> supply), the difference between individual optimal and union optimal is relatively small. Or negative!

In bad times (demand Ergo, you're not going to see a lot of union benefits in good times.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#74

Post by foepys »

throwaway73838 wrote: post #53

Problem is, unions are actually counter productive to any industry. They reduce available work and further incentivize off-shoring of jobs. In the post WW2 period, the UK and German manufacturing industries lagged behind the US in both wages and productivity, largely due to the former being unionized and latter not.

You mean the good old times when the US military just shot at people trying to unionize?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#75

Post by dgrin91 »

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”.

> compensated to “opt-out”.

Didn't you basically just describe the goal of a union? Better conditions for their workers?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#76

Post by morgante »

afavour wrote: post #71
morgante wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.

Huh? If there’s no union you’re forced to accept whatever contract the company boss decides upon. At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. In either situation if you don’t like the end result you can just quit.

Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome.

> At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract.

They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#77

Post by missedthecue »

zorpner wrote: post #67
morgante wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.

Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?

I don't think the union contract should cover people who don't want it.

If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#78

Post by morgante »

zorpner wrote: post #67
morgante wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.

Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?

Yes, because it is monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior. In isolated cases, it doesn't seem so bad. But you eventually end up with entire industries dominated by unions where you can't work at all without paying their protection money.

We have laws against corporations using market power to force monopolies. Unions also should not be able to legally monopolize the labor market.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#79

Post by missedthecue »

Spooky23 wrote: post #33
andrew_ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never loved a job so much that I'd try to organize versus finding a better home for my trade. It's a concept that's completely foreign to me. In tech, we've never been in a market this vast and this thirsty for talent. Making a move has never been more possible or more lucrative. It just doesn't add up for me personally.

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 think a union forming at IBM in order to compel management to stay in the mainframe business would be a net bad for society.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#80

Post by google234123 »

aaomidi wrote: post #70
wyager wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turning the decision to fire someone into a hyper-formalized procedure mostly seems to result in environments where terrible people never get fired, like the DMV.

1. The DMV is actually an amazing quality of service. Ive lived in a couple of states. California was just on another whole level of bad. Anyway, DMV is actually really efficiently done. 2. What part of firing people do you think is going to fix the bureaucracy?

One bad person can ruin a team and cause good people to leave. See California where it can take 5 years to fire a bad teacher and 100000s of dollars.
Post reply on HN