New York Times tech workers vote to certify union • Hacker News Board

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#111

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:49 AM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #96

ethbr0 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People don't pay a monthly subscription for a lawyer their not likely to use even though a lawsuit or criminal charge is one bad day away. You're view of supply and demand matches that of a paranoid actor rather than a rational one. If ever the market were to contract, there are alternative solutions like savings, downsizing, or looking for another job. It's not as though one company has a monopoly on all the job opp…

> People don't pay a monthly subscription for a lawyer their not likely to use even though a lawsuit or criminal charge is one bad day away.

Sure they do. TurboTax offers for an extra fee on filing legal insurance that covers a legal defense if the IRS challenges you.

One of my past employers offered a legal program as an optional perk we could opt in to, as well.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-firm-subscription...

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#112

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:50 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #85

Kalium wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

A union is like an insurance policy, or a lawyer on retainer, or a contract in writing. It doesn't do anything when times are good, that's not what it's for.

And like an insurance policy, it costs you.

Not all insurance policies are good.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#113

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:51 AM UTC

qbasic_forever wrote: post #89

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?

Keeping the good working conditions. Without it you're a new management team away from everything going to shit.

Not even a new management team: an existing management team can change things, too.

But, so what? You can just work elsewhere instead.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#114

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:51 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #43

ceejayoz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Because you now have a strike and a contract and a grievance process as additional collective leverage.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#115

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:51 AM UTC

NoThisIsMe wrote: post #72

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?

To advance organized labor for all.

You say it like that's a good thing in itself?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#116

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:52 AM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #68

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?

If you're driving safely at sixty miles an hour, what's the point of a seatbelt?

Collisions without a seatbelt are dangerous at much lower speeds.

And you might be driving safely, but you can't control what other people are doing.

In any case, what does this have to do with unions?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#117

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:53 AM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #42

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?

Unions are insurance against capitalist hubris.

Competition is insurance against that, too.

Alas, unions can have their own principal-agent problems and bureaucracy and hubris.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#118

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:54 AM UTC

roflulz wrote: post #92

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.

unions protection are required when there is no major difference between workers, and thus, little job protection. SWE is not an industry where workers are interchangeable, and thus, need a union

What makes you think unions are required?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#119

Post by qbasic_forever » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:56 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #113

qbasic_forever wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping the good working conditions. Without it you're a new management team away from everything going to shit.

Not even a new management team: an existing management team can change things, too. But, so what? You can just work elsewhere instead.

As a manager it should be terrifying and strike fear into your heart at the thought that your entire team's last recourse is to just up and leave with no notice. With a union you can bargain, understand the problems, and resolve them.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#120

Post by eru » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 5:59 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #107

morgante wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall though, not having a contract, recourse and representation in a large company is a pretty big risk factor unless you just toil away in silence. Why? I have an in-demand set of skills and could easily find a new job if I wanted to. I'd much rather negotiate directly with my employer than have a union intermediating that relationship. If anything, it feels far riskier to have a politically-motivated union bos…

I have an in-demand set of skills and could easily find a new job if I wanted to. Let's imagine someone makes an AI project that can turn requirements into code, and it actually works. Copilot has shown it's not impossible to generate working code with some machine learning but it's definitely a hard problem. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of founders working on this problem right now and maybe one will ge…

> Let's imagine someone makes an AI project that can turn requirements into code, and it actually works.

What's the union supposed to do for me in this scenario? Stop the march of progress to protect my job? No, thanks.

Unions are the reason why eg the NYC subway is so uniquely bad, for basically exactly the reasons you outlined. They oppose almost labour saving technology.

> [...] they pay market rates because they have to. If a company can reduce that cost by lowering wages or lowering headcount every tech employer is going to jump on the opportunity. Founders out there know this is a pain point, and they're working on solving it.

Yes, obviously. That's how progress works. Higher productivity makes economies richer. Competition makes sure to distribute the riches. (Add some government-led redistribution via taxes and welfare, if you feel like it.)