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

131–140 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#131

Post by eru »

missedthecue wrote: post #77
zorpner wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Careful! If you keep going in that direction, you might speak out against minimum wage laws next.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#132

Post by eru »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #86
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?

Sure, just like companies can require you to work at certain times as a condition of employment, or wear a uniform as a condition of employment, or a hundred other things. Letting it go the other way just results in freeloader syndrome: unions fight for improved work policies and work culture for all, but you can get much of the benefits without paying in. So many people don’t, which ends up weakening the union in th…

You are right that free-loading is a problem in theory.

But being forced to pay for services you don't actually want is also a problem.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#133

Post by 0xy »

woodruffw wrote: post #46
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?

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.

The last thing I want is job security for incompetent coworkers. You see this playing out in teachers unions where they go to bat for sexual predator teachers.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#134

Post by TulliusCicero »

eru wrote: post #132
TulliusCicero wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just like companies can require you to work at certain times as a condition of employment, or wear a uniform as a condition of employment, or a hundred other things. Letting it go the other way just results in freeloader syndrome: unions fight for improved work policies and work culture for all, but you can get much of the benefits without paying in. So many people don’t, which ends up weakening the union in th…

You are right that free-loading is a problem in theory. But being forced to pay for services you don't actually want is also a problem.

It's being forced the same way any other terms of employment are forced on you, and your option in this case is the same: go somewhere else.

We know from history and other countries that broadly speaking, if you weaken unions with right-to-work laws, workers as a whole end up worse off. It tilts the power relationship between employees and employer towards the employer.

If you look at peer countries with stronger, more present unions, you find that workers are usually considerably better off there.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#135

Post by 0xy »

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.

So it's like buying a lottery ticket every day for decades expecting to win millions. They don't show value and there's no indication they ever will, and it costs a significant amount of money.

Often, the unions themselves are corrupt.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#136

Post by lmm »

0xy wrote: post #135
lmm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it's like buying a lottery ticket every day for decades expecting to win millions. They don't show value and there's no indication they ever will, and it costs a significant amount of money. Often, the unions themselves are corrupt.

> So it's like buying a lottery ticket every day for decades expecting to win millions. They don't show value and there's no indication they ever will, and it costs a significant amount of money.

Money has diminishing returns. Paying to gain a small chance of winning big is generally foolish; paying to eliminate a small chance of losing big is often wise.

> Often, the unions themselves are corrupt.

This seems to be a distinctly American quirk. Maybe figure out what you're doing differently to the rest of us that causes that, rather than attacking an institution that works very well elsewhere.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#137

Post by CSMastermind »

tootie wrote: post #62
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…

Honest question: why? Engineers are already compensated way, way above average and have loads of mobility opportunities. I actually work in a news org where most of the non-tech people are in one union or another but my team isn't. We have actually had a few union staff who wanted to do coding work and the union essentially blocked them.

> Honest question: why?

Because the existing union of news workers demanded that software engineers be included in their membership as part of some negotiation at some point.

Basically, it was a way for the union to grow its membership (and dues). It was impossible to opt out of the union and you had to pay dues, I forget how much but I think it was like 2% of your salary or something to the union.

Given the option I'm pretty sure most of us would have opted out of the union. I did know a few very senior software engineers who were nominally made managers so they could get out of the forced membership.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#138

Post by onion2k »

limelight wrote: post #110
onion2k wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If an AI can do my job, an AI should be allowed to do my job. I don't want a union to "protect" me doing a job which can be automated. That's a waste of human talent and potential. It is terrible to hold back progress just to provide "make-work" jobs protected by unions. Should we still employ elevator operators? In a scenario where my job is obsolete, a union would simply delay the inevitable. It might keep the comp…

a union would simply delay the inevitable

Yes, which is the difference between having the time to offboard from your current career and do something else instead of being chucked out overnight and losing your house and everything else, multiplied by all the lost developer jobs.

Imagine the cost of that in the Bay Area. It'd be catastrophic to the entire region.

Slowing progress down a little can be a positive thing.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#139

Post by veganhouseDJ »

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?

The DMV is an outdated example.

I remember decades ago standing in line literally for 3 hours to finally get to talk to the person at the desk only to be told I had the wrong form. Then back to the end of the line.

I honestly can't think of anything that has improved as much in my lifetime as the DMV.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#140

Post by morgante »

onion2k wrote: post #138
limelight wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an AI can do my job, an AI should be allowed to do my job. I don't want a union to "protect" me doing a job which can be automated. That's a waste of human talent and potential. It is terrible to hold back progress just to provide "make-work" jobs protected by unions. Should we still employ elevator operators? In a scenario where my job is obsolete, a union would simply delay the inevitable. It might keep the comp…

a union would simply delay the inevitable Yes, which is the difference between having the time to offboard from your current career and do something else instead of being chucked out overnight and losing your house and everything else, multiplied by all the lost developer jobs . Imagine the cost of that in the Bay Area. It'd be catastrophic to the entire region. Slowing progress down a little can be a positive thing.

> Yes, which is the difference between having the time to offboard from your current career and do something else instead of being chucked out overnight and losing your house and everything else, multiplied by all the lost developer jobs.

That's what savings are for.

> Imagine the cost of that in the Bay Area. It'd be catastrophic to the entire region.

It would be a much-needed correction.

I don't want unions slowing down progress.

Post reply on HN