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

221–230 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#221

Post by MrPatan »

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

Developers can't turn requirements into code. Whole teams and companies struggle mightily to turn a partially-understood subset of the requirements into buggy code.

You would need full AGI, possibly superhuman in capabilities, to "turn requirements into code". At that point, suggesting you want a union to protect you from the Singularity... I don't know.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#222

Post by mkr-hn »

scarface74 wrote: post #177
mkr-hn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would a union have helped?

I'm sure people at all levels except executive got the short end during the collapse of Blockbuster. A union would have represented employee interests every time the C-suite issued an execution order down the chain. They could very well have stopped the decline if there had been anyone to protect the retail employees who used to be able to recommend movies. That could have held the line against Netflix and its algorithm the way it has for electronics stores that have survived.

Every story I heard about a closing store, from Sears to Best Buy, began with "first, they fired everyone who knew anything and hired a bunch of people who were completely out of their depth to save money." Best Buy in particular saved itself by remembering the value of competence. Their stock is at record highs.

Now imagine if there'd been a union to bring that to the people in charge before the business penny pinched itself to near death. Unions also help with getting people into new jobs when the company really can't keep them.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#223

Post by Devasta »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #216

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me ", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructiv…

Its fascinating that for a profession that likes to think its all about understanding complex systems, we have so many that oppose unionization.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#224

Post by chii »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #199
toomanybeersies wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't pay a monthly subscription for a lawyer That's a pretty poor analogy. Some people do keep lawyers on retainer. Also, if you don't have legal representation at the point in time you're sued/charged, you're not required to represent yourself, and can still hire a lawyer. Unions are probably closer to insurance. You can't buy insurance after you crash your car and expect them to pay out, neither can you j…

>Unions are probably closer to insurance. I think this analogy is more apt than you realize. Internet commenters absolutely love to shove insurance down the throats of people who can afford to self-insure against or simply are not exposed to the particular outcome in question.

Insurance against what? If you (a tech knowledge worker) is unionized, does it mean that the company must not remove the tech that you use, so that you get job security? Would unions have a say in such decisions?

I don't see unions as being useful, unless there's some pre-existing guarantees that the union can provide (like insurance - you pay a premium and get a known quantity of payout).

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#225

Post by thinkharderdev »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #216

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me ", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructiv…

I wouldn't frame unions as a "fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself." Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. It's about the distribution of profits between capital and labor.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#226

Post by chii »

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.

if such an AI truly could be created, then what would stop the developers made redundant by the AI from using the AI to start their own software company and coming up with new services? After all, it would be cheap now - no need to hire anyone any more.

Improvements to tech results in better - even if there's some temporary disruption to people as they are made redundant by the tech.

And it's not as if you cannot prepare - use the excess earnings that a software engineer earns today to invest and own a piece of that future productivity.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#227

Post by acdha »

thinkharderdev wrote: post #225
beepbooptheory wrote: post #216

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me ", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructiv…

I wouldn't frame unions as a "fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself." Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. It's about the distribution of profits between capital and labor.

> Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders.

This doesn’t make sense to me: a union member wants to be treated with respect even if making their working conditions worse would make more profit for the company. Similarly, a smart shareholder is willing to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term success — the idea that you’re supposed to screw everyone in service of the quarterly report is a [very successful] marketing campaign by the kind of MBAs who are hoping to profit before most shareholders realize what they’ve done to the company.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#228

Post by acdha »

colechristensen wrote: post #104
woodruffw wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the recourse is that you can easily pick up a new job, usually with a raise, the union doesn’t have a lot to offer. I’m also happy to be able to negotiate myself.

Think about what happens when you get older and those job offers are harder to get, or you have a family you’d like to spend time with, or your health is a limiting factor, or the new owners look at the payroll and decide your job could be done better by their buddy’s company in Romania. The time to invest in a union is before you need it.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#229

Post by a_humean »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #216

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me ", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructiv…

A union does not necessarily play the role of migitation of negative externalities from a company's profit seeking activies. It still wants to maximum profits but with workers taking a fair share of such profits and under good work conditions.

For example, unions that represent workers in dirty industries are very often resistent to regulation of their employer's activities despite the harm it can cause to others. Coal mining, steel processing, etc...

They don't even necessarily lead to good value for money for consumers - for example they could use forms of worker accreditation to reduce the supply of workers to raise wages for existing workers and the increase the prices their employers can charge.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#230

Post by treeman79 »

Devasta wrote: post #223
beepbooptheory wrote: post #216

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me ", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructiv…

Its fascinating that for a profession that likes to think its all about understanding complex systems, we have so many that oppose unionization.

Look at what unions did to Detroit.
Post reply on HN