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

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#251

Post by couchand » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:00 PM UTC

native_samples wrote: post #197

mschuster91 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. Labor providers are organized and connected in all sort of structures, ranging from golf club memberships and industry associations over questionably-legal wage fixing deals to ~~outright bribing~~ donating to politicians. In contrast, just about 10% of US workers are unionized [1]. This disparity is the reason behind a large part of wage stagnation and other areas where employment conditions are far behind of…

More accurately: employers are forbidden by many different mechanisms to join forces, are actively watched to prevent the formation of monopolies, and punished when they do, and are often restrained in many other ways by regulations. Labor is not only allowed to collaborate in order to form monopolies and cartels, but is also legally protected when it does. Please do explain how this disparity is in favor of employer…

It is in spite of these differences that employers have great leverage, not because of them.

It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers. It's plain to see that a capitalist is far better positioned to negotiate a labor contract than someone trying to feed their family.

Please explain how history has repeatedly shown capitalists more ready, willing, and able to exploit their position. See the recent labor price-fixing scandal in the tech industry for one relevant example.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#252

Post by refurb » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:01 PM UTC

treeman79 wrote: post #230

Devasta wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Upvoted. I lived in Detroit and remember the news articles even from the early 2000’s with workers clocking in, then leaving and spending their shift drinking at strip clubs. Naturally the unions protected them.

I remember the UAW contract then where existing new hires kept their equivalent to $50/hr total comp and all new hires after that got $16/hr. The union more than willing to throw new workers under the bus to keep the older workers happy. Worker solidarity be damned - “fuck you I got mine”

American auto companies deserved to die. It was an absolute pit of rot and sloth. And I fully blame management too - they went along with it because it was the easy thing to do and ignoring union problems still let them meet their targets.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#253

Post by chernevik » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:04 PM UTC

djrobstep wrote: post #144

morgante wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would i…

Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?

Shareholders provide capital, and a management function by hiring management.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#254

Post by thinkharderdev » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:07 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #227

thinkharderdev wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

It probably depends on the specific tradeoff, but people accept poorer working conditions for higher wages all the time. See anyone working on an oil rig/fishing boat. Of course there are some margins where a union may focus on working conditions over wages but you can say the same about shareholders and managers.

Anyway, I didn't mean my original comment to be anti-union. I just think that framing unionization as anti-business/profit is both counter-productive and substantively wrong. It's about giving workers a seat at the table as proper stakeholders. But once that happens, it's in everyones interest to make the underlying business as successful and profitable as possible.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#255

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

rdtwo wrote: post #240

scarface74 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a union have helped?

Unions make the slow demise of companies bearable for workers. Think of any big company it has a 50-100 year life cycle with the first 10-20 years being up and the rest being middling or decay. During the first 10-20 unions aren’t common or needed much but eventually management rot sets in and you start getting some crazy policies. Take Amazon for example, if they had a Union a lot of the crazy stacked ranking insane…

I happen to work at AWS (ProServe). You know what people did when they saw the wages weren’t competitive? They started leaving in droves forcing Amazon to be competitive.

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-more-than-doubles-max-b...

The free market and free will is a great thing isn’t it?

So wouldn’t unions also prevent top performers from negotiating wages?

How much did unions help the auto industry?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#256

Post by thinkharderdev » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

datavirtue wrote: post #245

thinkharderdev wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's about more than money. Workers should have veto power over management decisions that hurt the business' viability or that would violate ethical values. It is the next inevitable step in human institutional evolution--democracy making it's way into working life. Some companies don't unions because they are built in. Messer Construction and Gore Industries are two examples. They are employee owned , operated, and…

That to me is a separate issue. Anyone with bargaining power can use that bargaining power however they want. Unions are just about giving workers bargaining power as proper stakeholders. If they want to use that leverage to make the company more ethical then they can (just as equity shareholders can use their leverage to do the same). But I'm skeptical that the end result will be more ethical business practices (outside the specific area of working conditions or course). Getting large numbers of people to agree on ethical values is hard, especially when there is a substantive cost.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#257

Post by chernevik » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:26 PM UTC

Technical unions are a good way for people who are better at politics to make a living off of people who are better at programming. Personally I'd rather keep my money for myself.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#258

Post by UncleMeat » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

dls2016 wrote: post #246

UncleMeat wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers are constantly complaining about things. Unions could fight for * Access to remote work * Pay that isn't adjusted by location * Transparency in performance review and promotion processes * Better leave policies * Better equity access policies * Opportunities to fire shit managers * Elimination of forced attrition policies Software engineers are paid very very well. We have better working conditions than mo…

* Manage on-call rotations.

Yep that's a great one. 24h on-call is garbage and unions could absolutely pressure businesses to have more reasonable policies.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#259

Post by specialist » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #249

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…

Nope. Your statement acts like unions don’t involve trade offs - whatever your situation, unions will make it better. The truth is there are trade offs - recognition of merit replaced by recognition of seniority, protection of bad workers (and the toxic effect on work culture that has) and “lowest common denominator” bargaining. I’m certainly not saying unions don’t have a place, but workers should have a choice and…

> ...and in some cases, no union is actually the smart choice.

Logic of Collective Action is a game theoretic framework to help make that choice. Very accessible.

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

https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-Printing-Appe...

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#260

Post by acdha » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

thinkharderdev wrote: post #254

acdha wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 re…

It probably depends on the specific tradeoff, but people accept poorer working conditions for higher wages all the time. See anyone working on an oil rig/fishing boat. Of course there are some margins where a union may focus on working conditions over wages but you can say the same about shareholders and managers. Anyway, I didn't mean my original comment to be anti-union. I just think that framing unionization as an…

Yes - my point was simply that “as successful” and “as profitable” intersect but don't overlap. There are many formerly successful businesses where they cut too deeply into staffing, future investment, etc. to maximize profits and I would generally expect a union member to be more interested in the former goal than the latter.