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

261–270 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#261

Post by mkr-hn »

scarface74 wrote: post #255
rdtwo wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's probably actual research on this, but I can't come up with the right search terms. It could be one of those situations where it's impossible to say for sure. You can't exactly design an experiment around it: the decline already happened. So you'd have to do some kind of comparative analysis to figure out how outcomes would have changed without a union. Unions were never a 100% thing, so it might be enough to look at how non-union shops in the same markets fared.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#262

Post by ceejayoz »

staticman2 wrote: post #241
ceejayoz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-subsc…

I don't believe the Turbotax product pays for a lawyer. Non lawyers can represent you at the IRS though I'm guessing certain criminal matters would need a lawyer. The turbotax product is also not called "legal defense" but "audit defense" presumably for that reason.

They definitely blur the lines on their marketing; a TurboTax MO. Such plans definitely exist, though.

https://www.legalshield.com/

> If you receive a speeding ticket or other moving violation, you can call your lawyer and they will handle the situation for you. This plan benefit is one of our most popular as it can reduce or eliminate points on your license and reduce or eliminate fines with no additional lawyer fees. Representation under this benefit is provided when you or your family members have a valid driver’s license and are driving a non-commercial vehicle.

> Your lawyer can represent you in uncontested divorce proceedings. Uncontested Divorce is a divorce in which neither party is represented by separate counsel and all issues are agreed upon in writing without negotiation by your Provider Law Firm, net assets of the marriage are under $500,000 and no division of retirement benefits or QDRO is applicable.

> Your membership includes representation by your lawyer if you or your spouse is a named defendant in a civil suit. Each year of membership, through your fifth year, earns you additional lawyer trial defense and pre-trial preparation hours as follows...

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#263

Post by native_samples »

couchand wrote: post #251
native_samples wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wi…

"It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers"

It is not plain to me. Employers are just people too, but if they try to conspire with other employers they must do so in secret lest their conspiracy be discovered and punished. Your example of wage fixing in the valley shows this in action perfectly. Yet if employees want to do the exact same thing for the exact same ends (manipulating labor prices), they are not only allowed to do it in the open, conferring great advantages, but they are also protected by the government from any sort of retaliation. They may even be allowed to use company property to organize with!

It's pretty clear therefore that labor has the advantage here.

"Please explain how history has repeatedly shown capitalists more ready, willing, and able to exploit their position"

It hasn't. That's a Marxist trope, not an accurate reading of history. History is full of businesses going bankrupt or being outcompeted because of rising labor costs, or indeed, being exploited by unions. The history of Detroit is a good example of that, or the entire British auto industry. Alternatively, look at all the software companies struggling to compete with FANG-boosted wages. It's hardly an environment where capitalists are exploiting the workers.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#264

Post by aaronsimpson »

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…

Exactly. If you believe corporations have too much power today, one of the best tools in your toolbox as a "check" on their power is unions and collective bargaining. It's about having a counterbalance on that see-saw.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#265

Post by kiliantics »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #244
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…

The unions in slovenia opose the reduction of income tax for workers (after years of saying that they want to tax the capital more and work less). So yeah... unions in some places are politics first, their own pockets above that, and workers fifth.

This very same argument could be made against liberal democracies, where there is a potential for similar dynamics of corruption to develop. However, almost no one would argue that liberal democracy isn't preferable to a system where one person or a small group can decide everything.

Unions give you a vote and that is better than the alternative. Preventing a union from becoming corrupted is another problem and there is a wide spectrum of structures among unions, not all are as you depict.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#266

Post by thebean11 »

igorkraw wrote: post #214
gernb wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Police Union and the Teacher's Union have certainly been reported to be responsible for making it hard to fire people.

The police union is famously regarded as different than other unions, but I have heard of many teachers getting fired (see sibling comment)

And I've heard of teachers who are universally disliked by students, teachers, and administrators who are too difficult to fire. These are people who get switched to a new co-teacher every single year because the last one refuses to work with them again.

I'm not anti-union but it's a double edged sword.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#267

Post by scarface74 »

mkr-hn wrote: post #261
scarface74 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's probably actual research on this, but I can't come up with the right search terms. It could be one of those situations where it's impossible to say for sure. You can't exactly design an experiment around it: the decline already happened. So you'd have to do some kind of comparative analysis to figure out how outcomes would have changed without a union. Unions were never a 100% thing, so it might be enough to…

Is this really what we want as a society?

https://fortune.com/longform/unions-workplace-technology/

And they fight against merit pay.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/why_do_unions_o.htm...

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#268

Post by kiliantics »

scarface74 wrote: post #146
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.

I’ve been a developer for 25 years. The only time I couldn’t just throw my resume in the air and get another job was between 2008-2011. But that was a function of a bad economy and my letting my skills atrophy. When Amazon developers (I work at AWS in ProServe) saw their compensation not in line with the market, they didn’t talk about “unionizing”, they started interviewing and resigning en masse forcing Amazon to ch…

As someone who is newer in the industry, I can't say I feel the same. It was already fairly competitive when I was trying to get hired and now it is clear that huge numbers of people are getting trained for tech jobs and it is not clear that huge numbers of tech jobs will continue to be available.

That said, I don't think this is what a union is about. They provide a mechanism for workplace democracy that is far more powerful than the one you are implying some of us can get with the "fuck you I quit" attitude. Have you considered situations where people have less flexibility to change jobs because they have kids or a sick parent? Or how people could be protected from things like workplace harassment and discrimination? Or how you might just really care about the mission of a company and want to keep it on track?

The inherent nature of the institution of labour unions is about acknowledging what makes workers the same, even when they are different in many ways. People in power love when we view ourselves individually rather than as one large group because, when divided, we are easier to manage and exploit. You can simply admit that you are selfish and don't care about other people who haven't had it as easy as you have in this industry. But maybe you can imagine that there are many ways you could easily become less secure in your job and thereby understand the value of a union.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#269

Post by staticman2 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #262
staticman2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe the Turbotax product pays for a lawyer. Non lawyers can represent you at the IRS though I'm guessing certain criminal matters would need a lawyer. The turbotax product is also not called "legal defense" but "audit defense" presumably for that reason.

They definitely blur the lines on their marketing; a TurboTax MO. Such plans definitely exist, though. https://www.legalshield.com/ > If you receive a speeding ticket or other moving violation, you can call your lawyer and they will handle the situation for you. This plan benefit is one of our most popular as it can reduce or eliminate points on your license and reduce or eliminate fines with no additional lawyer fee…

I don"t know anything about that particular product but I've read anecodotes about the lawyers being terrible that are provided by such services.

A better example is perhaps liability insurance. The insurance company will pay for a lawyer and has an incentive to pay for a good lawyer since the insurance is on the hook up to the policy limit if the lawyer loses.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#270

Post by ceejayoz »

scarface74 wrote: post #236
ceejayoz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time the union got involved, the plants just picked up and left. Unions have been around - especially in manufacturing - long before they started offshoring production. The cost of labor in China and elsewhere was simply too low, unionized or not.

The unions kept pushing for increased pay. But regardless, what good would unions be to prevent outsourcing?

> The unions kept pushing for increased pay.

Sure, that's their job. Individuals do the same thing; unions just mean everyone negotiates as a group instead of one at a time, with a more balanced power dynamic.

> But regardless, what good would unions be to prevent outsourcing?

Unions aren't magical. That doesn't mean there's zero value in such a scenario.

They can negotiate rules and limits on layoffs, they can negotiate severance and healthcare coverage during such an outsourcing, etc.

Post reply on HN