Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 222 posts

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#51

Post by maxehmookau »

bluGill wrote: post #39
maxehmookau wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posts about unions on HN always skew towards negativity because in the US, unions are seen as bad. (Well done corporate america for that PR coup!) They often can't see the benefits, which are often large and numerous.

Unions in the US are bad, in large part because of laws written to force things that way. Unions in Europe work different, but we legally cannot have that type of union so there is no point in discussing how unions don't have to be bad.

That's not a fair generalisation IMO. Most notably, moves to unionise workers at large retail companies in the US such as Amazon can only be a good thing.

Some are bad, sure. Some unions here in the UK are bad too, but the general principle that unions work to protect workers is indisputable.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#52

Post by jraph »

thunky wrote: post #8
yakattak wrote: post #4

Game companies need this. It’s one of the “software engineering” adjacent subfields that is extremely exploited. The salaries are low, the work is stressful, crunch is high. The reason for this dangerous combo? You’re working your dream job. This is good, I hope the employees at ActivisionBlizzard can finalize their union if they’re purchased by Microsoft.

> The reason for this dangerous combo? You’re working your dream job. Doesn't that make it a fair trade? Musicians generally don't make a killing either.

Nope. If I cannot live comfortably with a dream job, I'll work on something else unfortunately. And work on whatever dream I have with whatever time and energy remains, if any.

Otherwise, I'd already be working on the exact things I want to work on, and earn almost nothing (for maybe a long time).

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#53

Post by thunky »

aapl88889 wrote: post #45
nemo44x wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Football players aren’t replaceable. At least not at the level people are willing to pay too dollar to watch.

Yes they are. College football gets big ratings every year with replaced players.

> College football gets big ratings every year with replaced players.

We're talking about professionals. If the Chiefs could replace Patrick Mahomes and save themselves $450,000,000 without impacting their business, they would.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#54

Post by giantg2 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #11
lettergram wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever worked in a company with a union? Look what just happened to the railroad workers. The US government forced them back to work and gave everything to the companies. Unions are effectively a corporation running labor. So you go from working for the company to working for your union rep. They then pimp you out and get kick backs. Wanna leave your job for another company or role? Good luck, you drop in seni…

I work in a white collar union in the US and this has not been my experience at all. I don't "work for my union rep", the "highest rank in the union" wouldn't decide what happens in case of layoffs, very little is based on seniority. Sounds like you have a very warped idea of what union work is like.

It's been my experience that seniority does play a role in unions, although it does vary depending on the job. Usually it's first dibs on some benefit, like OT or time off around holidays.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#55

Post by aapl88889 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #11
lettergram wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever worked in a company with a union? Look what just happened to the railroad workers. The US government forced them back to work and gave everything to the companies. Unions are effectively a corporation running labor. So you go from working for the company to working for your union rep. They then pimp you out and get kick backs. Wanna leave your job for another company or role? Good luck, you drop in seni…

I work in a white collar union in the US and this has not been my experience at all. I don't "work for my union rep", the "highest rank in the union" wouldn't decide what happens in case of layoffs, very little is based on seniority. Sounds like you have a very warped idea of what union work is like.

This is untrue. I've worked in union shops and work and pay there are very much based on seniority

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#56

Post by dmitriid »

lettergram wrote: post #38
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it weird that nobody in the US seems to look beyond their country or similar systems for different models regarding this. Looking to European models would be great. But the current American union structure is written into federal statute, and there is approximately zero chance of the statute ever being amended.

> Looking to European models would be great. Europeans on average earn half of Americans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_b... Software engineers make 4x or more their European counterparts If unions were effective I’d expect at least somewhat comparable wages… but that’s not the case. Is it time off it optimized for? I mean tha…

> If unions were effective I’d expect at least somewhat comparable wages… but that’s not the case.

Because wage is all you care for. How about: maternity leave, paid sick leave, child support, paid vacation days, wage protections, etc. etc.? And not just for software engineers, but for everyone?

> that also means as a union worker you can’t work more and make more. You’re stuck with what the union negotiated.

That also means that I cannot be forced to work overtime with no overtime pay.

> But even European ones, from the data (I’ve never experienced one), doesn’t seem effective.

If you only limit your data to only wages, then sure, that data will support whatever narrative you want.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#57

Post by giantg2 »

There are times I wish I had a union working for tech in finance. Although it seems like a real contract would fix most of the issues without unions.

These one page "we make the rules and can change them at any time" contracts are bogus. There's no accountability, no fairness. Things become arbitrary. There's no accountability when the company violates it's own policies.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#58

Post by rainsford »

hiddencost wrote: post #22
thunky wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason for this dangerous combo? You’re working your dream job. Doesn't that make it a fair trade? Musicians generally don't make a killing either.

I think of it like this: It's the company's job to maximize shareholder value. It's the worker's job to maximize worker value. It's the market's job to push profit to zero. So the union is like a new force in the equation: they put pressure on the company to give the workers more value. Which could actually be good for business: if treating workers results in better work product, the shareholders might not push for t…

I always think of unions as less a new force in the equation you described and more of a labor side equivalent of the collective organizing and action that happens on the company/shareholder side to maximize value. Instead of individual workers all trying to maximize their value in isolation with the company trying to collectively maximize value for all shareholders, unions ideally make it more of a one-to-one balance of "workers" and "shareholders".

I agree with your general thought that it could be good for business, but I'd take it a small step further and suggest a more comprehensive way to think about what's good for business as encompassing workers and shareholders equally. A situation that optimizes shareholder value at the expense of worker value is not really economically optimal even if that doesn't necessarily damage the business long term. If you can get much better conditions for workers with only a small drop in shareholder value, for example, that could be considered a net win.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#59

Post by skellera »

habibur wrote: post #14

"MS workers" here are 300 QA testers from MS's game division. I was worried whether their core developers were unionizing or not. Not yet. Not even the game developers.

Wouldn’t even say games division. They’re part of an acquired studio, Zenimax (parent company of Bethesda), that runs pretty independently.

While the headline is technically correct, it’s obviously clickbaity. Saying Zenimax QA engineers are unionizing doesn’t get as many clicks.

Re: Microsoft workers to form company’s first union in the U.S.

#60

Post by phpisthebest »

dmitriid wrote: post #56
lettergram wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looking to European models would be great. Europeans on average earn half of Americans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_b... Software engineers make 4x or more their European counterparts If unions were effective I’d expect at least somewhat comparable wages… but that’s not the case. Is it time off it optimized for? I mean tha…

> If unions were effective I’d expect at least somewhat comparable wages… but that’s not the case. Because wage is all you care for. How about: maternity leave, paid sick leave, child support, paid vacation days, wage protections, etc. etc.? And not just for software engineers, but for everyone? > that also means as a union worker you can’t work more and make more. You’re stuck with what the union negotiated. That al…

>>Because wage is all you care for.

yes..

>>How about: maternity leave, paid sick leave, child support, paid vacation days, wage protections, etc. etc.?

I have no children, I will never have children, and I rarely get sick, and I hate to travel so none of that matters to me. I am forced by my employer to take the vacation I do get, and my "vacation" is me sitting around my house doing chores or gaming which I do with out vacation time as well

That is the problem with Unions, they often fight for things I do not care about or need. Majoritarianism is always bad for the smallest minority... the individual

>>That also means that I cannot be forced to work overtime with no overtime pay.

Has a highly compensated employee that knows their value to the organizations I work for I have never been forced for work overtime with no pay.

Post reply on HN