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

81–90 of 222 posts

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

#81

Post by kgwxd »

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.

No one else generally makes a killing off musicians that aren't also making a killing.

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

#82

Post by randomdata »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #71
trashtester wrote: post #69

The 70s are back. We're approaching a period of strong unions, huge labor conflicts and eventually rampant inflation. At least in Europe. I've been thinking that the USA would be affected less than Europe, due to weak unions in most sectors, but it's certainly possible for unions to form.

I feel like this implication you're positing where unions and labour conflicts can only result in "rampant inflation" is untested.

If anything, it seems that increased unionization lags behind inflation.

Which may not be surprising as high inflation discourages saving, meaning that people are more likely to buy the things they want now to not have to pay much more later, which results in businesses increasing production to fill the increased demand, requiring more labour, and thus labour finds itself in a stronger position.

As the only power unions wield is the threat of stoppage of service, the workers have to be in a strong enough financial position to be able to execute on that – to be able to live without an income for months, if not years – in order to make it a credible threat. This is why unions are typically only found in high paying professions, but during periods where the general labour pool grows stronger then that expands.

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

#83

Post by adamsmith143 »

thunky wrote: post #53
aapl88889 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same people that think they're an irreplaceable 10x engineer think athletes are replaceable cogs... imagine that.

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

#84

Post by nonethewiser »

IMTDb wrote: post #61
jraph wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Isn't that your decision ? Why are these two situation related so differently: I quit my boring job as a dev in the banking sector to work in agriculture, hours are longer and money is tighter but it's my dream job ! (Way to go ! Keep working your dream, money is not everything !!!) I quit my boring job as a dev in the banking sector to work in the gaming industry, hours are longer and money is tighter but it's my dr…

Precisely. Game developers accept lower standards because they think its worth it. I don't, but they're free to work for less if they want.

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

#86

Post by charcircuit »

RupertWiser wrote: post #16
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’m not sure it’s fair if the product ends up making a boat loads of money. Games are high risk but a very lucrative industry. Just look at how successful football players were in getting a slice of the pie. I’d still consider that a dream job.

If a product makes a boatload of money how is it fair to the business to force them to pay more. What if the game instead went over budget and flopped? Should the workers now owe money to the company? Businesses that can figure out how to make the most money with the resources available to them deserve to make that money and it's unfair to take that money from them.

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

#87

Post by gyulai »

coldpie wrote: post #76
gyulai wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...okay, so other companies had a bad time attempting that particular union-busting tactic, resulting in reputational damage (and fines?) Maybe Microsoft learned from this that the odds of success are low. Maybe labour got better at organizing these ballots in a way so they can't be contested. I fail to see how any of that means that they have a soul that's somehow pro-labour, while those other companies are soulless…

> I fail to see how any of that means that they have a soul that's somehow pro-union Sorry, can you point me to who made this claim?

I was trying to make a very subtle point in a very condensed way.

The initial claim was "statement about openness makes Microsoft an outlier". My counterclaim was "statement is meaningless". Why am I saying that? Because Microsoft is a business, not a person. Persons have souls and hence attributes like "openness" can apply to persons. Businesses are profit-maximizing automatons. They do not have souls. What does it mean for an automaton to be "open" to anything? Nothing, it doesn't make sense at a surface-level. Upon a deeper analysis it gives me pause that it blandly contradicts what their incentives obviously are, namely to win a zero-sum game that they're playing against a union.

The interpretation whereby they're communicating in bad faith is as good or better than the interpretation whereby you can take them at their word when they talk about openness. There is no way to know which of two contradictory interpretations is the truth. Hence the information content is zero (my initial claim).

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

#88

Post by afavour »

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.

Musicians are generally exploited, too. I don't really see the argument against forming a union just because you enjoy your job. More worker power is a good thing.

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

#89

Post by nonethewiser »

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.

You quite literally do work for your union by definition of unions under US law.

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

#90

Post by itworkslikethat »

afavour wrote: post #88
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.

Musicians are generally exploited, too. I don't really see the argument against forming a union just because you enjoy your job. More worker power is a good thing.

Making music is usually not a job. You're making your own intellectual property and sometimes you're successful in selling it.

Should we subsidize other kinds of unsuccessful businesses too?

Post reply on HN