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

Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

workerorganizing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 380 posts

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#161

Post by lotsofpulp »

pyreticRitual wrote: post #151
chii wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capital is winning. and a reactionary union isn't really the way to fix "capital winning". Because the idea that capital "wins" is flawed imho. It's not that capital is winning, it's that capital is the part of the equation which has bargaining power. The reason for that is hard to say, but i am guessing that most workers are not really unique or special enough to warrant having them the same bargaining power as ca…

Capital will always have information asymmetry. There’s also the fact that the worst case scenario for a capitalist is that they become an employee. The worst case for an employee is they end up homeless.

A “capitalist” can also become homeless. Small business owners have to secure loans with personal assets and bad bets / legal liabilities are abound.

Established business shareholders probably do not have this problem.

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#162

Post by xeromal »

RandomLensman wrote: post #142
xeromal wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Union agreements can bind pay to non meritocratic ways such as time spent in the role or when a higher position opens up. Those top players will rise to the top easier in an open market. It's the same with waitstaff in a tip-based system. The bottom half wants fair wages while the top 20% will leave because they know they can earn without those rules in place.

First, that means there is an open, two-sided market and, second, citation needed that that is really the case. Btw., employers can and do also pay based on non-meritocratic KPIs (but depends on your definition of that term).

I'm not a scientist nor am I trying to get into an actual debate on hackernews. I'm just spouting my opinion and feelings on the matter like conversations were done preinternet when someone could just go digging around to find a study to support their argument. Of course employers reward people for loyalty but as someone who has worked in a union environment before, I've felt stifled. I come from a family of tradesmen and unions do wonders to protect the health and future of employees but they are just as corruptible as corporations. They're just corrupt for the people they protect which happens to benefit the union workers most of the time.

I'm just not interested.

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#163

Post by randy5235 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #133
pydry wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions add the same kind of value whether you're writing a Hollywood screenplay or assembling a Tesla because you have the same relationship to capital either way. The same divide/conquer tactic was done 100 years ago when owners of mines in Pennsylvania pitted white and black miners against each other. The actual distinction doesn't matter to the owners provided it divides labor. Anything that makes you feel special…

Do I have the same relationship to capital? A miner’s relationship to capital seems pretty plausibly adversarial to me: capital buys a bunch of tools and shafts and scaffolding, asks miners to use them to pull coal out of the ground, then pays the miners a fraction of what the coal sells for. My relationship with capital is that rich investors send money to my company’s bank account and they forward it directly to my…

Rich investors send money to your companies bank account. Upper management then pays as little as they can get away with. You might have “shares” in your company that gain value in an “exit” event, but have you looked at how those payout structures are arranged? Mostly the investors and “founders” are paid out first with great returns. What little is left gets divided up amongst the rest.

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#164

Post by AptExtrapolatio »

wil421 wrote: post #78
flerchin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best airline pilot lands the plane the same as the worst.

The best airline pilots get the best routes for the best airlines and are mostly retired military. At the other end you have cargo pilots and regional flights that carry a brand of major airline but are operated by a different company. Look at salary differences. https://www.thepilotguys.com/blog/airline-pilot-salary

>The best airline pilots get the best routes for the best airlines and are mostly retired military.

Curious about this. I'd have thought going the civilian route of flight school should put one on equal footing on this regard? Or are you saying that just statistically more long-tenured pilots are retired military?

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#165

Post by pyreticRitual »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #161
pyreticRitual wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital will always have information asymmetry. There’s also the fact that the worst case scenario for a capitalist is that they become an employee. The worst case for an employee is they end up homeless.

A “capitalist” can also become homeless. Small business owners have to secure loans with personal assets and bad bets / legal liabilities are abound. Established business shareholders probably do not have this problem.

If they fail at being an employee, yes.

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#166

Post by slibhb »

> After the 2016 presidential election, the tech industry saw a surge of activism when workers began to recognize the work they had produced could potentially be abused to harm people.

This is one more reason to be skeptical of tech unions. Often, they aren't interested in securing higher pay and better conditions; they're about politics.

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#167

Post by pjc50 »

abigail95 wrote: post #157
randy5235 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you feel that a union wouldn’t represent your interests? Do you really believe that corporations will continue paying us well any longer than they absolutely have to? As soon as an ai or low code split comes along that can replace junior and mid level engineers, those jobs will get harder and harder to find. The rest of us will have to shoulder the responsibility of “cleaning” after those solutions and the…

You have very very heavy lifting to do if you're trying to prove a productivity improvement leads to a worse outcome. Farming automation and the green revolution didn't make us all unemployed - it meant 90% of us could do something else instead of farming. We used the productivity to just invent new forms of work that weren't possible and aren't possible in a lower productivity economy.

Outcome for whom, though? We can use fancy words like "Pareto" or we can argue that it doesn't matter if a productivity improvement gives a billionaire more toys if everyone else is experiencing smaller houses and a worse public environment.

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#168

Post by jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg »

GoToRO wrote: post #131
zaphar wrote: post #107

I don't know whether we deserve a union or not. I do know that I emphatically do not want or need one. I make the amount of money I need. I have my pick of jobs if I feel undervalued by the place I work. Under no circumstances do I want to be forced to pay dues into a union that is unlikely to represent me in the company or politically. Since I have no need or desire there is no reason for me to consider the question…

I'm not hungry therefore nobody is hungry.

Which tech workers are hungry exactly?

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#169

Post by bluGill »

itsoktocry wrote: post #125
mycologos wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the distinction is the relationship between the median performer and the 90th percentile performer. The two are very different employees for software development but not on an assembly line. As you point out, there is a difference between the median performer and the 10th percentile performer on an assembly line, but that's not the comparison the parent comment introduced.

> As you point out, there is a difference between the median performer But I didn't say that, and I don't agree. I think the 90th percentile never causes delays on a particular station, while the median may cause a few per hour, and the 10th percentile might delay every 2nd or 3rd cycle. There are tangible costs associated with those levels of performance.

Generally you design your cycle times so that the median performer never is late. Remember if each median performer has 1 delay per hour, on a line with 100 workers that mean each cycle there is a delay somewhere and so the line always moves slower than expected. How much slack to add is a complex question, but you have to assume there will be delays. The 10th percentile cannot be allowed to delay the line, so you have to deal with it (training, fire them, give them faster tools, or switch to a station they can do in time come to mind, there may be more)

Re: Tech Workers Deserve a Union: An Interview with Ethan Marcotte

#170

Post by lotsofpulp »

dimva wrote: post #79
bazooka wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take. It’s also untrue. Software developers overall are not millionaires. I am discounting non-liquid assets like the main residence.

Why are you discounting real wealth? I am a millionaire. If I spent my millions on buying a modest house in Palo Alto, does that mean I am no longer a millionaire? Have I lost all my wealth just by purchasing a home?

For the purposes of discussing security, counting the price of the residence is not very useful, assuming the discussion participants agree it is an “average” residence that meets minimum expected quality of life standards.

For the purposes of discussing quality of life, if the person values living in the place they are which is higher priced than most others, then the price of the residence could be useful.

I see no reason to include price of house if I were to sell it in my picture of my financial security because I have no desire to live elsewhere (or if I wanted to live somewhere more expensive).

Post reply on HN