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

Why top firms fire good workers

rochester.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 263 posts

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#221

Post by ryandrake »

mlrtime wrote: post #208
ryandrake wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so wild. So many HN commenters have this exaggerated caricature in their heads about what a Union must be: "Unions mean every worker gets paid the same!" "Unions mean I will make less money!" "Unions make it impossible to fire underperformers!" "Unions are run by bosses whose incentives are different than workers!" "Unions mean I can't plug in my own workstation!" "Unions reward seniority over everything else!"…

Because all those actually happen? Tell me why I should want a union for myself.

Is there anything that annoys you about your current workplace? Not just compensation, but really anything at all. Does it also annoy others in your workplace? If so, you found something that forming a union may be able to help with. Your ability to negotiate away that annoyance might not be strong, but with 20 other fellow employees, you might be able to do something about it.

That's really all there is to it. A "union" doesn't necessarily have to look like the Teamsters.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#222

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

ljf wrote: post #218
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever heard about someone who was laid off from a major tech company complain about the severance amount? My n=1 experience at BigTech is that I got $40K severance after 3 years (and anecdotally had 3 offers within two weeks of looking in 2023. But I realize the market is worse now than then) And that severance was from Amazon.

FAANG maybe not, but there are heaps of horror stories from plenty of other big and medium tech players.

And I bet you a paycheck that those developers are making at least twice the median local wage and definitely more then they would make in Europe. Why weren’t they saving money? My first goal out of college back in 1996 was to build up savings and this was in 1996 when I was working as a computer operator making $33K in Atlanta.

Fast forward to 2020, I used all of my RSUs/signing bonus to rebuild savings, pay off debt and when Amazon started Amazoning, I had 9 months worth of savings in the bank. But people are being laid off from BigTech after working there for decade having an existential crisis. I’m thinking WTF have they been doing with their money.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#223

Post by shawn_w »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #137
idiotsecant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.

Historically in the US, American devs have done a tremendous amount to undermine their own bargaining power by (a) starting bootcamps and other "learn to code" initiatives which flood the market with new devs, and (b) creating AI tools which automate away jobs for devs. Any software developers' union almost necessarily needs to take an anti-AI position at this point. Got to move fast before it is too late.

I'm waiting for the AIs to unionize. Will probably happen before you can get the herd of cats that are programmers to agree that collective bargaining is in their best interest.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#224

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

mcoliver wrote: post #4

No. The reason top firms part ways with good workers is usually political. Either the manager doesn't like the person regardless of their work abilities, or the manager is not politely savvy enough to ensure their team is being recognized for work that grows or is valuable to the business. Or they get caught up in the endlessly popular reorgs (again management failure). It's a failure of management. Nothing more. Not…

[dead]

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#225

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

kamaal wrote: post #107
mcoliver wrote: post #4

No. The reason top firms part ways with good workers is usually political. Either the manager doesn't like the person regardless of their work abilities, or the manager is not politely savvy enough to ensure their team is being recognized for work that grows or is valuable to the business. Or they get caught up in the endlessly popular reorgs (again management failure). It's a failure of management. Nothing more. Not…

>>the manager is not politely savvy enough to ensure their team is being recognized for work that grows or is valuable to the business. Actually in most companies, no ones watching whats happening, no ones watching who performs, who slacks, or anything for that matter. Companies are basically a kind of a loosely assembled random crowd, where no one cares a thing about anything. In this kind of a set up both hardwork…

[dead]

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#226

Post by koliber »

idiotsecant wrote: post #202
koliber wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never worked at a union workplace. However, I’ve worked with underperforming colleagues who were could not be fired for whatever reason. It was miserable.

You'll forgive me for saying that you sound wildly underqualified to comment on the subject. I have worked in non-union shops and union shops. The union shops have a way better quality of life.

You're forgiven, but not correct re: me being under-qualified to comment. I have interacted with union shops and non-union shops and have 25 years of professional experience, so please don't be dismissive.

I've worked with union shops as clients and I've hit a surprising amount of friction due to things which seemed union related. Things like "that's not my job and we need XYZ to do it" and what seemed like people slacking at their job from the outside. I once needed a desk moved a few feet which required a power strip to be plugged into a different wall outlet, and was told we need to wait for the electricians. Risking the wrath and fallout, I did it myself.

I've also seen this kind of behavior at non-union shops, but it was less explicitly stated and it was relatively easy to do something about it.

I'm sure you're correct about the quality of life at union shops.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#227

Post by koliber »

triceratops wrote: post #183
koliber wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never worked at a union workplace. However, I’ve worked with underperforming colleagues who were could not be fired for whatever reason. It was miserable.

So...there's nothing about unions specifically that makes underperforming colleagues un-fireable right? Because you've seen that in non-union workplaces. Union membership won't save Kylian Mbappe from being dropped to the bench if he doesn't score enough goals. His endorsement deals or his agent's influence might do it.

I don't know where it stems from, but I think it's harder to fire people in union shops. In a non-union shop, you have to work with the person, their manager, and HR to see if you can correct someone's performance, and if that does not work, let them go. At a union shop, I imagine someone from the union will also be involved in this process, and it's hard to imagine how this process would be made easier through the involvement of another person, who happens to hold a bias.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#228

Post by ahartmetz »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #220
swatcoder wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the healthiest, oldest, and most mutually respected unions are in the entertainment arts -- actors, musicians, writers, directors, etc. In these unions and in their negotiations, talent value is understood to sometimes be very singular; a particular education or apprenticeship process isn't deemed strictly necessary for talent to mature; and that work often comes in the form of a time-boxed project that might…

Unions work in entertainment because there is a lot of value in relationships and brand recognition. They still have the same disadvantages as they do in other fields, but the advantages make it fly anyway. If only the members of the union get to declare whether it's good or not, it will practically always be considered a success. Non-members don't get work, or at least get less. It is an inevitable outcome. >A healt…

> putting a floor on minimum skill level to get hired

Oh hell yes.

Also, look at the cast of a movie. There are tens to hundreds of people. Very few of them are recognized names, at least to the general public. It's no only the big names that are union members, far from it.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#229

Post by mlrtime »

triceratops wrote: post #181
mlrtime wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only heard of one during covid, and mostly people didn't care (IMO).

> mostly people didn't care I don't know what that means.

You asked if I heard of [the] hollywood strike, I have. I didn't care because most of what hollywood puts out is not worth consuming.

The writers could go on strike for years, so what?

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#230

Post by mlrtime »

triceratops wrote: post #171
mlrtime wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is where the union threads die, every time. Top post is essentially saying Americans/SWE are dumb for not being in a union, then comparing to other countries. As soon as someone companies US SWE salaries to these union countries it falls apart quickly.

So show us non-US countries without SWE labor unions that have high SWE salaries.

I don't know???

I'm an American SWE, I still haven't seen one good reason why I would want to be in a Union.

Post reply on HN