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

Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

rockpapershotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 377 posts

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#151

Post by buellerbueller »

Manuel_D wrote: post #107
IshKebab wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the magical "perfect competition" view of the market that often doesn't match reality at all.

What's keeping any one of these Id software developers from accepting a competing job offer elsewhere? Yes, there are scenarios where employees are stripped of agency. E.g a factory owner taking and holding foreign worker's passports. But if you're going to allege that something is preventing these works from accepting competing offers, you have to offer evidence for that claim.

WHat's keeping a company from providing fair wages, fair labor practices such that unions are unnecessary?

EDIT: I guess you can just downvote, sure, but why not engage?

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#152

Post by wat10000 »

RobRivera wrote: post #139
an_cap wrote: post #100

FWIW, the union (CWA) via its Seattle affiliate tried to get OPT banned, a visa status that many readers of HN benefited from - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/2... . I encourage HN readers to better understand the relationship between unions and immigration before deciding whether they are in favor of joining/supporting unions.

Let's try to be honest when we discuss this kind of thing; Unions are like people. They have unique agendas, unique executive decisionmaking trends, and affect their members differently. No single union is 1:1 alike. When I had a family member get a job as a local grocery store bagger, then job stipulated he HAD to join the union and give his dues out of paycheck within 1 month or he would be fired from his job. He q…

Being forced to join the union to have a job there is little different from being forced to become an employee of the company in order to work in the store. It's extremely common to have a requirement to become part of some organization in order to work in a place, it's just that this organization is usually a for-profit business, and typically you only have to join one.

People think very weirdly about unions. If you strip away all the fluff, a union is ultimately a business that sells labor, typically with a setup where the buyer(s) of that labor pay the labor directly, and then the labor pays the supplier, rather than having the money flow through the supplier first. The direction of money flow is unusual, but makes no practical difference.

All you're describing is an exclusive arrangement between a supplier and a business that buys from them. If it was a contracting agency instead of a union, and your family member was told that the only way to work in the store was to go through the agency, you wouldn't bat an eye. But call it a "union" and suddenly "he got squeezed."

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#153

Post by adi_kurian »

Animats wrote: post #111

Funny how the "story" doesn't link to the announcement it mostly copied from the CWA.[1] Here's the link to the union organizing page.[2] No draft union contract for Id, though. Interestingly, this is an industrial ("wall to wall") union, rather than a craft union such as The Animation Guild. IATSE Local 839, in Hollywood. TAG only represents specific jobs, mostly animation artists. A key point in TAG contracts is ho…

How quite reasonable.

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#154

Post by nickthegreek »

seneca wrote: post #68
c-hendricks wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement wasn't really pro or against unions. Simply put, if your company can only survive while exploiting its workers it shouldn't survive. Whether that's due to constant turnover from poor treatment of their employees, or due to union strikes, doesn't change the statement.

That's not at all what the statement I replied to says in context. hellojesus said "There is always the chance that the collective action discounts the impact to the business too heavily and ends up driving the company under, making the outcomes worse for everyone." popalchemist said "If the company's existence depends on the unfair exploitation of its staff, its foreclosure is inevitable and justified" That response…

You’re reading an extra claim into it. It’s not saying “all post-union failures prove exploitation.” It’s saying “if survival requires unfair exploitation, then losing that advantage exposes an illegitimate model.”

I see no implication that all failing businesses after unionization is due to exploitation.

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#155

Post by pie_flavor »

autoexec wrote: post #127
prewett wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes that the union never unfairly exploits the company. I think historical evidence shows that unions sometimes do exploit the company (and that union leaders sometimes exploit the members). Humans exploiting other humans is a flaw of all of us, not just corporate management.

Yeah, I'm not sure Id Software, backed by their billion dollar parent company ZeniMax Media, who in turn is backed by their parent company Microsoft, has to live in fear of being exploited by the 165 employees who just signed onto a union.

You're trying to minimize the power of the union by quoting dollar amounts, when the whole point of the union is to have power, and the whole point of unionization is to defeat superior dollar amounts by capturing the organizational memory that money cannot buy.

You cannot replace your entire gamedev team at once without destroying what makes your company, your company. You cannot respond to your entire gamedev team refusing to work other than by replacing them or by getting them to stop striking, either by aggressively union-busting or by negotiating with the union. That is the reason unions work at all.

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#156

Post by abdullahkhalids »

sshine wrote: post #123
an_cap wrote: post #100

FWIW, the union (CWA) via its Seattle affiliate tried to get OPT banned, a visa status that many readers of HN benefited from - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/2... . I encourage HN readers to better understand the relationship between unions and immigration before deciding whether they are in favor of joining/supporting unions.

Yes, unions can be protectionist about their work force, but there are international worker unions; maybe this is a European thing. An econ 101 observation: unions contribute to structural unemployment: Keeping wages above market-clearing levels, and by preventing wage adjustment. Through collective bargaining, unions can negotiate wages that are higher than what the market would naturally set. This can lead to the c…

For markets to operate well, prices must be easily accessible by both buyers and sellers. Since corporations do their utmost to ensure that workers don't discover wages and salaries of their peers, corporations suppress wages. So, corporations are bad for the common good.

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#157

Post by brendoelfrendo »

RobRivera wrote: post #144
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Loaded questions are a rhetorical device taught in high school persuasive writing courses as a tool to dominate a conversation. Its indicative of a bad-faith participant in a discussion.

Speculation masked as "econ 101"-level fact as a way to preemptively dismiss counter arguments is also pretty indicative of bad-faith participation, it just looks more polite in a comment section.

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#158

Post by autoexec »

seneca wrote: post #101
overfeed wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is union-related collective ruin anathema, but elite-driven ruin is seen as an acceptable price to pay? Enron, the Great Recession, etc.

>Why is union-related collective ruin anathema, but elite-driven ruin is seen as an acceptable price to pay? Enron, the Great Recession, etc. What are you talking about? Multiple people were convicted over the Enron scandal, including some serious prison terms.

The longest time an enron CEO spent behind bars was 12 years. Richard DeLisi was sentenced to 90 years for a nonviolent marijuana charge and spent over 30 behind bars before being pardoned. Kind of puts "serious" prison terms in perspective.

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#159

Post by sallveburrpi »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #140
sallveburrpi wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or form a union and push back - why are you defending ID software executives?

You are imputing motives that are not in evidence.

This isn’t a court of law sir, this is a message board operated by a venture capitalist fund

Re: Id Software devs form "wall-to-wall" union

#160

Post by wat10000 »

sshine wrote: post #123
an_cap wrote: post #100

FWIW, the union (CWA) via its Seattle affiliate tried to get OPT banned, a visa status that many readers of HN benefited from - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/2... . I encourage HN readers to better understand the relationship between unions and immigration before deciding whether they are in favor of joining/supporting unions.

Yes, unions can be protectionist about their work force, but there are international worker unions; maybe this is a European thing. An econ 101 observation: unions contribute to structural unemployment: Keeping wages above market-clearing levels, and by preventing wage adjustment. Through collective bargaining, unions can negotiate wages that are higher than what the market would naturally set. This can lead to the c…

Unions are part of the market like anything else. If wages are higher, they aren't above market-clearing levels, those are the new market-clearing levels. If workers form a union and bargain collectively, that is what the market naturally set.

Do you apply the same argument for employers? Companies contribute to low wages. By collectively bargaining with employees (e.g. hiring at the local grocery store is centralized, you can't go around to all the individual managers and start a bidding war) they can negotiate wages that are lower than what the market would naturally set.

Post reply on HN