[flagged]
who did you think writes for the Jacobin?
Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
111–120 of 153 posts
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The National Labor Relations Act prohibits covered employers from negotiating directly with employees.
Companies can choose to pay you more. There's nothing probibiting that
I recommend that you read your collective bargaining agreement more closely.
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
We agree, then, that it's ineffective at its stated goal of constraining an employer's power.
Indeed. But that's by design from decades of efforts to reduce union powers. A proper system would simply patch the obvious loopholes to get the intended result. But sometimes neglect is a better tool than opposition.
So why should I bind myself to it, if it's reached this point? The master's tools won't dismantle the master's house. Subjecting myself to a collective bargaining agreement meaningfully limits my individual power, but no longer meaningfully limits my employer's power.
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#114As a California tech worker (where the article is focused), I have zero interest in joining a union and firmly believe that much of what has been possible as a tech employee (high paying, interesting career) is in part because we don't have unions, and instead employees own equity and get valuable skills. Modern tech workers arguably have the best career deal in the history of humankind. I see no upside in killing th…
Unionization succeeds first and foremost when workers have significant leverage. That leverage is irrespective of how much workers get paid but is based on how critical those workers are to a given type of work or given industry. What you are describing shows the immense amount of leverage tech workers have had for the last two decades or so and now with AI that leverage will only lessen. Unionization is fundamentally about maintaining control over your own labor (of which salary is a part but not the only concern). Unionizing 3-5 years ago would have been best but next best is now.
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#115This article is really about IT support, not "tech" workers. What tech workers need, if they need anything, is a professional organization like lawyers, doctors, and architects have.
> is a professional organization like lawyers, doctors, and architects have
those don't serve to protect workers rights, but rather serve to artificially limit the number of people who can work in that industry; if anything they are anti-workers-rights
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#116As a California tech worker (where the article is focused), I have zero interest in joining a union and firmly believe that much of what has been possible as a tech employee (high paying, interesting career) is in part because we don't have unions, and instead employees own equity and get valuable skills. Modern tech workers arguably have the best career deal in the history of humankind. I see no upside in killing th…
[deleted]
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#117As a California tech worker (where the article is focused), I have zero interest in joining a union and firmly believe that much of what has been possible as a tech employee (high paying, interesting career) is in part because we don't have unions, and instead employees own equity and get valuable skills. Modern tech workers arguably have the best career deal in the history of humankind. I see no upside in killing th…
Unionization succeeds first and foremost when workers have significant leverage. That leverage is irrespective of how much workers get paid but is based on how critical those workers are to a given type of work or given industry. What you are describing shows the immense amount of leverage tech workers have had for the last two decades or so and now with AI that leverage will only lessen. Unionization is fundamentall…
[deleted]
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. But that's by design from decades of efforts to reduce union powers. A proper system would simply patch the obvious loopholes to get the intended result. But sometimes neglect is a better tool than opposition.
So why should I bind myself to it, if it's reached this point? The master's tools won't dismantle the master's house. Subjecting myself to a collective bargaining agreement meaningfully limits my individual power, but no longer meaningfully limits my employer's power.
> Subjecting myself to a collective bargaining agreement meaningfully limits my individual power, but no longer meaningfully limits my employer's power.
You're really just saying "I don't need collective bargaining, I got mine". Collective bargaining only works if everyone does it. You do it because everyone needs to do it for it t o work.
You don't get insurance because your house or car is fine today, or even because you're a bad driver/homeowner. You get it because you can't predict the future, and the overall cost is cheaper than floating the bill by yourself should the worst happen. If you used the same mentality for your car insurance, insurance as a model also wouldn't work.
That seems to be a big sticking point people don't get (probably because the propoganda works). Unions always fail due to collective effort of companies and the government to weaken them, not because of any nitpicks over drama or bad leaders or whatnot. Every workplace already has those but many keep ticking.
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#119[flagged]
Sounds qualified. What's wrong?
Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unions will obviously save the industry and its employees. Worked for the auto workers...
And the coal workers too. If the industry itself is dying pr mutating then the workers are screwed either way, union or no union.
So, union is always better than no union, is what you're saying?