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

Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

jacobin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 154 posts

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#121

Post by greyface- »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #118
greyface- wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 becau…

I don't think it's helpful to chastise people for acting in their self-interest. I am willing to individually give up a little to collectively gain a lot. That makes sense to me. But, as we have agreed upthread, this isn't the value proposition anymore. Collective bargaining has been institutionalized and nerfed by those that it was supposed to regulate. Today, it's asking me to individually give up a little in order to collectively gain a little, while adding additional complexity and a second parallel bureaucracy to my workplace. I'll vote in favor of fixing the law, and once the law is fixed, I'll be more interested in letting a union represent me.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#122

Post by DiscourseFan »

ydlr wrote: post #78
popalchemist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being in a union isn't about being at one job for life. I'm a member of IATSE (the huge mega-union behind thousands of technical job titles/positions in the entertainment industry, such as film editors, sound mixers, etc; really it's many mini-unions acting as one.) There is really no connection to belonging to a union and being stuck in one job title, in fact the incentives are set up in the opposite direction - the…

IATSE membership helps with job mobility because they enjoy a carve-out allowing sectorial bargaining. It would be illegal in US for a union to try to organize the software industry along the same lines.

Wow, illegal you say? Damn, I suppose an organization that is capable of shutting down an entire sector of the economy will have to obey the strict letter of the law...unfortunate.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#123

Post by teravor »

braiamp wrote: post #89
teravor wrote: post #76

the problem with unions is that they tend to enjoy legal protections not afforded to anyone else. as such they will distort the marketplace. as is often the case with such carve-outs those who can get in early tend to benefit at the expense of everyone else. it was a mistake to entrench unions because now you will never get rid of them, but it's not surprising as the alternative would have been aggressive anti-trust…

> the problem with unions is that they tend to enjoy legal protections not afforded to anyone else Capital has higher protections than unions, what are you on about? You have the corporate veil whereas the liability stops at the organization rather than the individuals and that is very seldomly pierced (J&J is a neat case here, even while courts are being wise to that move now). Also, if carve-outs distort markets, t…

    > Capital has higher protections than unions, what are you on about? You have the corporate veil whereas the liability stops at the organization rather than the individuals
the corporate veil does not protect capital, it explicitly makes capital be the vulnerable part.

or are you decrying the fact that a human capitalist isn't made vulnerable? there are good reasons for that as in a standard corporate setting individuals may not have the requisite influence to dictate a course of action, if they are held responsible by what the emergent corporate entity embarks on then there will be no capitalism.

if the unions become corporate entities and their members give up all labor protections (become contractors) then it will be more even but they obviously don't want that. a highly organized minority is always the elite for a reason.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#124

Post by pandaman »

jmyeet wrote: post #74

Here's a question I have for all the predictable "I don't need a union" SWEs out there: if unions were so bad, why do companies literally spend millions and break the law to make sure they don't happen? To borrow a George RR Martin'ism, there are a lot of children of summer of this space that have only experienced the 2010s, which were an unprecedented boom in tech hiring. Even now in permanent layoff culture they've…

How does this:

>You do not have negotiating power with a trillion dollar company. If you withhold they labor, it's no big deal. If they withhold your paycheck, you and your family are at risk of homelessness, bankruptcy and death. These are not equal positions.

coexist with this:

> What's going on now is normal and companies are aggressively working to claw back the compensation gains of the last 1-2 decades.

in your head?

Where did the gains the companies are clawing back come from if negotiation is impossible? Do you think there were SWE unions before 2010 which made these gains and disappeared without a trace?

As for your question - it's pretty simple, companies bust unions because unions negatively affect their business. It does not follow that unions are good for their members and if your comp comes from the business equity it means it's bad for you.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#125

Post by johnnyanmac »

greyface- wrote: post #121
johnnyanmac wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 becau…

I don't think it's helpful to chastise people for acting in their self-interest. I am willing to individually give up a little to collectively gain a lot. That makes sense to me. But, as we have agreed upthread, this isn't the value proposition anymore. Collective bargaining has been institutionalized and nerfed by those that it was supposed to regulate. Today, it's asking me to individually give up a little in order…

You choosing to take the statement as chastising means you still have shame. So there's still some hope yet.

It wasn't my intention, but there's ultimately no other way to describe someone who chooses not to participate in a community effort as "selfish". And that's not some judgement call per se; everyone needs to be a bit selfish to work hard, push forward, and advance their lives. The degree and cost of the selfishness is where it starts to cross from individual actions to a character trait. But I digress.

>Today, it's asking me to individually give up a little in order to collectively gain a little, while adding additional complexity and a second parallel bureaucracy to my workplace.

But you keep falling into the same circular logic. We can agree that powers have been reduced. But we get those powers back by having people give up a little. The more people who give up a little, the more we all gain. Saying that that's not worth it weakens the entire cause.

>I'll vote in favor of fixing the law, and once the law is fixed, I'll be more interested in letting a union represent me.

I hope you do. But who do you think gets those laws proposed and put on the ballot? The stronger the coalition (which is simply a more general form of "union of people to pursue a common goal), the stronger chance we actually get a bill to vote on. And these companies are really good at killing stuff off while it's still in the boring proposal phase.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#126

Post by jjtheblunt »

glitchc wrote: post #27
jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Nothing wrong with stating the sources up front. They are clearly pro-labour and pro-union. It helps to know where the authors stand. Would you rather the authors were buried under seven layers of shell companies?

not at all...i thought it was great how it's clear

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#127

Post by jjtheblunt »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #111
jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

[flagged]

who did you think writes for the Jacobin?

i never heard of Jacobin until today. I just thought it was interesting that they were open and clear about the authors, more so than is obvious in usual journalism online.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#128

Post by missedthecue »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #92
missedthecue wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most tech workers I have met with parent commenters opinion have been laid off at various times in their career. I think it's important to note that unions aren't very good tools to avoid layoffs. If there is a company specific hardship, the union can't simply force the company to maintain headcount all the way into bankruptcy. On the other hand if there is a secular change across the industry, the unions can't preve…

>If there is a company specific hardship That's the issue. 2/3 of my layoffs were not "financial hardships". One was just a medium sized studio who ran out of projects and didn't want me to continue. The other was a large global company who was about to make big purchases (and eventually, change leadership). Maybe with job #1 I could have saved it, but I was underpaid and already looking out the door, so it wasn't su…

The big 3 don't employ half a million fewer because they weakened unions. It's because manufacturing needs fewer people now. The UAW can't simply force them to retain half a million people sitting around doing nothing, and they can only do so much to ban the implementation of automated manufacturing systems.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#129

Post by jjtheblunt »

gdulli wrote: post #39
jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Enough of this passive aggressive quoting. If you have something to say, man up and say it.

what i found interesting is that the authors are so clearly described, at the end of the article, which contrasts with most of the news sorts of articles i see online.
Post reply on HN