Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work • Hacker News Board

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#131

Post by greyface- » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 1:44 AM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #125

greyface- wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 selfis…

> Saying that that's not worth it weakens the entire cause.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm interested in participating in effective collective action, but don't have time for taking action just for action's sake.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#132

Post by johnnyanmac » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 1:47 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #128

johnnyanmac wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> It's because manufacturing needs fewer people now.

It's because they outsourced most roles starting in the 90s. They don't need as many people due to efficiency gains, but not "hollow out entire cities" levels of efficiency. Human labor is still necessary, and human labor in other parts of the world will be cheaper than many automation gains for times to come.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#133

Post by preg_match » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 1:51 AM UTC

jamestimmins wrote: post #14

As 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…

Most other engineers are also not union, and they don't experience our high salaries or supreme career mobility. I think it was always a factor of demand and the domain. Software makes money without making anything physical. It therefore scales infinitely, trivially. Yes it doesn't actually, but the marginal cost is so, so small that it effectively does, especially when compared to any physical good.

So, software has always been rated for extreme growth. Investors absolutely love software for that reason. They don't like bridges, or planes.

But none of this is set in stone. Software engineers are losing leverage by the day. It's possible our salaries, stability, mobility, and equity will all decline. That does happen to careers sometimes. We're just assuming things will continue as they are, but they're already not, so I don't think that's a safe assumption.

Unions are, ultimately, about balancing leverage. You have to understand that, as an individual worker, you have little to no leverage. As a software engineer you have, arguably, the most leverage of any individual workers, and even then it's incredibly lopsided. You are purely at the behest of the company and the market, for the most part. Your control is an illusion, carefully implanted in your brain through decades of propaganda. Unions do not suddenly give you perfect leverage, but they certainly give you more.

With the layoffs we've seen, how many engineers wanted that? And, what could they have done? Well... a lot of people are now realizing, nothing. They had no control. They are passengers.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#134

Post by preg_match » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 1:54 AM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #83

Melatonic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything a union would aid job mobility. And theres no reason you cant still individually negotiate and receive equity if you are in a union.

IIRC union seniority is tied to the current employer. Move to another employer and all your seniority and the perks that go with it are gone so union members avoid it. No mobility for you.

Maybe but don't we want, overall, more seniority in most places? Most software shops struggle because their executives are extremely short-term focused, so they cycle employees at an extreme rate to chase very temporary highs of payroll savings. But engineers are actually not fungible. 99% of the time, the graybeard is going to run circles around the 10x engineer unicorn you just hired. And that 10x engineer unicorn is gonna be gone in one year's time, because they can do that.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#135

Post by johnnyanmac » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 1:56 AM UTC

greyface- wrote: post #131

johnnyanmac wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 selfis…

> Saying that that's not worth it weakens the entire cause. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm interested in participating in effective collective action, but don't have time for taking action just for action's sake.

You're a participant in society too. If you don't have time to exert your rights, other people will be happy to erode them, as we've seen time and time again. Civic duty should be a constant endeavor, not just something you do every few years on a ballot.

If you feel you lack time now, I hope the day doesn't come (like me) where you get plenty of time.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#136

Post by missedthecue » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 2:38 AM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #132

missedthecue wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's because manufacturing needs fewer people now. It's because they outsourced most roles starting in the 90s. They don't need as many people due to efficiency gains, but not "hollow out entire cities" levels of efficiency. Human labor is still necessary, and human labor in other parts of the world will be cheaper than many automation gains for times to come.

Big 3 global workforce headcount today is far far below what it was in 1970. The outsourcing explanation doesn't make sense.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#137

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 2:57 AM UTC

fnord77 wrote: post #31

It's funny, the DSA in SF has been very anti-tech worker, complaining we get paid too much. Imagine that - socialists complaining that workers get paid livable wages.

When the American left says they want to eat the rich, you better believe that SWEs making $200k+ per annum feature prominently on the menu.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#138

Post by ameliaquining » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 3:06 AM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #81

Plasmoid wrote: post #3

My ask for these is always the same. I just want to see how this union would work, specifically. Don't compare it to other unions or say it could be like X. Just write a few hundred words on what it would actually be like.

The same way every other union works... I don't get your question? The unions that do work, are not the ones you see on tv. When something explodes, specially a union, it gets massive coverage. When a union works, any achivement gets burried while the negative press is the only one given coverage(1, 2, 3, 4). So, I will challenge the reader: unions win about 7 out of 10 elections to get certified/created. Does your m…

Pretend for a moment, then, that I've never worked in a unionized industry and everything I know about unions is from the media environment that you say is untrustworthy. I think it would be very helpful, in that case, to write the few hundred words about how exactly my life as an employee would change.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#139

Post by newsomix9xl » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 4:07 AM UTC

The title should be "Good unions can save ..."

Bad unions cannot. All unions are not the same.

Doctors have a super powerful lobby and union (not sullied with the plebian name "union") and lo! Are super wealthy.

They have mandatory laws restricting competition and licensing requirements, etc.

If tech workers had a lobby like the AMA and doctors, they too would be super rich.

Golf, anyone?

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#140

Post by johnnyanmac » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #136

johnnyanmac wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's because manufacturing needs fewer people now. It's because they outsourced most roles starting in the 90s. They don't need as many people due to efficiency gains, but not "hollow out entire cities" levels of efficiency. Human labor is still necessary, and human labor in other parts of the world will be cheaper than many automation gains for times to come.

Big 3 global workforce headcount today is far far below what it was in 1970. The outsourcing explanation doesn't make sense.

And they all sell less cars than on the 70's too. But their profits still stay relatively high and revenue is steadily rising.

That doesn't tell me we got efficiency gains, they just shifted models on how and what to make. And where they make it. If we had true efficiency gains there'd be more cars sold, perhaps at cheaper prices.