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

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#141

Post by missedthecue »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #140
missedthecue wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The big 3 produced 6.47 million passenger cars in 1970.

The big 3 produced 15.66 million passenger cars in 2025.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#142

Post by mikojan »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #102
mikojan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial equity, benefits and opportunities at other companies in my experience are not the determining factors for tech workers. Lack of or loss of self-determination and self-governance are. The tech workers who are unionized that I know didn't join for financial gain because there is none (except for a few who are bad at bargaining). They joined to exert control over their workplaces and help build companies they…

> (except for a few who are bad at bargaining) Was this really necessary?

What do you mean? What is the problem with that statement?

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#143

Post by johnnyanmac »

mikojan wrote: post #142
johnnyanmac wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (except for a few who are bad at bargaining) Was this really necessary?

What do you mean? What is the problem with that statement?

I don't like the implication that there are people who join a union because they are bad at their job. As you see in these comments that is still a prevailing sentiment despite the industry here laying off millions in the last few years with no rhyme nor reason. And despite soaring profits (so these aren't struggling companies who need to let go of talent).

Apparently, if you can't make it on your own, you have to lean on unions as a crutch that lets you coast

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#144

Post by soco »

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.

Are your numbers (which I haven't seen) include the headcount of the makers of their outsourced parts?

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#145

Post by braiamp »

teravor wrote: post #123
braiamp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 individ…

When I talk about capital owners I meant their home, savings, etc. So yes, the invested capital is vulnerable, that's the point. Their personal exposure is limited instead.

And "otherwise there would be no capitalism" is basically my argument. We give capital special legal protections because unlimited personal liability would make organizing capital much harder. So the objection can't simply be that labor gets special legal protections too, you'd have to explain why those protections are unjustified for labor but justified for capital.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#146

Post by braiamp »

ameliaquining wrote: post #138
braiamp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#147

Post by ydlr »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #122
ydlr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was just trying to point out that the rules for entertainment industry are different than most industries, so IATSE may not be the best example.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#148

Post by AlexandrB »

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…

> 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?

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. It's possible to unions to make everyone worse off, not just the employer. I'm not saying that's always the case, but this is not a good argument.

Re: Unions Can Save Tech Workers and Tech Work

#150

Post by UncleMeat »

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.

A union is a collection of workers who negotiate together against their employer using the leverage of strikes and other work stoppages. They are democratically controlled with regular elections for union leadership and votes for major actions like strikes. This means that the union can decide for itself what things it wants to extract from an employer. Through democratic control you will have some influence on its priorities. Unions typically extract a small portion of the pay of its members so that it can fund operations.
Post reply on HN