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

Tech Workers' Values

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 276 posts

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#171

Post by brandonmenc »

csneeky wrote: post #60

Tech workers are as disparate and varied as non-tech workers... There is a hierarchy and I think it is unlikely we will see common ground emerge. Survival of the fittest and the best will still win the day. Just like the labor unions of the industrial era, efforts like this are doomed to be spikes of ideology rife with the same contradictions of those it proposes to keep in check. Some tech workers run multimillion d…

> Tech workers are as disparate and varied as non-tech workers...

Yes, he should visit the rust belt (where I grew up) some time - there are gasp actual programmers making decent money there!

And a whole lot of people who are just never, ever going to be able to learn how to code.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#172

Post by rfrank »

st3v3r wrote: post #163
EduardoBautista wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.

Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry?

Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and her letter, and the extreme criticism she faced from HN members? Do you think the attitude you commented with will help bridge a political divide? Because your words are exactly why I think it's laughable to expect tech employees to do anything about polarization other than make it much worse.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#173

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Danihan wrote: post #109
csneeky wrote: post #60

Tech workers are as disparate and varied as non-tech workers... There is a hierarchy and I think it is unlikely we will see common ground emerge. Survival of the fittest and the best will still win the day. Just like the labor unions of the industrial era, efforts like this are doomed to be spikes of ideology rife with the same contradictions of those it proposes to keep in check. Some tech workers run multimillion d…

Exactly. This post is founded on so many bad assumptions.. We'd also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country. Why _shouldn't_ there be divides in our country? Which divide is being referred to? Religious? Political? Net worth? Productivity? Persuasion? Why assume differences need "healed?" Why this constant, desperate push for homogeneity? Why can't people simply be different, and have c…

Why can't people simply not like one another sometimes, without needing "healed"?

If people could simply not like each other without killing each other or making each other's lives unbearable that would be one thing. Problem is people cant' seem to be able to manage that.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#174

Post by ocschwar »

xienze wrote: post #44
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #10

We believe that employees should come together and clearly define the values and policies they'd like to see their companies uphold. A tech union isn't the perfect metaphor for this, but it's not far off. If it's going to do anything but be window dressing then it needs to have the teeth of union - so just call it what it is. I've argued for a while that tech workers need a union, but the chorus on HN and other place…

> If it's going to do anything but be window dressing then it needs to have the teeth of union - so just call it what it is. This sounds like it's going to have exactly zero to do with what a labor union would normally be concerned with -- pay, working conditions, etc. Instead, I have a strong suspicion this is going to be some sort of enumeration of the progressive ideals that all tech workers "should" be concerned…

Well, if a professional organization of tech workers actually managed to hold some sway in DC, it would be an improvement over the status quo at the moment.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#175

Post by GauntletWizard »

pseudalopex wrote: post #164
GauntletWizard wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Mandatory unions (And be careful about how you define that, because many would claim they're not while still requiring their pound of flesh[1]) are signified by their monopoly on labor. By maintaining a chokehold on who can supply a vital resource (labor) to businesses, Unions have a history of strangling their patrons - See Detroit. From a distributed systems perspective, Unions represent a single point of fail…

US jurisprudence requires unions to represent non-members whether they want to or not. I don't like agency fees, but they're a response to a free-rider problem. Yes, a union is pretty much a corporation that supplies labor. The biggest difference is how they're governed. Nobody bats an eye if a supplier negotiates an exclusive contract.

Agreed. I think exclusive supplier contracts are pretty dumb, too - At least without clauses for 'Price match or get out'. And the solution to the former should be (and I'll admit this is a stretch) to fix that problem, or better yet: simply to make your union's services so attractive and obviously a public good that the significant majority want to be sure it sticks around. Yes, the free rider problem is universal - Unions cause it as much as suffer from it (ever heard of unions suffering from deadweight because of seniority rules? No, nobody else ever has either :P)

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#176

Post by spangry »

matt4077 wrote: post #118
amorphid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefits would a strong Tech Workers' union to provide? And what percentage of one's income would be membership dues be?

Anything you like, basically. Without a a union there's a power imbalance between employer and employee. People say it's all based on mutually agreed contracts. In reality, you are probably much more dependent on your job than the company is on you. That's because they may lose something like 1/1000 of their employees when they fire you, but you lose 100% of your jobs[1]. Unions are a way correct this balance. Employ…

Not to mention the fact that software developers will eventually find themselves in exceptionally weak bargaining positions, at least as individuals. Almost uniquely so.

It's great that remote working is possible in software dev, but the flipside is that it's much easier to outsource your job to another country. And working on cutting edge stuff like ML sounds interesting. But it also means you may one day find yourself building the surplus capital that will ultimately replace you. You refuse to do that? Cool, you're fired. Maybe the guy sitting in the cubicle next to you will.

[Dramatization. May not happen.]

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#177

Post by ignoramceisblis »

st3v3r wrote: post #163
EduardoBautista wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.

Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

And you're attacking someone simply for stating that they think "Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do." From left field, you're bringing up and arguing against "having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others". And declaring that you know what EduardoBautista "wants": "no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom from speech." How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement, and then bring up your contrived ideas in a seemingly vitriolic attack against another person, I don't know.

Perhaps people wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "bigotry", but I would: based on a single statement, you jump to conclusions and attack someone based on those conclusions. I think such behavior is one of the biggest problems in (a part of) American culture, and I would wager I'm not alone in thinking this.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#178

Post by stale2002 »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #62
civilian wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main objection to unions is that, once they're in a company, employees lose the right to negotiate their own compensation. I want to be able to skip my union dues and deal directly with the company. OR I want to be able to make a union of my own, especially for a functional or values-based subset of coworkers, and have us negotiate separately. This is not just a tech-unions-related complaint, this is a critique of…

You can create a union to reflect whatever values (e.g. negotiating compensation) you see fit. Don't believe the narratives proffered by anti-union forces for their own benefit. Actors are all in unions and employ an entire sub-class of workers (agents) to negotiate compensation for them.

Cool. How about we base this union on the values of not forcing people to join it?

I'd be OK with that. Please keep these efforts focused on voluntary interactions.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#179

Post by bdcravens »

st3v3r wrote: post #163
EduardoBautista wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.

Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

> espousing terrible views

Except your typical Trump supporter avatar is being distilled into a handful of beliefs, even though many may have other reasons for supporting.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#180

Post by rfrank »

bdcravens wrote: post #179
st3v3r wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

> espousing terrible views Except your typical Trump supporter avatar is being distilled into a handful of beliefs, even though many may have other reasons for supporting.

Most of America seems to have forgotten that single issue voters exist on both sides.
Post reply on HN