Tech Workers' Values • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#181

Post by iamacynic » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

ihsw2 wrote: post #69

iamacynic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Give us creative freedom and ownership of our IP. you can't be serious. why would a company even exist if all the work it paid for would be owned by someone else? i mean sure, you can live in that world, it's just nobody would pay for anything to happen.

You pay for your business to continue operating, not for a lucrative exit strategy.

yeah sure. the open source services business model has some legs but they aren't that long.

in other words, yes it works, but not that great.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#182

Post by tptacek » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

It's good that Altman recognizes that something needs to be done here. Something does need to happen.

However: Altman is a business owner and an executive. I don't think he can coordinate the solution. The kernel of the issue here is the disengagement rank-and-file employees have from the public policy implications of their work. Employees don't need permission from owners and managers to be accountable for those implications. The widespread, implicit belief among the rank-and-file that they do need permission is the first obstacle that we need to address.

Rather than staging meetings and attempting to help shape the outcome, Altman and other executives should encourage their employees to work amongst themselves. Getting directly involved, however, is problematic, and I think owners and executives should probably avoid doing that.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#183

Post by tptacek » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #75

lackbeard wrote: post #35

I can't articulate why exactly... but I have a very bad feeling about this. > We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create. I'm pretty sure this kind of thing is just going to make the polarization worse.

> We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create. I guarantee this is code for "we think Trump wouldn't have been elected if he couldn't use Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook. Let's figure out how to make that possible."

I don't think you have the authority to offer such a guarantee.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#184

Post by tropo » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

bermanoid wrote: post #128

cyphar wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our starting salaries are much larger than other engineering disciplines, and I'd argue we don't make nearly as stable constructions as other engineers. In Australia the starting-out civil engineering salary is almost half the starting-out software engineering salary (and this is a country which hates technical innovation and prefers building more mines).

We shouldn't make as stable constructions as other engineers, for very good reasons: they're building things out of concrete, iron, and steel that are meant to last for years doing a very predictable job without alteration after their initial construction. If you don't get it 100% right before you close up a building, it's going to cost millions to go back and fix it. As programmers, conversely, we build text files t…

The other engineers do their part, and then software controls it. Bad software destroys things. People get killed by accident.

Then there are the security holes in things that will never get updates, the malware-infested webcams and TVs... this too impacts the world.

We can combine it all: connected cars. This isn't "other engineers". It's software developers -- call them programmers or software engineers if you like.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#185

Post by alexandercrohde » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

I have no clue what he's talking about, and what it sounds like he's saying makes me a little angry.

- Unions are a force to protect the 99% from the corruption of the 1%. They are not a force to drive a liberal agenda, though by protecting the little guy they may indirectly align.

- Increasing competition by getting more people into coding (be them from outside the country or from outside of cities) is the exact opposite of what a union would do. It would drive down wages for the skilled workers that investors are getting rich off of.

- Technology making peoples lives worse is the fault of a combination of capitalism and the fact that CEOs and investors are more motivated by adding 0s to their bank account than anything as nebulous as "good." Why should tech workers risk their jobs to force the hand of the companies they work at?

- Is he talking about automation taking jobs? Because the profit from the concentration of wealth again is at the hands of the 1% and .1%. Unless he's saying tech workers need to pass the buffet rule, or tech workers need to refuse to work at companies that don't give enough equity then I don't see how the average tech worker is the solution to the wealth being drawn away from the average citizen (who can't afford $500 in an emergency) into an investor's portfolio....

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#186

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

xapata wrote: post #154

xienze wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rules against firing someone for being gay or a different religion are a great example of something a union would negotiate Except they're not, that's what our existing laws are for. > Why do you see 'working conditions' as unrelated to these topics? Because in my reading of this it doesn't sound like they're going after things like vacation time, pay, IP rights, you know, day-to-day stuff that a union would really…

> touchy-freely Bay Area stuff I don't think those beliefs are exclusive to the Bay Area, nor would I describe those topics as "touchy-freely [sic]".

[deleted]

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#187

Post by angersock » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #59

rhizome wrote: post #15

Who is the "we" he's speaking to here? I know that Twitter and HN, i.e. the generic internet, are the only places Sam and I typically might cross paths, so who is the community he's speaking for? Gavin de Becker and "forced teaming" comes to mind. Is this YC trying to stay on top of the tech activism bubbling in various corners these days? He doesn't say, the entire post is expressed as self-evident, which makes me t…

> Who is the "we" he's speaking to here? "Sam Altman, Debra Cleaver, Matt Krisiloff". They sign the post. > I know that Twitter and HN, i.e. the generic internet, are the only places Sam and I typically might cross paths, so who is the community he's speaking for? The tech community.

> The tech community.

The SF/SV tech community defined by high-growth startups, maybe. I don't think he is qualified to say a damned thing about the actual practicing developers.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#188

Post by angersock » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #182

It's good that Altman recognizes that something needs to be done here. Something does need to happen. However: Altman is a business owner and an executive. I don't think he can coordinate the solution. The kernel of the issue here is the disengagement rank-and-file employees have from the public policy implications of their work. Employees don't need permission from owners and managers to be accountable for those imp…

I'd suggest that, if your net worth exceeds a million dollars and your entire income/value is derived from the current startup trends embodied by YC, you are uniquely unqualified to start talking about helping workers.

sama is a leader in the class of the exploiters, and crowdwashing like this won't change anything.

EDIT: The "general you", not "you, tptacek". :)

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#189

Post by AndrewKemendo » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

spangry wrote: post #170

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…

I agree with the what (I think) the parent post is getting at: if you're going to form a union, form a union . As in, a labour monopoly. This might sound radical, but I think there is good reason for developers and tech workers to consider this. There are strong network effects and nearly unlimited economies of scale in most tech markets. In these cases, given enough time, the end result will be a monopsonist employe…

Yes, despite a lot of tech workers insistence of unique professional distinction, there is plenty of well worn ground for the exact kind of labor we provide being unionized.

Re: Tech Workers' Values

#190

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 10:22 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

They get around that by structuring all of the benefits in the employment contracts to cover only their members, and by negotiating exclusive employment contracts with employers (so that there are no non-members).

Put another way, 94% of people who are represented by an NLRB-governed union never had the opportunity to vote for or against union membership in the first place. Most of those are employed by employers with exclusive contracts ("closed shop"), and because the union itself is not required to stand for reelection (its representatives are, but the union basically guaranteed permanent representation[0]), it means that free-riders are a non-issue.

[0] The process of decertifying or deauthorizing a union is very strictly regulated and unions have very broad leeway in preventing it, so it almost never happens except in cases of criminal misconduct and the like.