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

Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 256 posts

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#201

Post by empath75 »

Zarel wrote: post #199
mikeash wrote: post #196

I'm always amazed at the complete double standard between unions and companies. Look at the discussion here: lots of people arguing against unions, saying they're just plain bad, or they're good in some industries but not in tech, or we just don't need them, or whatever. And not to say that these arguments are wrong, but.... Hands up, how many of you think that it's a good idea to run a business with employees as a s…

I'm pretty confused by your argument here. When employers band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "cartel" and it's radioactively illegal, and not a single person defends it as a good thing. When employees band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "union" and have a variety of opinions on it; with plenty of people thinking it's a good thing. Corporations don't seem remotely analogous to…

We’re not talking about corporations banding together, who, after all, are not people, but individual people joining together to form a corporation.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#202

Post by pessimizer »

barry-cotter wrote: post #197
pessimizer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By getting the highest quality people into the union, setting minimum rates for union talent, and throwing people out of the union who work for people who pay lower rates (to them or anyone else.) Offer auxiliary services like health insurance, pensions, and anything else that can be gotten at a group rate at cost to your members. Organize training in the profession to your members, and facilitate networking between…

> By getting the highest quality people into the union, setting minimum rates for union talent, and throwing people out of the union who work for people who pay lower rates (to them or anyone else.) Dualisation, making a labour market with insiders and outsiders certainly helps those on the inside. But that comes at the expense of those on the outside. If this is the goal how would punishment of those hiring self tau…

> Dualisation, making a labour market with insiders and outsiders certainly helps those on the inside. But that comes at the expense of those on the outside. If this is the goal how would punishment of those hiring self taught developers and those who didn’t pay union dues be coordinated?

Those on the outside should come inside. There's no reason why self-taught developers can't be on the inside, as long as they learn and adhere to professional standards (as agreed upon by the membership.) If they refuse, I have as much sympathy for them as I do self-taught doctors. There's nothing that needs to be coordinated; if a business hires non-union labor, union members cannot work for them and remain union members.

As for the rest, if you are good enough that employers would be happy to ignore the union because you're worth 100x any of them, you shouldn't have a problem, and the people you work for shouldn't have a problem. The union doesn't affect either of you, because they're paying you a boatload, and you're giving them all the work they need. [edit: and tbh, there's also nothing to lose by being in the union except what is probably a trivial amount of dues in return for group rate insurance, refresher training classes, and discount software licenses.]

> Knowledge workers can make the entire product and capture far more of the productivity thus generated.

And should. Co-ops and the self-employed don't need a union, they are a union.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#204

Post by TomMckenny »

Zarel wrote: post #199
mikeash wrote: post #196

I'm always amazed at the complete double standard between unions and companies. Look at the discussion here: lots of people arguing against unions, saying they're just plain bad, or they're good in some industries but not in tech, or we just don't need them, or whatever. And not to say that these arguments are wrong, but.... Hands up, how many of you think that it's a good idea to run a business with employees as a s…

I'm pretty confused by your argument here. When employers band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "cartel" and it's radioactively illegal, and not a single person defends it as a good thing. When employees band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "union" and have a variety of opinions on it; with plenty of people thinking it's a good thing. Corporations don't seem remotely analogous to…

I believe the following is being referred to:

Inside a company, the management/owners regularly talk together about how to minimize the cost of employees, including compensation. But employees talking together about maximizing their compensation is considered scandalous, harmful or even unethical. The practice is even given special names "organizing" and "unionizing" and is certainly considered unusual.

Corporations acting together are not analogous to a union because, legal fictions aside, corporations are not people.

But the activities of humans working together inside a cooperation to maximize some benefit, say a promotion or higher personal profit buy cutting employee costs vs a group of employees seeking a pay increases, seems a credible analogy.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#205

Post by bsder »

AlexandrB wrote: post #166
wrong_variable wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, by expanding the industry - tech has been able to "eat" other industry, due to its inclusiveness. 20 years ago the internet was less than 0.01% of global GDP. Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly.

> Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly. Like how tech took driving a taxi from a job that (unfairly) paid a living wage to one that doesn't.

The problem is that there is a big difference in the effect Uber/Lyft had on places with functioning cab systems (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC--where Uber/Lyft should have gotten squashed by law) and those places where there wasn't (Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, etc.--where ridesharing was a boon)

While I'm not a big Uber/Lyft fan, prior to them the cab companies in the non-functional cities were atrocious.

I spent 40 minutes getting a bloody taxi at my lawyer's office in Las Vegas--and then had to wonder if I could get one back from the restaurant I went to. Getting from Monroeville to the Pittsburgh airport was a disaster. I can go on and on.

With Uber/Lyft in existence, a whole bunch of things don't happen with impunity anymore. Drivers can't refuse to pick you up. Drivers can't blow you off and not show up. Drivers can't refuse to take a credit card. etc.

Uber/Lyft aren't my favorite companies, but neither were the taxis.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#206

Post by tylerhou »

Zarel wrote: post #199
mikeash wrote: post #196

I'm always amazed at the complete double standard between unions and companies. Look at the discussion here: lots of people arguing against unions, saying they're just plain bad, or they're good in some industries but not in tech, or we just don't need them, or whatever. And not to say that these arguments are wrong, but.... Hands up, how many of you think that it's a good idea to run a business with employees as a s…

I'm pretty confused by your argument here. When employers band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "cartel" and it's radioactively illegal, and not a single person defends it as a good thing. When employees band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "union" and have a variety of opinions on it; with plenty of people thinking it's a good thing. Corporations don't seem remotely analogous to…

Employers often have much more power than employees. That is, if Google doesn't hire me, it doesn't lose out on much. For Google, maybe a small fraction of its capital isn't deployed, which is unfortunate but doesn't make a dent in the grand scheme of things. But if I don't have a job, then I will lose out on a lot -- I can't pay bills, I might lose my home. So I have a strong incentive to accept an offer from Google, and therefore Google has a lesser incentive to offer me better compensation.

The above is sort of a lie -- in the case of the tech industry, there is a lot of competition for workers. Since everyone wants to hire SWEs, I have more negotiating power than other industries. If Google doesn't hire me, I could (presumably) get a job at Amazon, Facebook, a startup, etc.. Since I could find other offers, I wouldn't have much to lose if I don't take Google's offer, and Google will therefore have an incentive to offer me better comp. Because of the above, it's not clear to me that tech workers need a union right now.

In other industries, labor is a buyer's market. If there is only one or two employers in a region, then those employers can choose to not hire any one laborer. Not hiring one laborer might mean that an employer's capital is deployed slightly inefficiently, which is again unfortunate, but nobody will lose sleep over it. But since that one laborer has no alternatives, they must work for a lower wage or risk destitution. This is a big problem in academia, where it's very difficult for grad students to switch schools (admissions offices reduce student mobility) and there is only one employer -- the school.

So unions are not analogous to cartels for selling labor -- they are not necessary when there is a balanced labor market, like in tech. But for markets which favor employers, they may often be necessary to protect workers.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#207

Post by bsder »

negamax wrote: post #7

The benefit in tech is options. Don't like your job, get another one. Don't like your boss, get another one. For many locations it's just the matter of turning a button on Linkedin or for many people sending some emails. That keeps people idealistic, vocal and demanding of the behavior from their employer/bosses. This is not the norm in other business functions. Unfortunately.

> Don't like your job, get another one.

That's okay until you are "old" or "average"--and that next job isn't coming.

Then you will wish that there were some unions around to help you.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#208

Post by TooCleverByHalf »

kodz4 wrote: post #203

The tech industry today, is captured quite well by Rolling Stone's Victor Juhasz illustrations https://www.instagram.com/p/BzJO6ELjJT9/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BzJP9nlDA5c/ Thinking that unions are going to have an effect is like believing flies effect pigs.

Did you have an alternate proposal for course of action?

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#209

Post by barry-cotter »

bsder wrote: post #161
ttcbj wrote: post #73

My Dad owns a construction company in a highly unionized region. He is an advocate for unions, although he acknowledges that quality varies among them. That said, many of the conditions where unions are beneficial don't seem to apply in tech: * Vocational training: unions in our area run schools to train craftsman (e.g. carpenters). This increases productivity and screens for quality. * Shifting workforce: Constructi…

> Unions don't work as well when productivity/value varies greatly between workers. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm not even sure I concede that programmers have that large a differential. I still have yet to see genuine scientific evidence that this differential exists in programming. Or, alternatively, I don't concede that there isn't a 10x difference in master vs apprentice carpenters.

A 10x difference in productivity between apprentice and master carpenters is the absolute outer limit of what’s plausible for an individual worker. Any higher than that and we’re mostly discussing coordination and management. 10x is a lower bound on the plausible productivity differential between programmers. In terms of the technical complexity of tasks they’re capable of the continuum from someone who worked through Learn Ruby the Hard Way and David Hartl’s book, a Lambda School grad, an MIT CS grad and Peter Norvig will be over 100 if not higher. In terms of economic productivity Ruby guy on upwork, patio11 billing at $30,000 a week and Jan Koum or Notch encompasses well over 1000x differences in productivity. Billing rates within a consultancy will often be over 10x between a junior consultant and a principal, for the same company, in the same line of work.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#210

Post by barry-cotter »

AlexandrB wrote: post #166
wrong_variable wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, by expanding the industry - tech has been able to "eat" other industry, due to its inclusiveness. 20 years ago the internet was less than 0.01% of global GDP. Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly.

> Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly. Like how tech took driving a taxi from a job that (unfairly) paid a living wage to one that doesn't.

Indeed, it is terrible that many more people can do a job now, with lower barriers to entry, and that the service is more easily available, more reliable and often cheaper. The medallion system of decreasing supply with employee drivers and a taxi regulator that did everything possible to protect drivers and frustrate consumer complaints about drivers not picking up black customers or refusing to drive people to places within the mandated service area was far superior for those who could buy medallions and rent them out to drivers, and for drivers who could refuse customers and still be able to pick up a fare.
Post reply on HN