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

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#241

Post by moate »

docker_up wrote: post #134
moate wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I think it's fundamentally fair. That's the crux of the disagreement here. You assume that something fair is happening, and others don't. A meritocracy sounds great, but I've yet to see one actually implemented at any scale. Or rather, the skills that get rewarded don't feel like the skills that are actually important to the job (networking and personal skills often times up your earning ability more than your codi…

There isn't a true meritocracy but it's "good enough" in Silicon Valley. Nothing will be perfect but what we have right now is better than any union. Unions will select for those workers with more seniority which is objectively worse than selecting for those with more skill. >>Sure you would, because you believe that you'd be able to find another job. No, I don't. I honestly believe that if I can't keep up I don't de…

But that's just like, your opinion man.

You speak in absolutes "Unions will..." "...better than any Union" as if these things are known quantities. There are many ways a union could function. It could set salary ranges based on all sorts of things (seniority, certifications, etc) or it could just act as a collective voice in negotiating the availability of remote work or hourly limits or other perks. A tech union doesn't have to operate the ways you're describing at all. Think about the sports leagues. They're unionized, and it's the best players who get the biggest contracts, not the one's who've been in the league the longest. There's no reason you couldn't do something similar in a tech union.

Right now things are great because this is a relatively new space with more demand than supply. That's great NOW. Long term nobody knows what could happen. Kodak thought film would always be important. Cooper isn't a profession. The idea of having a collective labor voice established during the period where labor is at its strongest could be seen as hedging your bets.

>> I think under performing tech workers deserve to not reap the same benefits as the performing engineers.

Who determines what "under performing" is? It makes more sense to me that labor's peers determine that definition, but currently it's management. This is again a place where a union can help.

You admit your system isn't perfect. I admit Unionization has flaws. I'm just of the opinion that it could help improve working conditions across the board.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#242

Post by gok »

mikeash wrote: post #211
Zarel wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why aren’t corporations analogous to unions? They’re an organization of people who work together as one. When was the last time you heard about a bidding war between two different managers in the same company trying to hire the same person? It doesn’t happen because the company organization doesn’t allow it to happen. This is exactly the flip side of two union members not undercutting each other on pay because the un…

> There’s no reason a single union has to represent all workers in a field, any more than a single company has to be the only employer in a field.

There is a reason for it, actually: unions are exempt from antitrust regulations. Combined with closed shop unions (where legal) it can be effectively impossible to form a second union.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#243

Post by ttcbj »

Balgair wrote: post #89
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…

In a lot of unions a major component is safety. Though it may not seem like safety is a big concern in tech right now, there are areas where it will be of concern. For example, Unions may be a good method to force safety concerns in self-driving cars and in IoT devices. Unions may help with health-care data and privacy. Unions may help with other forms of sensitive information like in judicial work and military work.…

Interestingly, for my Dad's business (employs between 100 and 300 people) the cost of worker's comp insurance is the main driver of safety. Accidents/injuries drive up your workers comp costs.

His company employs one full time person whose job is to improve safety. The guy runs safety competitions (days without a serious accident) with prizes, does reviews, researches equipment and practices, etc.

He will also tell you that the biggest safety improvement they ever made was drug testing. He resisted it for a long time because he feared it would be difficult to hire people, but after they did it he became a big advocate of it.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#244

Post by erik998 »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #224
erik998 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those were my initial feelings as well. I guess the issue comes down to focusing on software development as a skill and having that skill rewarded in manner you can count on. Our industry is really similar to actors. They have SAG and their guild negotiates with the MPAA. So every studio needs to belong to MPAA. Every year they negotiate the daily/weekly minimum rates for actors with SAG. They are pretty flexible wit…

It's less cut and dry as to who should covered by a union and who shouldn't. With SAG (IIRC) there are specific rules with respect to screen time / speaking parts and so on. Who needs to be in the software union? Anyone who writes code? Do SQL analysts count? SaaS admins? One advantage of software as a relatively ill defined career is that you can acquire responsibilities that look like software engineering without a…

Same could be said about all the young and hopeful people that show up in L.A.... Self taught or professionally trained they show up to casting calls/interviews and demonstrate their work. Sometimes self taught actors get a good gig and join SGA and continue in their career. SGA does not assure anyone success it's just there to make sure actors don't get abused in the process.

Imagine how many people have gone to Silicon Valley and worked their butts off in a startup that really went nowhere. It would be nice if they had a union that had resources to indicate if the developer should quit, go to another startup, or take another position. An intermediary that could assist with some analysis of the cap/gap tables would be helpful. A union that could indicate the daily minimum pay with a startup would be nice.

If you want to tinker with code no one would stop you. But if you got a gig and tinker with code after 3 paychecks you could join a union. Many actors don't join SGA when they start. They take on multiple gigs and then decide if the fee is worth it. Plenty of youtube videos go over the options. It seems very flexible. I don't understand why there is resistance to the idea. It's not some factory union. A Software dev guild similar to SGA seems most appropriate. Essentially most dev roles are contract roles for a short amount of time 3 months - 3 years.

Imagine if we got residuals from our code... Best incentive to document, unittest, and push some code library.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#245

Post by noego »

blub wrote: post #165
noego wrote: post #26

This is going to be a unpopular opinion. I think a tech union would likely be good for the average tech worker - and bad for absolutely everyone else, broader society included. Cartels and price-fixing agreements are extremely lucrative, which is why they were commonplace until outlawed by antitrust legislation, and why cartels like OPEC still operate today. Unions and collective bargaining are no different. Unions a…

The only parties that I'm aware of which are forming cartels (and getting slapped on the wrist for it) are American software companies. Seems odd to accuse not yet existing entities of the same crime that their opponents have been already convicted for. Furthermore, a lot of software companies are filthy rich. If anything, American corporations are squeezing the last drops of profit through creative (read borderline…

Just because corporations are getting away with bad behavior doesn't mean we should encourage a free-for-all. I've already endorsed breaking up big corporations, more vigorous antitrust enforcement, and increasing taxes on the wealthy. There is such a thing as a right way and a wrong way to fix a problem.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#246

Post by sjg007 »

zaroth wrote: post #221
sjg007 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a union doesn't change that option for you.

It certainly would when the union implements seniority based protocols.

Good thing you could choose to work somewhere else then.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#247

Post by tathougies »

smallbigfish wrote: post #22
duxup wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they never really exceed the corruptness of the corporate powers they negotiate with I'm not convinced that is the case, nor is it an either or (union or corporate powers). Your protection by the union depends on what the union negotiates... beyond that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there. Then you are again at the mercy of your employer. I've had first had experience with "oh yeah they can d…

You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them. Call it government, call it whatever but it was an organization fighting on your behalf. > beyond that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there. Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

Really a union fought for my unlimited vacation? I'm not being facetious but this perk is something that IME is unique (or at least originated in) silicon valley startups. Unions fought for more vacation but empirically speaking the free market led to even more.

And before we have the detractors of unlimited vacation coming in. Several of my colleagues take month long vacations, some multiple times a year, withiut reproach. It is objectively superior to my mother's union job

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#248

Post by tathougies »

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…

Literally no one is against employees banding together. What most anti union people are against is laws mandating employers can only hire from one particular union. That is like a law that mandates one company as the sole provider of toilet paper.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#249

Post by mikeash »

gok wrote: post #242
mikeash wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren’t corporations analogous to unions? They’re an organization of people who work together as one. When was the last time you heard about a bidding war between two different managers in the same company trying to hire the same person? It doesn’t happen because the company organization doesn’t allow it to happen. This is exactly the flip side of two union members not undercutting each other on pay because the un…

> There’s no reason a single union has to represent all workers in a field, any more than a single company has to be the only employer in a field. There is a reason for it, actually: unions are exempt from antitrust regulations. Combined with closed shop unions (where legal) it can be effectively impossible to form a second union.

Those would be reasons a union can represent all workers in a field, not reasons it has to.

This seems particularly pertinent when discussing the possibility of starting a new union in a field that traditionally hasn't had any: you're not going to suddenly get all tech workers to join up. There will be plenty of space for competing unions, and plenty of space for non-union workers.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#250

Post by manfredo »

mikeash wrote: post #240
manfredo wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When employers band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "corporation" and nobody takes even a moment to wonder whether or not this is a good thing to do. No, we call that illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

That's where the organizations themselves banded together. The companies involved in that lawsuit still collectively, within themselves, make hiring and firing decisions every day and we don't bat an eye.

There's no "banding together" or any sort of collective negotiation on the part of the employers. It's the employee negotiating with the employer. Why would we bat an eye at the fact that companies "within themselves, make hiring and firing decisions every day"? The only way that wouldn't be the case is if companies don't employ anybody.
Post reply on HN