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

Watching an acquirer ruin your company

startupwin.kelsus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 347 posts

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#251

Post by ryanbrunner »

distances wrote: post #202
Phlarp wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And still too busy smelling our own farts to unionize.

What would be your expectation for an union? I was union member as a developer when I lived a Nordic country (union for engineers and other academic technical professions). Main benefit I saw would've been legal help if I got into trouble with an employer. Otherwise the working conditions were anyway in such a good shape that I wasn't really sure what I should want out of it.

Software development is one of a fairly short list of fields where people regularly epouse the virtues of unsustainably long work weeks, and openly state that employees not meeting those requirements will not be successful. I wouldn't describe the working conditions of software development as great in many companies, a lot of snacks doesn't make up for 80 hour work weeks. I could definitely see a guild type arrangement setting minimum standards for hours and working conditions, just like they do in other well-compensated fields.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#252

Post by sgtnoodle »

ratww wrote: post #220
quickthrower2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Word to the wise: start looking for a new job when that clock starts ticking. You may decide to stay but great to have something else to parachute into as an option. Second thing: you can change jobs as often as you want. I am for loyalty but you can’t know what a job will be like until you work it.

A few years ago lots of companies would have assumed that someone doing too much "job hopping" was unloyal and probably not competent enough to stay for more than a year or so. Today it's so incredibly common (and hiring processes are extremely strict compared to before), that most companies see having started multiple jobs as "validation" from other companies.

In my experience, it still seems to correlate that candidates with a lot of job hopping also don't make it through the full set of technical interviews.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#253

Post by sokoloff »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #236
sokoloff wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it used ticket-points instead of LoC, would that be OK? If it used “a fault-free oracle who told you a perfect measure of value created”, would that be OK? I’m trying to figure out if you’re opposed to terrible approximations of productivity or to making performance distinctions among engineers.

I’m opposed to bullshit metrics to measure performance, lol. I don’t see how you can interpret my statement otherwise I’m good faith. I’m merely pointing out that at the very least the Kickstarter union was able to limit the degree of that particular bullshit.

There are people who are opposed only to the use of bullshit metrics and others who are opposed to all forms of metrics in performance appraisals.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#254

Post by ryanbrunner »

sokoloff wrote: post #232
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it also means at minimum a middle manager can’t use software that does stupid shit like neatly displaying comparable lines of code and stack rank devs based off this. I like this minimum. I don’t need a union to perfectly solve the problem of micromanagement but I can happily pay portions of my salary towards minimum standards of workplace environment.

If it used ticket-points instead of LoC, would that be OK? If it used “a fault-free oracle who told you a perfect measure of value created”, would that be OK? I’m trying to figure out if you’re opposed to terrible approximations of productivity or to making performance distinctions among engineers.

Some of it comes down to having a seat at the table in deciding what metrics can and should be used. Obviously there needs to be some way to evaluate developers (whether it's subjective or objective), but particularly when they're negotiating collectively, it's reasonable for developers to have some say in this. Their interests are also aligned in making sure that the ranking reflects skill rather than something arbitrary.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#255

Post by datavirtue »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #190
mm007emko wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, question is which part of the world you live in, of course. But I don't need to unionize. If I am not satisfied in my job I can switch. Each consecutive job hop past 15 years got me better pay, better benefits and sometimes a better job (sometimes it was equaly shitty as the prevous one but for better money). This does not happen for unionized workers. Maybe in the future we will have to unionize. Definitely no…

I also don’t need to unionize but I’m pro-union. I think software should have a guild like the actors guild, that enforced minimum standards. when Kickstarter ran its unionizing campaign it turns out one of their demands was no productivity tracking software! I would love to know as a member of such a hypothetical guild I have collective clout to ensure I’ll never have to deal with a bullshit metric tracker again.

This and maybe not getting corralled into working ticket after ticket and sprint after sprint...endlessly.

I have had numerous jobs in IT, and software development is by far the worst. Ticket grinding bullshit.

The sad part is that developers think this is how software development is so they can't even demand better. Clueless.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#256

Post by ryanbrunner »

xg15 wrote: post #237
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American unions have 'shops', which often correspond to companies. But sure America has national unions. Most of them are.

Ah, that makes sense, then I might have misunderstood. So does that mean, when the headlines say "Amazon workers (from a particular warehouse) vote to unionize", it's really about bringing that warehouse under the umbrella of an existing union?

Oftentimes, yes. They could form their own union but it's common to join an existing union.

Having universal or near universal union membership for a certain profession is limited to certain jobs, things like warehouse workers or retail employees aren't anywhere near that.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#257

Post by ryanbrunner »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #213
xg15 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are different definitions of what a union even is. German here and I was really quite surprised to understand that unions in the US are apparently per company. I believe in most of the EU, unions are per business sector - so while unions are in a sense stakeholders of the companies (if the company goes bust, it can't provide jobs), it usually doesn't have a specific interest in keeping employees in a pa…

American unions have 'shops', which often correspond to companies. But sure America has national unions. Most of them are.

I've always heard "shop" used in relation to a particular business being union or non union in terms of who they hire (i.e. "they're a union shop" means they'll only hire IATSE or something like that and no non-union people), and "locals" being the actual union you belong to, but that's from the theatre world which might be a bit different.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#258

Post by distances »

moron4hire wrote: post #209
distances wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be your expectation for an union? I was union member as a developer when I lived a Nordic country (union for engineers and other academic technical professions). Main benefit I saw would've been legal help if I got into trouble with an employer. Otherwise the working conditions were anyway in such a good shape that I wasn't really sure what I should want out of it.

You don't think that, perhaps, the working conditions were so good because of the strong culture of unionizing in Nordic countries?

That's a fact for sure, and I was a member partly because of recognizing it's good keep that balance of power in employer-employee relations.

Re: Watching an acquirer ruin your company

#260

Post by distances »

xorcist wrote: post #217
distances wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be your expectation for an union? I was union member as a developer when I lived a Nordic country (union for engineers and other academic technical professions). Main benefit I saw would've been legal help if I got into trouble with an employer. Otherwise the working conditions were anyway in such a good shape that I wasn't really sure what I should want out of it.

> Otherwise the working conditions were anyway in such a good shape Would the stability and general level of working conditions have anything to do with the fact that most are unionized, and have been over a long time so they can do their job responsibly, perchance?

Yes, the working conditions are earned by previous generations through their hard work for unionization and employee rights and is not something that can be taken for granted.

Maybe the parent wants the union to fight for the same conditions as Europeans now have? I wouldn't know. My experience from a Nordic union certainly wouldn't be a good take of what an union membership in Brazil, US or Japan would be like.

Post reply on HN