Live data from Hacker News

The Burnout Machine

unionize.fyi

481–490 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#481
post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really weird that my comment was downvoted. No idea why. I guess HN just isn't for me after 10 years. Peace out.

I think it’s an interesting comment. Hard to not take that kind of thing personally though.

I take it extremely personally, after all, I'm talking about voluntarily decreasing my own salary to achieve better work life balance in the present.

However, decreasing salary != decreased total compensation.

Increase equity shares + decrease salary = improved work-life balance now and much healthier retirement in the future.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if tech workers don't acknowledge their privelege, they shouldn't be shocked when no-one else turnsout to support them It's hard not to read your comment as anything but virtue signaling, and doing so in a way that makes everyone worse off. You seem to think being a part of a union means you think you have a bad job and everyone should pay special attention to you. Forming a union does not mean you are asking f…

> Forming a union does not mean you are asking for anything, it means you are giving yourself protection to ask for things in the future without being fired. The way I've always done it is that if I want something my employer won't give me, I find someone else who will and go work for them (or start my own company). What's wrong with that model?

You might find yourself in a job market where that isn't possible.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#484
post #63
post #19

As an outsider, I'm astounded why workers aren't unionizing to a much higher degree. It's been proven to work [1] against the misinformation, discord, and wealth inequality that companies will, inevitably, cause. Despite the small union fee, the individual clearly stands to benefit[1]. Is it because people are cheap? Or not familiar with history? You'd think that tech workers were quite informed. [1]: https://nordics…

America != Norway. American labor unions have (had?) a reputation for corruption, dragging companies down with inefficient and parasitic practices and in some cases being controlled by organized crime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brotherhood_of_T... ).

Isn't the question then about the lesser evil? It's wrong to deny unions on the basis that some people are corrupt. Some people in companies are corrupt too and the US lies squarely in the middle of the corruption index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index?w... I don't see why America!=Norway is a relevant argument.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#485
post #81
post #19

As an outsider, I'm astounded why workers aren't unionizing to a much higher degree. It's been proven to work [1] against the misinformation, discord, and wealth inequality that companies will, inevitably, cause. Despite the small union fee, the individual clearly stands to benefit[1]. Is it because people are cheap? Or not familiar with history? You'd think that tech workers were quite informed. [1]: https://nordics…

Maybe you will be less astounded if you read more about how large countries in terms of areas, population, ethnicities, immigrants have people with different and sometimes conflicting motivations about work conditions.

Conflicting motivations sounds like a very reasonable thing in large populations, in fact. But I have a hard time believing why workers wouldn't unanimously want better pay, better conditions, and more power. I would be curious to see any counter examples!

Re: The Burnout Machine

#486
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're going to personally be better off changing companies Job mobility for tech workers is a fluke of current economic conditions. If interest rates spike, or a recession happens, or a bubble bursts, this benefit would go away and you'd be stuck at that exploitative company or unemployed. Unionization and labor laws can make workers less disposable without substantially affecting growth (see: European tech hubs).

> make workers less disposable without substantially affecting growth (see: European tech hubs). Sorry, but you shot your argument in the foot with this example. The last two months of Europeans trying with great difficulty to replace US tech with local tech have shown just how little tech has grown in Europe relative to the US. Is that because of their labor laws? Unclear. But it's certainly not a shining example of…

The effort to replace US tech is not anything similar to the European tech industry.

US technology has a hegemony because we were first to the party, our economy is larger, and our laws are hostile to newcomers (lack of interoperability requirements, lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws, strong defense of DMCA laws, non-competes, and trade secret laws).

I've worked in the EU tech sector. They have tons of startups that operate just like US startups: VC funded, hockey-stick growth, and hiring like crazy. Their stricter labor laws don't get in the way of that.

The hyper-growth, VC-funded startup model is itself quite exploitative, but if it's still possible with stricter labor laws, then fears about them impacting growth are unfounded.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#487
post #100

Software engineering is one of the ways of playing life in "easy mode" (I moved from academia over a decade ago, and I know the difference). This blog post tries to paint it differently - and it feels like it lacks perspective compared to virtually any other occupation. > We’re living in a world where billion dollar tech companies expect us to live and breathe code, demanding 80 hour weeks under the guise of "passion…

In my experience as a software engineer rounding out 6 years now, what I have observed in myself and others is that the work pressure that leads to burnout in SWEs is largely self-imposed. I have some conjectures as to why that may be: 1. High variability of pay, not only between companies but within companies. As a SWE your total compensation can be expected to double every two promotions, and promotions can be pret…

I've legit never known of a place that hires SWEs that matches this description.

Except maybe the sweet gig SWEs got at Twitter before Musk.

No wonder you'd feel imposter syndrome if you'd landed a gig that good. Anyone would.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#488
post #100

Software engineering is one of the ways of playing life in "easy mode" (I moved from academia over a decade ago, and I know the difference). This blog post tries to paint it differently - and it feels like it lacks perspective compared to virtually any other occupation. > We’re living in a world where billion dollar tech companies expect us to live and breathe code, demanding 80 hour weeks under the guise of "passion…

> Don't get me wrong - I am all for criticism of grind and exploitation. But let's not paint ourselves, members of one of the most privileged occupations, as victims of the global system.

Not having it as bad as others is not the same as not being a victim. We really need to drop this attitude because it misaligns our loyalties with those who have no reason to be loyal to us in return. It's a false consciousness.

Wealth and income are widely pushed as "class" distinctors in culture and media for a reason. They blur the lines and mislead us about our place in the system. Yes, many software jobs pay handsome salaries for now. But as soon as they can, companies will drop those salaries and cut those jobs because we're a cost center, even if the "assets" we create pad out the balance sheet more than a cleaner or receptionist could.

Wealth can enable you to become an enterpreneur which in turn can enable you to become part of the billionaire class if you make it through all of the filters against all the odds. But even small business owners are only a few bad months (or in the US maybe even just one bad health event) away from the rest of us plebs, unless they are so tightly integrated (which almost always means family, i.e. something outside their control) that they can get the support to recover.

We're all suffering from grind and exploitation. Some of us suffer more directly but just having lucked into a position so far ahead from the bulldozer chasing us that you can't see it, doesn't mean it won't run you over if you have to stop or fall and can't get up in time. That bulldozer exists by choice. You didn't get a say in it, nor did I, but that doesn't mean its existence is inevitable or unchangeable. Capitalism isn't a law of nature any more than feudalism was. Nor does capitalism have to evolve (and it has evolved, likely even within your lifetime) into something better, especially if those at the receiving end of it are placated by being told that others having it worse.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This leads to a more fundamental observation. That if unionization is so cleary net positive for most workplaces, then it wouldn’t need any sustained agitation campaigns in the first place. As any company that unionizes would near automatically gain a huge competitive advantage.

> That if unionization is so cleary net positive for most workplaces, then it wouldn’t need any sustained agitation campaigns in the first place. > As any company that unionizes would near automatically gain a huge competitive advantage. No, your "observation" has a fundamental flaw: There's no general "net positive for most workplaces," because different groups have different interests. Unionization is a "net negati…

We (especially those with an entrepreneurial bent like so many of us frequenting this site in particular) have so effectively been sold the illusion that class no longer exists that most have us have genuinely become blind to the idea that a company's interests (i.e. the interests of owners, shareholders, the board, investors, whatever - maximizing profits or ROI) and a worker's interests (e.g. a sustainable, stable and reliable income with potential for career advancement providing access to better pay/perks) usually run directly opposite to each other. Class conflict is inherent to the employer-employee or owner-worker dynamic. You can merely afford the luxury of pretending it doesn't exist when it's in their interest (i.e. doing so aligns with their goals, usually in the short-term) to "pamper" you - and that era may be drawing to a close within our lifetimes.

Every single worker is ultimately disposable. If you think your employer is disposable to you, that's not because you're special but because so far you've been extremely lucky. It is far easier for a company to replace a worker than it is for a worker to replace the company they work for - we just tend to see the "inability to find a new job" as a personal failure (i.e. bad performance at the job of "finding a job") whereas we take the existence of job vacancies for granted as a normal part of the market and maybe even a positive indicator for "growth" (which we define as desirable even if it's artificial or unsustainable).

Re: The Burnout Machine

#490

Class consciousness is firmly in the zeitgeist: witness season 1 of Severance. There is no going back from this, as once you are disillusioned it is much harder to be re-illusioned. There will be some sort of collective response by white-collar professionals at some point. I think people are ready for change.

.
Post reply on HN