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

The Burnout Machine

unionize.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#491

Post by specialist »

film42 wrote: post #11

I think unions need to work on their marketing. I resonate with all of these problems, but the "fixes" sound like a politician saying, "elect me and I'll solve your problems." What's the A+ example out there of a unionized engineering team that has been able to find a great work-life balance, great benefits, and a fun product development life-cycle that is profitable or clearly on its way to profitability? Show me th…

> What does it look like when rubber meets the road?

The book The Logic of Collective Action helped me understand.

TLDR: Collective bargaining helps prevent the free rider problem. It's just game theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

--

I have so many complaints about unions. Very briefly.

#1 Suboptimal governance. Especially when leadership gets "captured". But that's always true of all human orgs. I have nothing helpful to add here.

#2 Accelerating inequity. Corporate profits up while wages remain stagnant. Just as u/singron commented elsethread. I just don't understand how this isn't the central issue. For every person, union, voter, policy maker. For everyone.

#3 Adversarial relationship (in the USA). Labor and Capital (via their proxy, Management) need to work together. My only notion is to encourage member (employee) owned and managed co-ops. (Which would need access to financial support of come kind, eg "slow capital". Which is antithetical to Wall St, neoliberalism, rent seeking, yadda, yadda.)

That said... I'm very pro-Labor. And unenthusiastically pro-union, out of necessity, until we figure out something better.

Like you suggest, no way simply unionizing magically resolves my complaints. Meta stuff like culture, policy, laws, expectations would have to change, to create the space for "better" unions. Stuff like repeal Taft Hartley Act, institute sectorial bargaining, investment banks structured to support social endeavors (like co-ops), yadda yadda.

And I have no clue where to start.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#492

Post by bradlys »

paulcole wrote: post #349
itsgrimetime wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s only adversarial because you want to get as much pay as possible out of them for as little productivity as possible. Or maybe pay that’s proportional to the value we provide

It’s always proportional to the value you provide. You just don’t like the proportion lol. What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

In a capitalist market, it is explicitly not proportional to the amount of value you provide. That is the underlaying principle of capitalism…

Read up a bit, man. Even a capitalist would agree with this.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#493

Post by FirmwareBurner »

jajko wrote: post #125
film42 wrote: post #11

I think unions need to work on their marketing. I resonate with all of these problems, but the "fixes" sound like a politician saying, "elect me and I'll solve your problems." What's the A+ example out there of a unionized engineering team that has been able to find a great work-life balance, great benefits, and a fun product development life-cycle that is profitable or clearly on its way to profitability? Show me th…

Half of those problems disappear in Europe, quality of life and happiness skyrocket. Sure, you won't have some carrot-on-the-stick IPO games but I don't need to, I am not on the verge of burning out, I have plenty of time for my family and kids and also myself. Kids education is free including top notch unis, (almost) so is stellar healthcare, no need to massively save up for that regardless of what can happen. I had…

>My (early) retirement is very well taken care [...] I couldn't care less about unions, I never felt oppressed or disadvantaged in any way in past 20 years across 3 different countries and many jobs, in contrary.

Where in Europe? Early retirement is a dream for the vast majority of European SW engineers. So you're in a very privilege position that's very hard to nearly impossible to achieve.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#494

Post by FirmwareBurner »

cyrnel wrote: post #486
lolinder wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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.

Which are those EU start-ups growing like crazy?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#495

Post by bradlys »

habosa wrote: post #423

I’ve only been in tech for 10 years but I’ve worked at companies of various sizes (FAANG, a 50-person startup, and now a mid-sized “unicorn”) and I’ve never had to work crazy hours. Maybe leading up to a launch I’d work past dinner occasionally but mostly my work weeks have been 40-45 hours consistently. Am I just lucky? I mean obviously I’m lucky relative to the world (tech has been lucrative and interesting during…

Tech is a big industry. It employs millions in the US. I’ve met people who only work 20-25 hours/week while pulling down $500k/yr+ at a known company that has a very toxic work culture. I’ve met people making under $150k who are working 60-70hr/week regularly at a supposed easy company. All within Silicon Valley.

The reality is that experiences vary widely in the industry even within each company - sometimes even within a team.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#496

Post by sjamaan »

azemetre wrote: post #302
samiv wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak for myself but I took 4 times a year or more off. Three of those times I spent backpacking and traveling in Australia, NZ and South-East Asia, and I spent time doing something else such as fruit-picking and working as a Dive Master and scuba diving for half a year. (Best times really) Getting back to work was as simple as making a few phone calls essentially and exploring my network. Granted, it was…

You do realize that this is immensely privileged and something that 99% of working devs can't do right? Especially the bit about making calls and instantly getting a job, that's something even famous engineers can't get too.

If you have worked at a few companies and left on good terms, it shouldn't be that hard to contact them so you can go back. Otherwise, previous co-workers will be able to help out as well.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#497

Post by paulcole »

saagarjha wrote: post #477
paulcole wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always proportional to the value you provide. You just don’t like the proportion lol. What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

I mean, the same question can be asked of my employer.

Yes, but right now I’m asking the person who said they wanted a proportional amount of value.

Either they can/will answer the question or they can’t/won’t.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#498

Post by paulcole »

bradlys wrote: post #492
paulcole wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always proportional to the value you provide. You just don’t like the proportion lol. What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

In a capitalist market, it is explicitly not proportional to the amount of value you provide. That is the underlaying principle of capitalism… Read up a bit, man. Even a capitalist would agree with this.

I can assure you it is.

You get paid X. You deliver Y value. The proportion is X / Y. Sometimes that proportion is very high, sometimes it is very low. Sometimes it is negative. Sometimes you get a divide by zero error.

And again, the questions.

What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#499

Post by lolinder »

cyrnel wrote: post #486
lolinder wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Oh, we're talking about bubbly VC growth and not actual GDP growth or growth of sustainable businesses or new useful products. In that case, I suppose I concede.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#500

Post by bradlys »

paulcole wrote: post #498
bradlys wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist market, it is explicitly not proportional to the amount of value you provide. That is the underlaying principle of capitalism… Read up a bit, man. Even a capitalist would agree with this.

I can assure you it is. You get paid X. You deliver Y value. The proportion is X / Y. Sometimes that proportion is very high, sometimes it is very low. Sometimes it is negative. Sometimes you get a divide by zero error. And again, the questions. What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

Jesus Christ. That’s not how it works!

Capitalism is explicitly not about that. Holy shit this is insane that you think that’s how capitalism works on a website that’s literally about venture capital. What the fuck.

Post reply on HN