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

531–540 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#531

Post by kortex »

paulcole wrote: post #280
thom__ wrote: post #28

Awesome to see something like this on HN. As we keep working for less pay, more hours, the constant threat of layoffs, and business leaders frothing at the mouth to replace us all with AI, it's important to remember that we aren't powerless as workers. It's also important to remember that your relationship to the higher-ups is adversarial. They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible…

> They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible It’s only adversarial because you want to get as much pay as possible out of them for as little productivity as possible. > I somewhat agreed and got caught up in that culture until I got picked up in the fourth round of layoffs at a time when I felt I was doing my best work. Did everyone feel that way?

> It’s only adversarial because you want to get as much pay as possible out of them for as little productivity as possible.

And the employer wants to pay the employee as little as possible for as much productivity as possible.

In a perfect world with perfect information and rational actors on a level playing field, this is great: we expect supply and demand to converge, this is econ 101.

But it's not a perfect playing field, one side is coercive, holds most/all the cards, calls all the shots, treats people with lives and experiences as "resources", and seeks profit over all other objective functions. This is class dynamics 101.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#532

Post by MichaelZuo »

palmotea wrote: post #422
MichaelZuo wrote: post #407

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…

This seems like a tautology, of course there can not be a general rule for all workplaces.

By definition with sufficiently seperate interests, then anything (or nothing) goes.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#533

Post by nickpinkston »

nekochanwork wrote: post #530

I am an engineering manager for a large team of developers. Part of my job is to estimate the cost and potential revenue of big projects. I have a spreadsheet of everyone's salaries (including bonus compensation, other perks). I've done the math at my own company: average developer salary is approximately $100k. Our largest teams have 10 developers, so about $1M in labor costs. These teams work on projects that bring…

Though you'll need to deduct a lot of SG&A, etc. overheads from that as well, and it often looks far worse.

Big Tech companies (ie ones close to monopolies) still extract a ton of net cash flow that ends up going to investors and top management, though you could then ask why those monopolies extract cash from their customers as well, etc.

My worry with tech unionization is that generally it slows productivity increases and change. I get why bus drivers, etc. in stable systems should organize and could do so without adversely affecting system performance, but in tech/startups, I don't think those companies would exist in unionized form for very long before being put out of business.

Now they're just saddled with too much bureaucracy and politics, and that's already led most of them to underperform, at least on an innovation basis.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#534

Post by tekla »

guy234 wrote: post #404
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most developers are paid more than 2x the median wage. For HN, that difference is probably 3x-5x or more. If class consciousness is on the rise, HN's readership is in the classes that the lower economic strata are going to be rising up against. If you have any illusions that the proletariat will welcome you with open arms for your claimed solidarity, think again or you might be in for a shock; specifically, a short,…

how is the proletariat oppressed by an ordinary non-management software developer?

Drives rents up for ordinary people.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#535

Post by nradov »

snozolli wrote: post #523
nradov wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take some responsibility for your own health. You're not chained to your desk; get up and walk around occasionally. Go for a run or hit a quick gym session during your lunch break. I started having wrist pain years ago and switched to an ergonomic split keyboard years ago which completely fixed that problem. Little laptop keyboard are terrible for any extensive typing.

Take some responsibility for your own health. Thank you for the lecture about problems I solved decades ago. I started having wrist pain years ago and switched to an ergonomic split keyboard Oh, wooow, such sage advice. If you spend some time dealing with repetitive stress injuries, you'll learn that causes and solutions vary tremendously. Little laptop keyboard are terrible for any extensive typing. Why are you tell…

I'm telling you this because I'm a nice guy and like to help people. Cheers.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#536

Post by wat10000 »

karaterobot wrote: post #242
bawolff wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software engineering is one of the ways of playing life in "easy mode" Is it though? People in software seem to be constantly talking about burnout/mental health issues. Like we need some explanation as to why software has such high pay, flexibility, limited education requirements, and yet not everyone in the world is doing it. High pay is usually a sign the job is compensating for being shitty in other ways.

> High pay is usually a sign the job is compensating for being shitty in other ways. Or that it requires a set of skills that not everybody has, or that there is a competitive market where employees can select jobs based on pay. Those are two other reasons. Indeed, I have to question the premise that high pay and shitty jobs go together. I can think of plenty of shitty, low-paid jobs.

I'd say there's a strong inverse correlation. Low-paid jobs are usually terrible in other ways too. Well-paid jobs are usually nice.

High pay means that the person creates a lot of value and that there's low supply relative to demand. High pay is offered because employers want to attract workers. If they're paying well, they're probably going to try other things to attract workers as well, such as offering better working conditions.

Low pay means you don't have to try too hard to get workers. That means you don't have to be nice to them.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#537

Post by nielsbot »

nickpinkston wrote: post #533
nekochanwork wrote: post #530

I am an engineering manager for a large team of developers. Part of my job is to estimate the cost and potential revenue of big projects. I have a spreadsheet of everyone's salaries (including bonus compensation, other perks). I've done the math at my own company: average developer salary is approximately $100k. Our largest teams have 10 developers, so about $1M in labor costs. These teams work on projects that bring…

Though you'll need to deduct a lot of SG&A, etc. overheads from that as well, and it often looks far worse. Big Tech companies (ie ones close to monopolies) still extract a ton of net cash flow that ends up going to investors and top management, though you could then ask why those monopolies extract cash from their customers as well, etc. My worry with tech unionization is that generally it slows productivity increas…

> My worry with tech unionization is that generally it slows productivity increases and change.

Do you have examples?

> Now they're just saddled with too much bureaucracy and politics, and that's already led most of them to underperform, at least on an innovation basis.

Who?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#538

Post by paulcole »

fwip wrote: post #528
paulcole wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think you understand what "proportional" means. It doesn't mean "there are two numbers." It means that when looking at all employees, compensation is strongly linearly correlated to provided value.

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

Re: The Burnout Machine

#539

Post by Minor49er »

hirvi74 wrote: post #435
Minor49er wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the risk of not wanting to return to work after such a break?

That is a valid risk, for sure. What I initially meant was that taking a gap year is a risk and not taking one is also a risk.

I see what you mean. Thanks for the valuable insight

Re: The Burnout Machine

#540

Post by dkarl »

I have a hard time with this pitch because I've watched people burn out working alongside me, on the same team, for the same boss, on the same problems, for entirely personal reasons. I've also been in shitty situations with shitty bosses that caused me a lot of stress, and it's hard to point to any clear lines that were crossed. I haven't heard any proposed union rule that would protect me in those situations, just promises that if a union existed, things would be better. It needs to be more specific.

We see what unions do for working class people, but our level of compensation, education, and cultural capital gives us everything that a traditional union gives to blue collar workers. Literacy, internet access, and money go a long way. We don't need a union to tell us what our legal rights are or help pay for a lawyer for us. We don't need a union to tell us what workplace conditions are legal or illegal. We don't need a union to tell us when and how it's safe or unsafe, effective or ineffective to report corporate malfeasance. Again, we have literacy, internet access, and money for legal representation.

Maybe a union could benefit me somehow, but I'm going to need much more concrete examples than just hey, your job is unpleasant sometimes, join a union!

Post reply on HN