Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions • Hacker News Board

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#61

Post by malvosenior » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #53

malvosenior wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a downturn comes, it will be due to larger economic reasons. If firms aren't profitable and need to cut costs, having a union that makes that more difficult could actually exacerbate the downturn. I'd rather have to lay off under performers and keep the company in business, than go out of business and have everyone lose their jobs.

Corporations are run so they suck as many profits out of the company as possible during the boom times, then "cut costs" (aka dump overboard the workers who created those profits) at the slightest change of the economic winds. Unions change that equation; corporations won't be able to run that strategy, and will maintain a cushion to get through the inevitable downturn.

I have never in 20+ years of experience seen a company dump high performing engineers just to lower costs. It's those very engineers that engendered the success the company enjoys. I have seen good teams cut but that's only when macro issues have made it necessary.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#62

Post by rexpop » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

_dczq wrote: post #20

dawhizkid wrote: post #8

Biggest question is if a union or union-like system makes sense in companies where the average tenure is ~2-3 years mostly due to employee choice.

Is the average tenure truly due to "employee choice" or simply a result of the system we created?

I believe it's the result of the system we've created. Frogs leap from boiling water, and there's no sense in calling that "frog choice": obviously, the water is too hot.

That workplaces are universally intolerable after 2-3--as is accepted industry common knowledge--is not a matter of individual preference, but systemic inadequacy of workplace conditions.

Burnout is not a personal problem, it is an institutional pandemic.

> One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

-- Carol Hanisch, "The Personal Is Political", in Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#63

Post by chongli » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

schnable wrote: post #32

mavelikara wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions exist in high demand positions too - sports, entertainment etc. Can tech unions be modelled closer to those, and less on the style of jobs you mentioned?

These are not high demand professions. They are a very limited number of jobs available with many more people who would love to fill them.

Yes, and professional athletes don't get promoted to management at all. Some do become managers or other executives but that requires them to retire as a player and then negotiate an entirely separate contract for the management job.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#64

Post by ben_jones » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #23

negamax wrote: post #7

The benefit in tech is options. Don't like your job, get another one. Don't like your boss, get another one. For many locations it's just the matter of turning a button on Linkedin or for many people sending some emails. That keeps people idealistic, vocal and demanding of the behavior from their employer/bosses. This is not the norm in other business functions. Unfortunately.

This current state of affairs gives employees a lot of power, as you observed, but it's important to realize it will not last. The downturn will come. The question is whether we want to use our current ephemeral labor power to protect ourselves when the downturn comes, because organization will be 100x more difficult when things go to shit and people don't think they have the luxury of risking their career to build a…

There's a dichotomy in software development between the developers who represent single points of failure in an organization and the increasing number of "replaceable" developers i.e. developers versed only in popular frameworks or who hold introductory/recent-grad levels of domain knowledge with no desire to go further.

I think right now were in a "golden age" where the latter group still holds power and can command decent salary. I'm convinced this will start to change in 2-3 years and a lot of people who came in for that golden age are going to face a shocking reality that they aren't as privileged as they thought they were.

With the fall of the second group software companies will have much more leverage across the board and we'll see darker and darker patterns prosper.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#65

Post by ivl » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #17

javagram wrote: post #10

“In other cases, highly compensated engineers may see themselves as independent operators who have plenty of leverage on their own and thus do not need to join a union effort.” This is definitely my feeling. When I can just open up LinkedIn and browse all the unsolicited interview requests I get, I don’t end up feeling like I really need a union to protect my current job - I can always just leave and go somewhere els…

In the long term, you may not want to switch companies. It forces upon you a whole lot of unexpected costs, even accounting for a higher pay.

And staying at the same employer indefinitely is a sort of soul crushing purgatory in my mind. Software work is one of the few industries where you can completely change the business problem you're addressing by changing employers without your skill set being irrelevant. I love the fact that if I grow tired of the industry the company I'm working at is servicing, I can easily move to another employer with a totally different business problem.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#66

Post by jtolmar » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

mawburn wrote: post #19

Maybe unionization needs a disrupt? I'm not against unionization in a lot of industries, but it just doesn't make sense in its current form for the tech scene or any other high demand position. It feels like an outdated mechanism used for people who were happy to sit in the same role, doing the same thing, for 45yrs.

Modern unions that only represent one type of skill or workers in one company (or both!) are far less effective than historical unions that aimed to unionize as many workers as possible under the same umbrella. Being able to represent your members even if they switch companies gives you a lot more opportunities.

Unions are (at least supposed to be) democratically run, so if tech workers don't want to sit in the same position for 45 years until they can collect a pension, their union doesn't need to negotiate for that. They can use that leverage for something else.

Putting that together, your modernized union might be an industry-wide organization that acts both for collective bargaining and as a placement agency. They could bargain for making switching companies easier - maybe employers need to support specific benefits providers so workers don't need to switch. And they could use their network to improve bargaining - a big part of strike preparation is making sure everyone is taken care of ahead of time; the union could secure job offers for workers who can't afford to go on strike.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#67

Post by dalbasal » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

dawhizkid wrote: post #8

Biggest question is if a union or union-like system makes sense in companies where the average tenure is ~2-3 years mostly due to employee choice.

I agree. This is a central question.

Is the ideal model of employment the "job-for-life," or not. If not, how many of a "traditional" union's norms still make sense?

Personally, im not really sure where I stand on tech unions. I suspect that certain things would be better if unions were more present. Work-life balance, unpaid overtime and always-available-on-email problems would probably be better. I suspect on-the job training would be better too. This is an area where our industry is insane. How is it even possible that tech companies do less training than wharehouses?

I was trained to drive a forklift for a part time summer job. 6 days paid training out of a totaldo a MOOC or something in your spare time."

OTOH, I don't think most of us want unions deciding who gets hired/fired/promoted, want seniority systems or a lot of traditional union stuff like that.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#68

Post by dymk » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #56

dymk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can form a union when we need to form a union. There's no point in forming one just in case software engineering no longer becomes a sought-after skilled job.

How shortsighted: "We can form a union when we're in a disadvantageous position." There's plenty of stuff that software engineers could want to improve today around oncall, long hours, IP restrictions, non-competes, pay transparency, parental leave, equity, promotion and career management, educational benefits, age/gender/racial/etc discrimination, health care, etc. When we're in a position of power is a great time f…

If I'm not happy with my company, I leave the company. It's not that hard. And I don't pay any dues to a union for that right.

Non-competes are unenforceable in California.

Do you actually think that writing software is going to be come an unskilled job some day?

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#69

Post by ivl » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

lallysingh wrote: post #31

dawhizkid wrote: post #8

Biggest question is if a union or union-like system makes sense in companies where the average tenure is ~2-3 years mostly due to employee choice.

Why do they leave? Are those reasons addressable by a union?

Because after 2-3 years you can move for (on the very low end) a $10-20 grand pay increase without much pain at all. A raise you'd be unlikely to get at your original job. I am unsure of how a union could address that problem. It's a sellers market for software developers.

Re: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions

#70

Post by ghettoCoder » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #34

smallbigfish wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them. I think that is a bit of a grand statement don't you think? I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union... I wouldn't associate ALL benefits with a union, nor would that necessitate forming one simply if you thought those benefits were related. I've worked for some nice people, I do be…

If you think that any of the labour laws, health benefits, vacation days, special leave (bereavement for example) or any of the other things you take for granted as part of your normal work day didn't come from unions continually pushing the envelope of worker's rights then I good luck with that.

The remuneration package offered by a business is typically dictated by the business sector (competitors) so saying "I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union." is faulty logic. If half the shops are union shops or competition for staff is fierce then pay/benefits will reflects.

Unions gave us 40 weeks (as opposed to 60+), no child labour, work place health & safety (maybe not such a big deal in tech but in other industry it's critical), etc... yes, government legislation made them law but unions applied pressure to get it done. While many aspects of unions have, or appear to have, outlived their usefulness they are still a very important tool in the employer-employee relationship.

Look at it this way, if unions were really just about the money then employers wouldn't care so much and attempt to keep unions out of their businesses (sometimes illegally). An employer could just say to the union "this is how much I have to spend on labour, how would you like it budgeted" and call it a day cause at that point it's just deciding on how big your slice of pie is.

I guess I sound like a union fanboy, which I'm not, but we shouldn't discount the very real impact and ongoing influence unions have.