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

681–690 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#681

Post by nickpinkston »

nielsbot wrote: post #679
nickpinkston wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, it's more complicated than that, but in the US context unionization (like in the automotive and steel industries) was shown to slow innovation. [1] The counter to this is that Europe actually has better outcomes because it takes a more collaborative approach vs. the adversarial approach in the US, and this better approach has shown to improve some outcomes. [1] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files…

The linked paper is strongly biased towards the ownership class--and the think tank is labeled "libertarian-conservative" on wikipedia, so I'm skeptical of the conclusions.

Yea, almost anyone in the US asking about the productivity implications of unionization will be coming from the ownership class, as US unions don't see that as their problem vs. building worker power.

I couldn't find a paper about US unions increasing productivity. Can you?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#682

Post by Capricorn2481 »

tmoertel wrote: post #577
maleldil wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Okay. If I'm in a job market where what I want isn't possible, what does that reality suggest about my demands, the market, and the people who ultimately set the prices in that market (i.e., the public)?

You're either for unions or not, in any job. So we could say the same thing about teachers.

But in reality, the job market is not necessarily a reflection of the market or demands. It can be a delayed reaction to false narratives. It can be meddling from people capitalizing on these narratives. Unions are good tools against this because they can negotiate with their actual value, not the "market"

Re: The Burnout Machine

#683

Post by Capricorn2481 »

theamk wrote: post #317
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions will kickstart the offshoring of our career People are offshoring right now, and increasingly so. A union is arguably one of the only tools left to prevent offshoring, short of government intervention.

how would that work? Maybe the current force is protected, but if there is no new US hires, then teams will slowly shift due to people retiring or leaving. "sorry, no more open positions in the US... but don't worry, you are getting some helpers from India!"

That is the kind of thing a good union is supposed to fight against. People go on strike when offshoring happens.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#684

Post by nielsbot »

nickpinkston wrote: post #681
nielsbot wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked paper is strongly biased towards the ownership class--and the think tank is labeled "libertarian-conservative" on wikipedia, so I'm skeptical of the conclusions.

Yea, almost anyone in the US asking about the productivity implications of unionization will be coming from the ownership class, as US unions don't see that as their problem vs. building worker power. I couldn't find a paper about US unions increasing productivity. Can you?

Fair. And I didn't look for other papers. If the discussion is simply "unions decrease productivity" however that's defined, that may be true. But by how much? Is that a problem? To whom?

I suspect unionization is better for more people overall.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#685

Post by ever1337 »

paulcole wrote: post #578
ever1337 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The workers will decide and they will dictate it to you as you have done unto them.

So as a worker, what specific proportion do you believe is fair to dictate?

It's not at all a matter of fairness. It is a matter of might.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#686

Post by ever1337 »

collingreen wrote: post #595
ever1337 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

I don't agree that the worker's interest is or should be in minimizing company profit - this is a very zero sum approach that doesn't really cover companies that aren't stagnant or dying. I agree with your general point that a business CAN increase profit by reducing costs, including by reducing employee compensation (and there are lots of shortsighted, greedy people out there) but increasing revenue instead is often…

The aim of the worker is not usually to kill the firm, I assumed that went without saying, as that would ultimately 'minimize' their wages. But the reason to work in a society where one needs money is to receive a wage, as maximal as possible. These incentives will always contradict whatever real but necessary need there is for 'genuine interest' or 'social tendencies'. Constantly businesses attempt to harness this value, (which is the source of revolutions in productivity beyond the daily rote labor) through trying to present the relationship as anything but transactional. But as their interest in this value is ultimately a monetary interest, what the worker returns to them will be done on a transactional basis. An inhuman force rules over all.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#687

Post by ever1337 »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #610
ever1337 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

> Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit. Business owners are also responsible for ensuring their employees (and payroll taxes) are paid whenever revenue dips into the "L" part of "P&L". Wise owners ensure some portion of profit is retained such that temporary market adversity does not immediately result…

You are correct that the interest of a business owner is not to kill their firm.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#688

Post by ever1337 »

mrangle wrote: post #618
ever1337 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

Before maximizing wages and minimizing profit, your interest as workers is to assure that the owner is provided with enough financial motivation to both stay in business and not find substitute employees or solutions for the work that you do.

When I use the word maximization I am not referring to an abstract idea, I am referring to a negotiation with material necessity.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#689

Post by ever1337 »

try_the_bass wrote: post #627
ever1337 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

> Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit. Is it? I know a handful of small business owners, and generally their interest is running their business well and keeping their customers happy. Sure, they want to be profitable, but profit isn't their primary motivator. Ditto on the worker side. Your outlook on…

They may have a moral sentiment and so too do employees - but the market is the ultimate condition for any moral sentiment to survive. You have no company, you no longer 'satisfy' customers. I am not referring to a moral idea, but a cold reality of business.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#690

Post by ever1337 »

Nemi wrote: post #552
ever1337 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

As it should be. I am not begrudging anyone of that. As a matter of fact, I often mentor employees on treating their career as a business, and build it accordingly. Just like a strong business, you should be selling your services for as much as reasonable, and if your employer is not paying the appropriate price then find another “buyer”. To maximize the price you can sell your ‘product’ (you), you should be making c…

I appreciate your frankness, and I am not an idealist who is proposing that the market 'should' be this way or that way for purely moral reasons. But the topic at hand is unionization. An aspect you neglect in this post is that another way to raise wages (or 'total compensation') is via collective bargaining. If tech workers really do care, and have a collective interest, and are able to overcome countervailing forces, this is an inevitability. No longer will the ball be purely in your court as an employer to solely determine the value of labor.
Post reply on HN