3 ms·

Ask HN: Arguments against forming a union?

5 points by gamesbrainiac 11y ago

What are the arguments against forming a union of software engineers?

nvader 11y ago
It's funny, I had a similar thought while I was in the shower earlier today. I observed that while we _don't_ have anything resembling a trade union, I've never personally felt the need for it. On the other hand, isn't it the case that while trades have unions, professions have professional associations? Just as doctors, lawyers and accountants do, so do we: the IEEE and ACM come most readily to mind.
- gcb0 11y ago
  the ACM couldn't represent me less...
  - nvader 11y ago
    Oh, interesting. Why do you say that?
- hwstar 11y ago
  The IEEE and ACM are professional associations and for the most part steer clear from labor issues.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Professional associations don't deal with labor issues, and aren't a substitute for unions, on large part because their members are quite often business owners and employers rather than employees. Professionals who are employees can also have unions in addition to the professional associations, though, in the US, this is rare in the private sector (common in the public sector, however.)
MrTonyD 11y ago
I read that to join the workforce in Denmark you sign up for one of the Unions - so everybody in society gets someone on their side. And they also have employees on corporate boards by law. So they are trying to improve things for everybody. So maybe I'm saying that a union just for software engineers isn't enough. It is a half-measure that doesn't really address any of the real worker problems of our society.
pdkl95 11y ago
Unions are what you want them to be, just like any other constructed organization. Just like there are many types of businesses (e.g. partnerships, LLC, 501(c)(3), etc), which can be further refined with their charter for specific goals, a union can be defined for whatever purpose you want. If some of the traditional uses for a union may not be needed in the software industry, it could still be very useful to charter a different type of union. Something like a very minimal union that simply had the goal of protecting against really big things like the recent scandal about cartel-style limiting of salaries. A union that - by it's own charter - only concerns itself with that kind of thing would be very low cost, and would serve to discourage that kind of abuse from happening in the first place. Arguments for or against unions are useless without first defining what you mean by "union".
SEJeff 11y ago
I always saw unions as protecting employees from abusive employers. In fact, the old rail road construction workers are exactly what it makes me think of. Those workers didn't have many other options for work and the employers were blatantly exploiting them. For them, a union made tons of sense. On the other hand, most tech companies aren't really that abusive, or they won't retain talent for super long (see the recent NYT hatchet job on Amazon as an example). Given that so many tech companies in the U.S. Are "at will" employment, there aren't many perceived benefits of a union that I can actually think of. The downside would obviously be that new employees would be forced to pay union dues whether or not they wanted to join. It seems to me that due to there being more employment opportunities for what I do than there are people, I've got the most power, not the employer. If that previous statement is true, I simply see no benefit of organizing into a union. Gone are the days (for the most part) where you slog it out for 30 years at the same employer and get a pension for life. On the flip side, the mean salary is MUCH higher, so if you're living below your means and save, you have the potential to end up better than your parent's generation with their pensions. Just my opinion. I would never join a tech workers union unless I was at an abusive company. However, an abusive company isn't a place I'd stay at.
- hwstar 11y ago
  At-will employment is more of an advantage for the employer than the employee. The employer is in a position of strength in and at-will arrangement. Yes, the employee can quit at any time, but the employee usually very dependent on getting paid, and will not quit unless the employment relationship is really bad. At-will employment allows the employer to terminate the employment relationship for any reason whatsoever (with a few exceptions which vary from state to state). Unions and most other developed countries in the world use the doctrine of "Just-cause". Just cause limits termination of employment by the employer to non-nebulous things like non-performance, breaking the law, policy violations, and business conditions. The employee is still free to terminate the relationship at any time. This is a fair balance because the employer is in the position of strength and has the upper hand in most instances. Unions do have issues. It would be better if the US harmonized its employment law with the rest of the developed world.

5 points by gamesbrainiac 11y ago

What are the arguments against forming a union of software engineers?

It's funny, I had a similar thought while I was in the shower earlier today. I observed that while we _don't_ have anything resembling a trade union, I've never personally felt the need for it. On the other hand, isn't it the case that while trades have unions, professions have professional associations? Just as doctors, lawyers and accountants do, so do we: the IEEE and ACM come most readily to mind.

gcb0 11y ago
the ACM couldn't represent me less...
- nvader 11y ago
  Oh, interesting. Why do you say that?
hwstar 11y ago
The IEEE and ACM are professional associations and for the most part steer clear from labor issues.
dragonwriter 11y ago
Professional associations don't deal with labor issues, and aren't a substitute for unions, on large part because their members are quite often business owners and employers rather than employees. Professionals who are employees can also have unions in addition to the professional associations, though, in the US, this is rare in the private sector (common in the public sector, however.)

MrTonyD 11y ago

I read that to join the workforce in Denmark you sign up for one of the Unions - so everybody in society gets someone on their side. And they also have employees on corporate boards by law. So they are trying to improve things for everybody. So maybe I'm saying that a union just for software engineers isn't enough. It is a half-measure that doesn't really address any of the real worker problems of our society.

pdkl95 11y ago

Unions are what you want them to be, just like any other constructed organization. Just like there are many types of businesses (e.g. partnerships, LLC, 501(c)(3), etc), which can be further refined with their charter for specific goals, a union can be defined for whatever purpose you want. If some of the traditional uses for a union may not be needed in the software industry, it could still be very useful to charter a different type of union. Something like a very minimal union that simply had the goal of protecting against really big things like the recent scandal about cartel-style limiting of salaries. A union that - by it's own charter - only concerns itself with that kind of thing would be very low cost, and would serve to discourage that kind of abuse from happening in the first place. Arguments for or against unions are useless without first defining what you mean by "union".

SEJeff 11y ago

I always saw unions as protecting employees from abusive employers. In fact, the old rail road construction workers are exactly what it makes me think of. Those workers didn't have many other options for work and the employers were blatantly exploiting them. For them, a union made tons of sense. On the other hand, most tech companies aren't really that abusive, or they won't retain talent for super long (see the recent NYT hatchet job on Amazon as an example). Given that so many tech companies in the U.S. Are "at will" employment, there aren't many perceived benefits of a union that I can actually think of. The downside would obviously be that new employees would be forced to pay union dues whether or not they wanted to join. It seems to me that due to there being more employment opportunities for what I do than there are people, I've got the most power, not the employer. If that previous statement is true, I simply see no benefit of organizing into a union. Gone are the days (for the most part) where you slog it out for 30 years at the same employer and get a pension for life. On the flip side, the mean salary is MUCH higher, so if you're living below your means and save, you have the potential to end up better than your parent's generation with their pensions. Just my opinion. I would never join a tech workers union unless I was at an abusive company. However, an abusive company isn't a place I'd stay at.

hwstar 11y ago
At-will employment is more of an advantage for the employer than the employee. The employer is in a position of strength in and at-will arrangement. Yes, the employee can quit at any time, but the employee usually very dependent on getting paid, and will not quit unless the employment relationship is really bad. At-will employment allows the employer to terminate the employment relationship for any reason whatsoever (with a few exceptions which vary from state to state). Unions and most other developed countries in the world use the doctrine of "Just-cause". Just cause limits termination of employment by the employer to non-nebulous things like non-performance, breaking the law, policy violations, and business conditions. The employee is still free to terminate the relationship at any time. This is a fair balance because the employer is in the position of strength and has the upper hand in most instances. Unions do have issues. It would be better if the US harmonized its employment law with the rest of the developed world.