6 ms·

Forming a union and joining the labor movement would be a start. Oh sure everybody hates unions, but there's not a progressive country in the world without a st

Forming a union and joining the labor movement would be a start. Oh sure everybody hates unions, but there's not a progressive country in the world without a strong labor movement. Without labor you're left with narrow-minded plutocrats and unreliable technocrats to run everything.

sidlls 10y ago
Good luck with that. This industry has too many people with egos far bigger than their accomplishments justify, in my opinion. There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back. You don't have to be arrogant about your own abilities to realize that promotion based on seniority would privilege longer-tenured workers over better, lesser-tenured workers. That doesn't just hurt the best workers -- it hurts anyone who is above the average. Promotion based on seniority is a common feature of union contracts, so it's a valid concern. Some people like seniority-based promotion because it can reduce discrimination in promotion decisions. For example, a woman could be promoted based on seniority even though her sexist boss might prefer a less-qualified, less-tenured male candidate. That would certainly be unfair, and seniority-based promotion could prevent that. However, the tech industry is currently mostly men, which means that any female employee who joins a large company will have at least a few decades' worth of men ahead of her in line for a promotion, no matter how good she is at her job. Seniority-based promotion would actually entrench gender diversity problems for at least 20 years, rather than solve them. The only way it would have positive effects vis a vis diversity would be to impose it on a workforce that is already diverse but has discriminatory managers.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sidlls 10y ago
    Do you have evidence that seniority based promotion hurts above average workers? Do you have good reason to suspect that seniority based promotion is a likely enough feature of a union in this industry to warrant concern?
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Average is the break-even point. If you are average: Given that most people are average (because that's what average means), you aren't an outlier, so you wouldn't expect a faster or slower promotion timeline in a meritocratic system than in a seniority based system. After all, the majority of people more senior than you at any company are likely to be average too (because that's what average means), unless the company has an unusual distribution of employee skill across the tenure spectrum. In a meritocratic system, you are still average, and you would still have an average promotion timeline. If you are average, it doesn't much matter what system you have. If you are above average: Your talent will be recognized, and you will be promoted faster than most of your peers in a meritocratic system. In a seniority-based system, people who are not as good as you will be promoted before you because they have worked at the company longer. This hurts you, and it hurts the company, because both could do better under a meritocracy. You should prefer a meritocratic system over a seniority-based system. If you are below average: In a meritocratic system, you would be promoted as a last resort, when better people are not available. In a seniority-based system, you will be promoted just because you stuck around, even if you suck. You should prefer a seniority-based system over a meritocratic system. If you are a worker at any level, and you improve your job skills and your value to the company, that will increase your promotion prospects in a meritocratic system, but not change them in any way in a seniority-based system. So why would anyone try to improve or work hard in a seniority-based system?
      - sidlls 10y ago
        I have to object: you've provided a description of how you think seniority based systems work, but no evidence to support your contention that it is, in fact, the way they do.
- chrismealy 10y ago
  True, but if professional athletes and Hollywood actors can be in unions so can hot shot web devs. Plenty of meritocracy (ugh I hate that word) in those fields.
tptacek 10y ago
It's easy to forget that there are collective action goals that go beyond better wages and more benefits. If you believe that corporations exert disproportionate control over policy in the US, collective action is a way to make that control more responsive to citizens.
- chrismealy 10y ago
  Yes! IIRC unions provide campaign funding roughly equivalent to the (very right wing) Chamber of Commerce. Unions support liberal think tanks, which develop progressive policies and support the next generation of progressive journalists and policy analysts. More than money, they provide coordination. It's easy for 100 rich dudes to get together and drive policy. It's hard for 200 million working people. That's what a labor movement is for.
  - brightball 10y ago
    Remember that time labor unions lobbied for tax incentives to encourage employer provided health insurance that resulted in the disaster of a system we have today?
    - avmich 10y ago
      Are you sure the employer provided health insurance is a notable cause of the disaster of the current system?
      - brightball 10y ago
        Not letting individuals deduct it directly created the system that removed health insurance from the consumer market, which removed health care from the market, which created the meteoric rise in costs. Anytime people are removed from the cost of a thing, the price goes up. Housing, education, healthcare. Even buying groceries people spend more than twice as much with a credit card vs cash.
        10y ago
whybroke 10y ago
If a union eventually grows out of this, fine. If a lobbyist or voting block emerges, that's fine too. But in the short term, I suggest the focus be on preserving the industry from the large number of threats it now faces via cooperation from all roles in the industry. Once a habit of cooperation emerges, further future cooperation among members would be very likely.

sidlls 10y ago

Good luck with that. This industry has too many people with egos far bigger than their accomplishments justify, in my opinion. There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back.

twblalock 10y ago
> There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back. You don't have to be arrogant about your own abilities to realize that promotion based on seniority would privilege longer-tenured workers over better, lesser-tenured workers. That doesn't just hurt the best workers -- it hurts anyone who is above the average. Promotion based on seniority is a common feature of union contracts, so it's a valid concern. Some people like seniority-based promotion because it can reduce discrimination in promotion decisions. For example, a woman could be promoted based on seniority even though her sexist boss might prefer a less-qualified, less-tenured male candidate. That would certainly be unfair, and seniority-based promotion could prevent that. However, the tech industry is currently mostly men, which means that any female employee who joins a large company will have at least a few decades' worth of men ahead of her in line for a promotion, no matter how good she is at her job. Seniority-based promotion would actually entrench gender diversity problems for at least 20 years, rather than solve them. The only way it would have positive effects vis a vis diversity would be to impose it on a workforce that is already diverse but has discriminatory managers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sidlls 10y ago
  Do you have evidence that seniority based promotion hurts above average workers? Do you have good reason to suspect that seniority based promotion is a likely enough feature of a union in this industry to warrant concern?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Average is the break-even point. If you are average: Given that most people are average (because that's what average means), you aren't an outlier, so you wouldn't expect a faster or slower promotion timeline in a meritocratic system than in a seniority based system. After all, the majority of people more senior than you at any company are likely to be average too (because that's what average means), unless the company has an unusual distribution of employee skill across the tenure spectrum. In a meritocratic system, you are still average, and you would still have an average promotion timeline. If you are average, it doesn't much matter what system you have. If you are above average: Your talent will be recognized, and you will be promoted faster than most of your peers in a meritocratic system. In a seniority-based system, people who are not as good as you will be promoted before you because they have worked at the company longer. This hurts you, and it hurts the company, because both could do better under a meritocracy. You should prefer a meritocratic system over a seniority-based system. If you are below average: In a meritocratic system, you would be promoted as a last resort, when better people are not available. In a seniority-based system, you will be promoted just because you stuck around, even if you suck. You should prefer a seniority-based system over a meritocratic system. If you are a worker at any level, and you improve your job skills and your value to the company, that will increase your promotion prospects in a meritocratic system, but not change them in any way in a seniority-based system. So why would anyone try to improve or work hard in a seniority-based system?
    - sidlls 10y ago
      I have to object: you've provided a description of how you think seniority based systems work, but no evidence to support your contention that it is, in fact, the way they do.
chrismealy 10y ago
True, but if professional athletes and Hollywood actors can be in unions so can hot shot web devs. Plenty of meritocracy (ugh I hate that word) in those fields.

tptacek 10y ago

It's easy to forget that there are collective action goals that go beyond better wages and more benefits. If you believe that corporations exert disproportionate control over policy in the US, collective action is a way to make that control more responsive to citizens.

chrismealy 10y ago
Yes! IIRC unions provide campaign funding roughly equivalent to the (very right wing) Chamber of Commerce. Unions support liberal think tanks, which develop progressive policies and support the next generation of progressive journalists and policy analysts. More than money, they provide coordination. It's easy for 100 rich dudes to get together and drive policy. It's hard for 200 million working people. That's what a labor movement is for.
- brightball 10y ago
  Remember that time labor unions lobbied for tax incentives to encourage employer provided health insurance that resulted in the disaster of a system we have today?
  - avmich 10y ago
    Are you sure the employer provided health insurance is a notable cause of the disaster of the current system?
    - brightball 10y ago
      Not letting individuals deduct it directly created the system that removed health insurance from the consumer market, which removed health care from the market, which created the meteoric rise in costs. Anytime people are removed from the cost of a thing, the price goes up. Housing, education, healthcare. Even buying groceries people spend more than twice as much with a credit card vs cash.
      - 10y ago

whybroke 10y ago

If a union eventually grows out of this, fine. If a lobbyist or voting block emerges, that's fine too. But in the short term, I suggest the focus be on preserving the industry from the large number of threats it now faces via cooperation from all roles in the industry. Once a habit of cooperation emerges, further future cooperation among members would be very likely.