4 ms·

> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing Usually this includes knee-jerk argument

by pdkl95 10y ago

> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover something, then leave it out. Charter the union to only address the specific problems that need to be addressed. Maybe limit "crunch" periods to healthy lengths of time near an actual product release? Maybe include a specific deterrent against extreme problems like collusion to fix salaries while otherwise ignoring salary completely? As for dues and management costs, isn't that the kind of problem that is easy with modern computers and telecommunication? How much management is even needed for an IT union? In the past dues were needed to hire people to do the paperwork, send out notices, etc. Today, that work is a weekend Ruby On Rails project. After a specific purpose union is setup, are dues even necessary?

icebraining 10y ago
It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. Organizations aren't created in a vacuum, they require bringing in others, and if you're starting an union, you'll attract people who are already predisposed to all the ideas of what makes up a union, and you'll attract offers of help from existing unions, which will try to co-opt you. And there's no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process. Finally, once that it created, it's not just a matter of distancing yourself; once a union grows, it affects every worker, even non-unionized - in some cases, even banning them outright from working. So it's not surprising that workers which still have it pretty good aren't interest in opening that can of worms, and you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. To add to everything you just said, the NLRA sets very rigid rules regarding how unions can form and how employees and employers can interact with them. So you can't just charter it however you want and assume all the problems are solved - the NLRA imposes a number of requirements and protections for the union (not the members, but the union itself as a corporate structure) which way be at odds with the employees. As a result, once a union forms, it's very difficult (practically) for its members to deunionize, even if a majority of the membership opposes the union representing them. So people are very hesitant to go down a road which is essentially seen as a one-way street, except as a last resort.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process People aren't interested in small-scale organizing for specific purposes because strong, traditional unions are too popular? Why aren't the same people you claim will "control [the] process" making a union now? Yes, just like every other type of organization, a union - or business - can evolve beyond it's original purpose. There are no guarantees in most collective actions. However, arguments that assume an inevitable strong union in industries where unions are very unpopular do not seem to be based in reality. > you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one The tech industry has been very successful at inventing new types of organizations over the last several decades. The "gig economy" and Bitcoin/Etherium are obvious examples. Silicon Valley is popular because of how easy it is to invent new businesses. Sometimes this creativity extends to new ways to fund startups. A lot of the tech itself revolves around new types of social interaction. I find it very hard to believe that unions - or collective bargaining in general - are somehow immune from "disruption" and creative reinterpretation.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Look, we weren't discussing whether unions were good or bad; we were discussing why people don't believe it's in their best interest to form or join one. I'm telling you why I think you are mistaken about their motivations, not that you are mistaken in your belief that a union would in fact be a positive thing for tech workers.
eru 10y ago
SAP in Germany was getting union representation just when I was doing an internship there about 10 year ago. The move wasn't popular with employees.
- hocuspocus 10y ago
  Why was that? Unionized engineers in Germany (like in the automotive industry) are the highest paid and get the most benefits. Why would they be against it, given that if you don't enjoy red tape, you probably won't work at SAP to begin with?
  - eru 10y ago
    I was only an intern. The food was good, but the work was boring. German law says that union representatives can get an almost equal say in company matters. SAP had a vote, most people were against union representation, but by German law any nine (9!) employees in favour in the whole company is enough. So SAP got some people from IG Metal (ostensibly a metal workers union!) on their board. Most of my coworkers saw the union representatives as busy-bodies who were interested in political power rather than real work. People had higher opinions of management than of them. To get a bit more general: It does help that programmers are broadly in wide demand, and can mostly get a new job at a drop off a hat. So instead of forming a cartel and `fighting' for their rights, they can just vote with their feet. Same as what people do to make sure they get quality groceries: go shop at a different venue. If unemployment ever gets low enough, the general population would be elevated into a similar exalted position for their jobs. > [...] given that if you don't enjoy red tape, you probably won't work at SAP to begin with? It's a decent company. If you can put up with Java, they are OK to work for. (That doesn't mean that I enjoy using their products. In that regard they are the opposite of the video game industry: I'd rather play a computer game, but I'd also rather work for SAP than finish a game in a death march.)
    - hocuspocus 10y ago
      Electrical and mechanical engineers are in high demand too, and afaik they don't complain too much about their strong unions. And I know SAP is a decent company. Anyway the comparison with the situation in the US is a bit pointless. More than unions, they need basic workers' rights.

by pdkl95 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. Organizations aren't created in a vacuum, they require bringing in others, and if you're starting an union, you'll attract people who are already predisposed to all the ideas of what makes up a union, and you'll attract offers of help from existing unions, which will try to co-opt you. And there's no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process. Finally, once that it created, it's not just a matter of distancing yourself; once a union grows, it affects every worker, even non-unionized - in some cases, even banning them outright from working. So it's not surprising that workers which still have it pretty good aren't interest in opening that can of worms, and you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. To add to everything you just said, the NLRA sets very rigid rules regarding how unions can form and how employees and employers can interact with them. So you can't just charter it however you want and assume all the problems are solved - the NLRA imposes a number of requirements and protections for the union (not the members, but the union itself as a corporate structure) which way be at odds with the employees. As a result, once a union forms, it's very difficult (practically) for its members to deunionize, even if a majority of the membership opposes the union representing them. So people are very hesitant to go down a road which is essentially seen as a one-way street, except as a last resort.
pdkl95 10y ago
> no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process People aren't interested in small-scale organizing for specific purposes because strong, traditional unions are too popular? Why aren't the same people you claim will "control [the] process" making a union now? Yes, just like every other type of organization, a union - or business - can evolve beyond it's original purpose. There are no guarantees in most collective actions. However, arguments that assume an inevitable strong union in industries where unions are very unpopular do not seem to be based in reality. > you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one The tech industry has been very successful at inventing new types of organizations over the last several decades. The "gig economy" and Bitcoin/Etherium are obvious examples. Silicon Valley is popular because of how easy it is to invent new businesses. Sometimes this creativity extends to new ways to fund startups. A lot of the tech itself revolves around new types of social interaction. I find it very hard to believe that unions - or collective bargaining in general - are somehow immune from "disruption" and creative reinterpretation.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Look, we weren't discussing whether unions were good or bad; we were discussing why people don't believe it's in their best interest to form or join one. I'm telling you why I think you are mistaken about their motivations, not that you are mistaken in your belief that a union would in fact be a positive thing for tech workers.

eru 10y ago

SAP in Germany was getting union representation just when I was doing an internship there about 10 year ago. The move wasn't popular with employees.

hocuspocus 10y ago
Why was that? Unionized engineers in Germany (like in the automotive industry) are the highest paid and get the most benefits. Why would they be against it, given that if you don't enjoy red tape, you probably won't work at SAP to begin with?
- eru 10y ago
  I was only an intern. The food was good, but the work was boring. German law says that union representatives can get an almost equal say in company matters. SAP had a vote, most people were against union representation, but by German law any nine (9!) employees in favour in the whole company is enough. So SAP got some people from IG Metal (ostensibly a metal workers union!) on their board. Most of my coworkers saw the union representatives as busy-bodies who were interested in political power rather than real work. People had higher opinions of management than of them. To get a bit more general: It does help that programmers are broadly in wide demand, and can mostly get a new job at a drop off a hat. So instead of forming a cartel and `fighting' for their rights, they can just vote with their feet. Same as what people do to make sure they get quality groceries: go shop at a different venue. If unemployment ever gets low enough, the general population would be elevated into a similar exalted position for their jobs. > [...] given that if you don't enjoy red tape, you probably won't work at SAP to begin with? It's a decent company. If you can put up with Java, they are OK to work for. (That doesn't mean that I enjoy using their products. In that regard they are the opposite of the video game industry: I'd rather play a computer game, but I'd also rather work for SAP than finish a game in a death march.)
  - hocuspocus 10y ago
    Electrical and mechanical engineers are in high demand too, and afaik they don't complain too much about their strong unions. And I know SAP is a decent company. Anyway the comparison with the situation in the US is a bit pointless. More than unions, they need basic workers' rights.