7 ms·

Do programmers need a union?

• checkoutmygenes 16y ago
  HN'ers would derive more benefit from an agent
• stcredzero 16y ago
  No. More granularity in capitalism. A lot of dysfunction gets perpetuated because it's hidden in the bowels of big, bureaucratic institutions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
  • nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
    Sunlight is also the fuel for weeds.
    • rmorrison 16y ago
      What are you trying to say? All murderers and dictators breath oxygen too.
      • Charuru 16y ago
        He's trying to say that when there's no institution that grades programmers and opportunities are open to everyone, lots of bad programmers surface. But I don't think it's a useful point, because there is a market and societal use for bad/new programmers and it doesn't really hurt the profession as a whole.
        • stcredzero 16y ago
          I think the societal use for new/bad programmers is very painful for some good ones.
      • nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
        I'm simply trying to say that there are two (or more) sides to every discussion and argument, and usually there are plenty of good points and bad points for every side. Arguing for a standing body to help guide/regulate education and certifications could be a potential benefit, especially in the area of life-critical engineering, like software for hospital equipment, nuclear reactors, or space shuttles. Alternatively, a giant regulatory body could result in nothing but additional fees for students and prospective employees if they have any hope of being hired. Edit: I also find it very interesting that my above remark swung from one to four, and now is down to zero. Difference between gut reactions and thinkers?
  • eli 16y ago
    Not sure I follow. Couldn't you just as well argue that unions bring bad employer practices to light?
    • stcredzero 16y ago
      Who brings bad union practices to light? Commerce exposes this sort of stuff. The more commerce is used, as opposed to invisible, internal mechanisms, the less unions have to do. Not all unions are bad, but not everything they do acts to increase transparency.
  • _delirium 16y ago
    That has to happen on both sides, though. More granularity on the employees' side while the employers grow/merge into large organizations that act collectively will just produce a bigger power imbalance.
• gte910h 16y ago
  Yes, certain types do. Game programmers come to mind. Not sure everyone else needs them though, but there are likely others who do. Additionally, less onerous IP terms for employment, standard non-competes and a reduction of the idea of absurd overtime being the norm are all good things. California can thank their non-compete/IP laws for part of Silicon Valley's success.
  • yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Why do game programmers need a union? As for IP terms/noncompetes/overtime, I'm not sure why you need a union. Why not just negotiate for that yourself?
    • Tiktaalik 16y ago
      Collective bargaining power is better. A guy with a decade of experience may be able to negotiate a good deal, but for someone just out of university they'll likely be treated like their just lucky to have a job. Certain rules should apply industrywide. For games industry in general a focus some sort of standardisation for credit would be useful. How long does one have to work on a project to be in the credits for example? People get screwed out of credit all the time. Royalties is another point of contention. Some sort of standardisation for minimums would be useful. Call of Duty 2 has made well over a billion in revenue, yet there was all sorts of drama regarding royalties and the studio collapsed as a result and likely many walked away with nothing.
    • gte910h 16y ago
      >As for IP terms/noncompetes/overtime, I'm not sure why you need a union. Why not just negotiate for that yourself? Because certain portions of our field have jobs that people are willing to be whipped and beaten for if they can get the jobs (entry level game programming, I'm looking at you). There isn't anything about programming that makes it reasonable to require unpaid overtime exemptions, etc, unlike most other fields have. It's merely poor management demanding it. Game programming, especially, would be nice, as there is no reason to make games come out faster, they're pure entertainment without just recompense for hours worked. A heavy preponderance of unions would deescalate the field, making everyone do less over a given period of time (or pay people much better than they do for the overtime they demand).
• viggity 16y ago
  This has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Unions breed laziness and rob its members of motivation to work because the union will always protect them to the most dizzying degree. Simply look at this flowchart to see the steps required to fire a New York City teacher. It is outrageous. http://commongood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf http://commongood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf Unions have so much leverage over a company that they negotiate themselves out of a job. There is a reason GM went bankrupt, there is a reason the public school system is failing. Why the hell would I want to join a programmer's union?
  • zmitri 16y ago
    Totally agree with you. Unions are useful for those who want to put in their '20' years and then live off of pensions, work boring jobs, or need safety guarantees. From my experiences, programmers are dynamic, inventive, independent, and the type of people who would be willing to stay up two days straight to get done what they need to be done. Would you really want a union around to tell you how many hours a week you could work? Could you imagine a start-up hiring unionized programmers?
    • kiba 16y ago
      sigh I wish people would stop down voting comments that they don't disagree with.
    • dantheman 16y ago
      Union pensions & healthcare are a giant scam. Unions have completely underfunded their pensions and will go bankrupt in the not too distant future. The reason they are advocating national healthcare is that it will greatly reduce their financial burden. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Almost-half-of-top-unions-have-underfunded-pension-plans-47161957.html http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opi... (just a quick link -- i once saw a great list of pensions and their obligations but can't find it now)
    • DougWebb 16y ago
      When a programmer is willing to stay up two days straight to get done what they need to be done, that's one thing. When the programmer's company expects and demands that the programmer work 80-100 hours per week for six months at the 40 hour per week payrate because the management doesn't understand or care about estimation, scheduling, and sustainable productivity, that's another. I don't want a union that tells me I can't work more than 40 hours a week, but I wouldn't mind a union that forces my company to pay me for overtime when it's necessary. In the case of a start-up, that payment can be in the form of something deferred, like partial ownership of the company. As a start-up programmer I'm willing to take on some of the risk that the owners do, and contribute my time and effort towards making the start-up a success. But I expect to be rewarded for that too. The other thing I'd like a union for, and maybe this is more of a professional organization with some teeth, is to enforce some basic standard practices. I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and I find it appalling how seldom basic engineering practices are followed in the software development world. There's a wide variety of tools, practices, and processes in software development so I wouldn't want anything specific to be required, but some things are generic: - Use version control - Have and use a requirements definition process - Have and use an estimation process - Have and use a scheduling process that tries to keep a sustainable level of productivity - Provide developers with opportunities to improve their skills (as simple as a book budget and company time to study, up to in-house or out-of-house training) - Provide a career path, including both management and non-management tracks. (Programmers who don't want to manage shouldn't be stuck in dead-end positions.) A "professional organization with teeth" could be an organization that developers can join, which could audit employers work practices at the employers request. A positive audit could lead to a certification of that employer, which could make it easier for the employer to hire better developers from among the ranks of the organization. The organization could also provide training and certification to the developers for basic software engineering practices, relevant legal practices, etc, making them more appealing to the employers.
• eli 16y ago
  I would join a union that lobbied against, say, overreaching non-compete agreements and against age discrimination (a big problem in this industry). But the life of a programmer is typically not so bad to start with.
  • westbywest 16y ago
    I would agree with you on the potential benefit of a lightweight union that existed only for specific purposes, e.g. negotiating health care or lobbying on my behalf. A traditional labor union would, IMO, entail too much bureaucratic inertia to be of much utility to anyone in the field. Besides that, I have to ask how long this collective experience of programmers enjoying happy lives will last. My general observation is that the accepted value of that labor is cheapening rapidly, whether from scarcity of jobs, glut of available talent, or the general difficulties in remaining competitive when the skillset is often globally portable. My friend who basically left his engineering field to make more money cleaning pools strikes me as a demonstrative example.
• kiba 16y ago
  So long as employers are free to fire anybody for any reasons unless it is written in a contract specifying what reasons they can get fired. So long as people have the ability to work without being employed by a union. If people wants to form a union, fine with me, but don't drag me into it.
• mseebach 16y ago
  I think it's reasonable to distinguish "union" (collective bargaining) and "professional association" (which is what I understand the SO poster is talking about). It's pointless for programmers to do collective bargaining - our skills are simply too diverse. But to have a professional association that can create standard contracts, assist it's members in negotiating out of stupid IP clauses, perhaps create some certifications etc. isn't a bad idea.
  • _delirium 16y ago
    I think there are some companies at which a "company union" (something traditional labor activism doesn't like) could be useful. Essentially, all the employees in some particular class at a particular company (say, all the electrical engineers) negotiate some subset of employment terms as a group. It helps to level the playing field, because when you're one person negotiating individually against a corporation whose managers/staff are acting collectively on the other side, you're at a bit of a disadvantage--- it's very hard to negotiate away stuff that's embedded in corporate policy (say, noncompetes) just as an individual trying to get your own contract modified. Much easier if a large group of people together threaten to leave en masse if the terms aren't changed. This can sometimes be done without a formal union though; sometimes informal employee organizations can wield enough "soft power" to get objectionable things changed, especially if it's at an employer who's sensitive to morale and image. It's a bit less of a problem if you're at a company, usually a smaller one, where you can actually negotiate one-on-one with a manager or boss who has individual authority to negotiate a wide range of terms. Then you might be able to get objectionable terms removed, if the manager's reasonable and you're willing to compromise on other things (say, accept lower pay for more favorable terms). But if the manager's highly constrained by higher-ups and policy, you don't have a real negotiation.
    • yummyfajitas 16y ago
      But if the manager's highly constrained by higher-ups and policy, you don't have a real negotiation. Negotiation begins with shopping around. Any particular company may be unwilling to negotiate with you. That doesn't mean you can't negotiate, it just means you need to move on. Incidentally, big companies do respond to these issues. When people start leaving in droves, hiring policies are reviewed, and changes are made (or the company dies).
• axod 16y ago
  No. Unions are pure evil.
  • datapimp 16y ago
    You have unions to thank for this thing called 'The Weekend'. Pure evil right there. Let's not get out of hand.
    • axod 16y ago
      No I don't, if I don't want to work on the weekend, I don't. It looks like possibly the Unions had something to do with weekends in the US, so perhaps you're thanking them for that. I think globally the practice of resting on the sabbath goes slightly further back. Everyone has a choice. Either they decide to take a job or they don't. Unions are all about blackmail and holding employers to ransom. Unions are sort of a fun idea, but they end up as a 'them' vs 'us' mentality which quickly escalates to strikes and blackmail.
      • gte910h 16y ago
        You have to look at the history of unions in the UK as well then if you think it's only in the US they've done good: http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/timeline.php http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/timeline.php Strikes hurt the strikers far more than the negotiations they are an alternative to. No one wants strikes.
        • axod 16y ago
          I absolutely do not believe Unions to be a good thing. They're about bullying and mob mentality. Sorry, you won't convince me otherwise :/ If you decide to strike, you should be sacked. Simple. You've broken your side of a contract to work. Funny how the site there kinda glosses over the disastrous Union woes of the 70s, how the country was brought to its knees. Of course I'm not a Labour Party supporter at all, which is perhaps another reason I dislike Unions. The two go hand in hand. The Labour party is after all, bankrolled, and totally controlled by Unions. I disagree completely with the philosophies of both of them. They're about waste. Unfairness. etc etc
• ergo98 16y ago
  No
• petercooper 16y ago
  It's been a few years since the last time (pre-HN, even), but this idea keeps coming up over and over for major discussion in the programming world. Every time, there's a big discussion but the unionists never seem to get enough traction or have enough backbone to get it going. I can't see it happening, because most programmers are savvy enough to negotiate their own terms with employers on an individual basis if they care enough. Programmers, as a group, aren't usually as ignorant as groups who are protected by unions.
• cangrande 16y ago
  Union's are only a good idea in situations where collective bargaining is valuable. I believe that programmers already have such a unique skill, that is extremely un-commoditized, that it seems unnecessary.
• Zak 16y ago
  While I find a lot of the author's ideas useful, there's quite a bit of emphasis on certification. I think certification of programmers tends to be a mistake in that I've never heard of a credential (CS degrees included) that actually serves as substantial evidence that a person can produce usable code on demand. I find the comparison of programming to writing[0] useful here: passing a grammar test is not evidence that someone can write articles, essays or novels. When hiring a writer, one should examine samples of that person's writing. [0]This is not my idea, but I can't find the original source to cite it.
• teilo 16y ago
  A professional association that includes legal assistance in the event that a programmer is sued for patent infringement would be a great thing. There is something similar in the home school community: An organization that in addition to providing general support, coordination, recommendations, etc., also has professional attorneys specializing in that field, and who will defend their members in court when necessary.