4 ms·

All unions, nay all power structures, naturally evolve to serve the interests of the _current_ members. Because of this, seniority-based benefits and insulatin

All unions, nay all power structures, naturally evolve to serve the interests of the _current_ members. Because of this, seniority-based benefits and insulating bad apples from termination are traits that almost always show up in every union through convergent evolution.

tptacek 9y ago
Your comment creates the impression that without unions, developers wouldn't have to deal with "power structures". But to a pretty good first approximation every technology firm in the industry is a "power structure" --- a rigid and overt one, at that --- run by financiers and owners. So it's hard to see what rank-and-file professionals would have to lose from exercising their own market power, at least in your analysis.
- danielvf 9y ago
  And add a union to the current situation, and now you have two power structures over you, not one.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Yes, and you'll be a constituent of one of them, which is the argument for organizing.
    - apsec112 9y ago
      Being a constituent doesn't necessarily mean anything. Eg., Eric Garner was a constituent of New York City. NYC is democratically governed, and he had an equal right to vote. It didn't help him very much.
      - detcader 9y ago
        Being a constituent of X (in this context) means means X is expected to advocate for you. Thus Eric Garner wasn't a constituent of NYC, he was a constituent of his representatives, who may or may not have done a good job advocating for the safety of those interviewed or detained by the police. I don't see how constituency doesn't help here, because now we can hold reps responsible for advocating for better protection, whereas if no representative power structures existed in the US, what happened to Garner would happen all the time and we would still belong to Great Britain
        chimeracoder 9y ago
        > I don't see how constituency doesn't help here, because now we can hold reps responsible for advocating for better protection, New York politics (both city and state) are structured in a way that is unbelievably stable (to the status quo) and therefore all-but-impossible to use as a vehicle to effect meaningful change, even to a degree that's possible in other cities and states. In the case of Eric Garner, yes, it's true that (for example) the judge that ruled against releasing the records surrounding his death (effectively killing any chance at a lawsuit to force change) was up for re-election last year. However, because he has the support of the party machine in his district, the party chose not to run any other candidates against him[0][1]. Party affiliation laws make it all-but-impossible for more than one party to compete in any given district[2], and actually impossible for a third party to compete[3]. As a result, there was no reasonable way he could be unseated, even if literally every other person in the county (had refused to support him. Changing any of these laws to allow more influence from constituents requires the unanimous approval of the three ranking members of the government, who are also the leaders of the party, which means that they'd essentially have to actively give up their own power. Unsurprisingly, that hasn't happened. If you want to demonstrate that a democracy causes those in power to listen to their constituents, there is hardly a worse example than New York. [0] In New York, this is actually a prerogative of the party, believe it or not. [1] Technically, they ran eight candidates against him, but there were nine positions available, so all were guaranteed victory. [2] Think of it like Comcast and Time Warner - they "compete" with each other by divvying up territory that they each have a monopoly over. That's how New York state operates - the Republican and Democratic parties each "own" territory and have a gentleman's agreement not to compete too seriously in the others' turf. [3] The only way third parties can gain influence in New York is to cross-endorse a candidate from one of the major party lines. For example, the Working Families Party usually cross-endorses the Democratic candidate.
        detcader 9y ago
        Would publicly funded elections help this problem? I know NYC and some states have Fair Elections implemented in some form

tptacek 9y ago

Your comment creates the impression that without unions, developers wouldn't have to deal with "power structures". But to a pretty good first approximation every technology firm in the industry is a "power structure" --- a rigid and overt one, at that --- run by financiers and owners. So it's hard to see what rank-and-file professionals would have to lose from exercising their own market power, at least in your analysis.

danielvf 9y ago
And add a union to the current situation, and now you have two power structures over you, not one.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Yes, and you'll be a constituent of one of them, which is the argument for organizing.
  - apsec112 9y ago
    Being a constituent doesn't necessarily mean anything. Eg., Eric Garner was a constituent of New York City. NYC is democratically governed, and he had an equal right to vote. It didn't help him very much.
    - detcader 9y ago
      Being a constituent of X (in this context) means means X is expected to advocate for you. Thus Eric Garner wasn't a constituent of NYC, he was a constituent of his representatives, who may or may not have done a good job advocating for the safety of those interviewed or detained by the police. I don't see how constituency doesn't help here, because now we can hold reps responsible for advocating for better protection, whereas if no representative power structures existed in the US, what happened to Garner would happen all the time and we would still belong to Great Britain
      - chimeracoder 9y ago
        > I don't see how constituency doesn't help here, because now we can hold reps responsible for advocating for better protection, New York politics (both city and state) are structured in a way that is unbelievably stable (to the status quo) and therefore all-but-impossible to use as a vehicle to effect meaningful change, even to a degree that's possible in other cities and states. In the case of Eric Garner, yes, it's true that (for example) the judge that ruled against releasing the records surrounding his death (effectively killing any chance at a lawsuit to force change) was up for re-election last year. However, because he has the support of the party machine in his district, the party chose not to run any other candidates against him[0][1]. Party affiliation laws make it all-but-impossible for more than one party to compete in any given district[2], and actually impossible for a third party to compete[3]. As a result, there was no reasonable way he could be unseated, even if literally every other person in the county (had refused to support him. Changing any of these laws to allow more influence from constituents requires the unanimous approval of the three ranking members of the government, who are also the leaders of the party, which means that they'd essentially have to actively give up their own power. Unsurprisingly, that hasn't happened. If you want to demonstrate that a democracy causes those in power to listen to their constituents, there is hardly a worse example than New York. [0] In New York, this is actually a prerogative of the party, believe it or not. [1] Technically, they ran eight candidates against him, but there were nine positions available, so all were guaranteed victory. [2] Think of it like Comcast and Time Warner - they "compete" with each other by divvying up territory that they each have a monopoly over. That's how New York state operates - the Republican and Democratic parties each "own" territory and have a gentleman's agreement not to compete too seriously in the others' turf. [3] The only way third parties can gain influence in New York is to cross-endorse a candidate from one of the major party lines. For example, the Working Families Party usually cross-endorses the Democratic candidate.
        detcader 9y ago
        Would publicly funded elections help this problem? I know NYC and some states have Fair Elections implemented in some form