5 ms·

This isn't really a good thing. Unions do things like engage in age discrimination by favoring senior members over all else. They do things like throw up oppr

by stale2002 9y ago

This isn't really a good thing. Unions do things like engage in age discrimination by favoring senior members over all else. They do things like throw up oppressive barriers to entry, and limited licenses, in order to F over everyone who is not already in the club. Unions are only a good idea for exceptional 1 size fits all situations. For example, there are only a couple major airlines in the industry, and if you get fired or leave, your career is permanently messed up, even though you spent a decade training to be a pilot and getting the necessary flight hours. In this kind of situation, where an airline has excessive bargaining power, and workers have no other option, a pilots union makes sense. Even though a pilot job is a high skilled position. But for tech? No way. Engaging in collective bargaining to get the small amount of negotiation power just isn't worth the drawbacks of a 1 size fits all solution.

Clubber 9y ago
>Unions do things like engage in age discrimination by favoring senior members over all else. I think you mean unions negotiate for relatively higher pay for people who have been with the company longer, or with more experience, but it would also negotiate higher pay for new hires relative to a non-union shop. You're also thinking of manufacturing unions. I suspect a tech union would be a little different. Things like The Writer's Guild are also unions. I'd certainly be willing to try it. I suspect pay would at least double. I mean right now you hear about high demand for tech people, but wages don't reflect that. Unions would help that problem. Unions would also prevent offshoring which drives down wages.
- morgante 9y ago
  > I mean right now you hear about high demand for tech people, but wages don't reflect that. By what metric? Software developers can make $250k+ in SV. I have a hard time imagining pay doubling broadly. Only a small cohort of employers could sustain paying engineers $500k+, though I suppose it is possible.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Software developers wages have stagnated for at least the last 10 years. http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread/81424.html http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread/81424.html So I'll ask again, since developers are in such high demand, why do you think wages haven't increased?
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      Pretty much everything that article says about SF is wrong. A "small detached bungalow" in the suburbs will probably go for half what they suggest, and 120K is not subsistence wages. I currently live on less than that, in a nice area, spend money on things I want to, don't budget aggressively, and save a significant portion of my income. Sure, you probably won't be purchasing a family home on a single (entry level) income, but that's true in pretty much any suburban or urban area.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    That's in SV. And the vast, vast majority aren't making that.
    - observation 9y ago
      I know good people in Europe making 14k - 23k per year.
- stale2002 9y ago
  I am not going to support anyone or any group that plans on putting up barriers to entry or outright discrimination. If a company wants to hire someone, they deserve that job, and it is ridiculous that an uninvolved group would be able to stop that hire from happen. Them have different color skin, because they were born in an "off shore" country is no excuse to discriminate against them.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >I am not going to support anyone or any group that plans on putting up barriers to entry or outright discrimination. You mean like pointless tech quizzes on minutia that only a young college graduate with zero experience (and cheaper) would remember? >it is ridiculous that an uninvolved group would be able to stop that hire from happen. I don't believe unions prevent companies from hiring people. >Them have different color skin, Looking at tech companies, they don't seem to be bothered by skin tone. >because they were born in an "off shore" country is no excuse to discriminate against them. If they aren't citizens, there is absolutely an excuse to discriminate agains them, just like their "offshore" home country discriminates against foreign workers trying to work there. There have been countless articles about TATA and their ilk not only discriminating for positions in their home countries but for positions they've won the US.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      And that's called racism. I don't care if other countries discriminate against us. 2 wrongs don't make a right. I will not ever support an organization that is outright discriminatory like that, whether it is based on skin color or citizenship. Also, unions DO indeed prevent people from being hired. That's why right to work laws exist. Right to work is the idea that if a company hires you, it is illegal for a union to force you to join. There are companies where you are forced to join the union. Ex, the screen writers and actors guild require people who work at certain companies to join them.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        >And that's called racism. I don't care if other countries discriminate against us. Lol. No it isn't, it's called nationalism. Racism is about the race of a person regardless of citizenship, nationalism is about citizenship regardless of race. You probably should look up words before you throw them around. >I will not ever support an organization that is outright discriminatory like that, whether it is based on skin color or citizenship. That's a straw man. No one said anything about discriminating based on skin color except you. >Also, unions DO indeed prevent people from being hired. That's why right to work laws exist. Right to work is the idea that if a company hires you, it is illegal for a union to force you to join. So where in that sentence do you explain that a union can force a company not to hire you? >There are companies where you are forced to join the union. Ex, the screen writers and actors guild require people who work at certain companies to join them. Yes, the logic being is the union is the reason people get higher wages, so they should pay union dues to support the people (fellow employees) that earned those higher wages. Many states have done away with that though as a direct attempt to weaken unions. Here's a decent breakdown of the pros and cons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
jayess 9y ago
I used to be a school board member and have seen this first hand. Our unions preferred that we lay off younger teachers so that the more tenured ones could receive raises.
s73ver_ 9y ago
Who said anything about a 1 size fits all solution? Why do you insist that's how it has to be? The Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, and the Writers Guild don't work like that. Pro athlete unions don't work like that. Why would you think that tech would have to?
- stale2002 9y ago
  The whole point of those groups is to put up barriers to entry, which is something I extremely oppose. It is also about forcing people into their collective bargaining process. I do not want anyone else to ever negotiate for me. I will negotiate for myself, because I am the one person who is most incentived to look out for myself. Furthermore, once a union is established, it is very difficult to opt out. The screen actors, writers, ect guild have contracts with companies that FORCE you to join their group if you want to accept the job. I oppose that wholeheartedly. I will never support groups that either put put barriers to entry, force me to have them negotiate for me, or that attempt to force people into joining them on condition of employment. No. Instead of ever being put into a position where joining the union is a precondition for employment, I will just oppose unions in my industry before they can even get a foothold.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "The whole point of those groups is to put up barriers to entry, which is something I extremely oppose." No, it's not.
    - msla 9y ago
      Yes, it is. The whole point of a union is making labor more expensive to drive up wages.

Clubber 9y ago

>Unions do things like engage in age discrimination by favoring senior members over all else. I think you mean unions negotiate for relatively higher pay for people who have been with the company longer, or with more experience, but it would also negotiate higher pay for new hires relative to a non-union shop. You're also thinking of manufacturing unions. I suspect a tech union would be a little different. Things like The Writer's Guild are also unions. I'd certainly be willing to try it. I suspect pay would at least double. I mean right now you hear about high demand for tech people, but wages don't reflect that. Unions would help that problem. Unions would also prevent offshoring which drives down wages.

morgante 9y ago
> I mean right now you hear about high demand for tech people, but wages don't reflect that. By what metric? Software developers can make $250k+ in SV. I have a hard time imagining pay doubling broadly. Only a small cohort of employers could sustain paying engineers $500k+, though I suppose it is possible.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Software developers wages have stagnated for at least the last 10 years. http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread/81424.html http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread/81424.html So I'll ask again, since developers are in such high demand, why do you think wages haven't increased?
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Pretty much everything that article says about SF is wrong. A "small detached bungalow" in the suburbs will probably go for half what they suggest, and 120K is not subsistence wages. I currently live on less than that, in a nice area, spend money on things I want to, don't budget aggressively, and save a significant portion of my income. Sure, you probably won't be purchasing a family home on a single (entry level) income, but that's true in pretty much any suburban or urban area.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  That's in SV. And the vast, vast majority aren't making that.
  - observation 9y ago
    I know good people in Europe making 14k - 23k per year.
stale2002 9y ago
I am not going to support anyone or any group that plans on putting up barriers to entry or outright discrimination. If a company wants to hire someone, they deserve that job, and it is ridiculous that an uninvolved group would be able to stop that hire from happen. Them have different color skin, because they were born in an "off shore" country is no excuse to discriminate against them.
- Clubber 9y ago
  >I am not going to support anyone or any group that plans on putting up barriers to entry or outright discrimination. You mean like pointless tech quizzes on minutia that only a young college graduate with zero experience (and cheaper) would remember? >it is ridiculous that an uninvolved group would be able to stop that hire from happen. I don't believe unions prevent companies from hiring people. >Them have different color skin, Looking at tech companies, they don't seem to be bothered by skin tone. >because they were born in an "off shore" country is no excuse to discriminate against them. If they aren't citizens, there is absolutely an excuse to discriminate agains them, just like their "offshore" home country discriminates against foreign workers trying to work there. There have been countless articles about TATA and their ilk not only discriminating for positions in their home countries but for positions they've won the US.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    And that's called racism. I don't care if other countries discriminate against us. 2 wrongs don't make a right. I will not ever support an organization that is outright discriminatory like that, whether it is based on skin color or citizenship. Also, unions DO indeed prevent people from being hired. That's why right to work laws exist. Right to work is the idea that if a company hires you, it is illegal for a union to force you to join. There are companies where you are forced to join the union. Ex, the screen writers and actors guild require people who work at certain companies to join them.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      >And that's called racism. I don't care if other countries discriminate against us. Lol. No it isn't, it's called nationalism. Racism is about the race of a person regardless of citizenship, nationalism is about citizenship regardless of race. You probably should look up words before you throw them around. >I will not ever support an organization that is outright discriminatory like that, whether it is based on skin color or citizenship. That's a straw man. No one said anything about discriminating based on skin color except you. >Also, unions DO indeed prevent people from being hired. That's why right to work laws exist. Right to work is the idea that if a company hires you, it is illegal for a union to force you to join. So where in that sentence do you explain that a union can force a company not to hire you? >There are companies where you are forced to join the union. Ex, the screen writers and actors guild require people who work at certain companies to join them. Yes, the logic being is the union is the reason people get higher wages, so they should pay union dues to support the people (fellow employees) that earned those higher wages. Many states have done away with that though as a direct attempt to weaken unions. Here's a decent breakdown of the pros and cons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

jayess 9y ago

I used to be a school board member and have seen this first hand. Our unions preferred that we lay off younger teachers so that the more tenured ones could receive raises.

s73ver_ 9y ago

Who said anything about a 1 size fits all solution? Why do you insist that's how it has to be? The Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, and the Writers Guild don't work like that. Pro athlete unions don't work like that. Why would you think that tech would have to?

stale2002 9y ago
The whole point of those groups is to put up barriers to entry, which is something I extremely oppose. It is also about forcing people into their collective bargaining process. I do not want anyone else to ever negotiate for me. I will negotiate for myself, because I am the one person who is most incentived to look out for myself. Furthermore, once a union is established, it is very difficult to opt out. The screen actors, writers, ect guild have contracts with companies that FORCE you to join their group if you want to accept the job. I oppose that wholeheartedly. I will never support groups that either put put barriers to entry, force me to have them negotiate for me, or that attempt to force people into joining them on condition of employment. No. Instead of ever being put into a position where joining the union is a precondition for employment, I will just oppose unions in my industry before they can even get a foothold.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "The whole point of those groups is to put up barriers to entry, which is something I extremely oppose." No, it's not.
  - msla 9y ago
    Yes, it is. The whole point of a union is making labor more expensive to drive up wages.