4 ms·

I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit, because I believe that compensation should be based purely on your individual

I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit, because I believe that compensation should be based purely on your individual skills and the market. I also believe that forced collective bargaining is unconstitutional, because it requires people to associate with a group that they don't want to associate with. If a group of people wish to collectively bargain with their employer, that's wonderful. But, they can leave me out of it, and I can do without whatever pay schedule and benefits they manage to extract from the employer. IMO the real issue with current law is that collective bargaining agreements must apply to all employees in a bargaining unit.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Except collective bargaining won't exist without that law. The free rider problem will destroy any possibility of collective bargaining. That's why I think it's disingenuous to say: If a group of people wish to collectively bargain with their employer, that's wonderful. But, they can leave me out of it, and I can do without whatever pay schedule and benefits they manage to extract from the employer. Well you can't really 'opt out' of the benefits of their negotiation in that way, and for the same reason you can't opt out of the union. You're not talking about a future with some unions where people can also choose to go it alone, you're talking about a future with no unions at all. At least be honest about that.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  Not necessarily true. If enough people find the union valuable, believe in its aims, and want to participate in it, then the employer can't afford to lose or alienate the union employees, so the union has negotiating power (proportional to the employees that participate). If enough people don't find the union valuable, don't believe in its aims, and don't want to participate in it, then the union will correctly have less negotiating power because it represents fewer people. People should be free to voluntarily associate with groups that represent them and their interests.
  - neuland 9y ago
    Absolutely. And an employer can choose to only hire union workers, too. I've seen a couple digital agencies that enthusiastically support unionization of their employees. They market to clients that they are a "union shop" and get business from people who support unionization. That's cool! People get to stand up for what they believe in and support businesses that operate according to their beliefs.
    - JoshTriplett 9y ago
      Agreed, that's completely reasonable. I just don't support enshrining that in law; that's the point at which it becomes rent-seeking.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Any corporation can break any union simply by refusing to negotiate only for union members. So say the union is fighting for a $1 raise and more pto. The corporation just says "okay, everyone, including non union members, gets a $1 raise and more pto." At that point why would you pay union dues? You can just freeride. To think that corporations won't behave this way is naive, they want to maximize free-riding benefit so that the union crumbles.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Except collective bargaining won't exist without that law. Collective bargaining still exists even in "right-to-work" states.
untog 9y ago
> I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit You realise that unions are something imposed on employers, right? They don't like them.
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > > I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit > You realise that unions are something imposed on employers, right? They don't like them. and a common first thing for the union to do is to force the employer to only hire union workers.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    I thought union shops were illegal in the USA per the NLRA. As I understand it, they can force you to pay a portion of dues (only stuff related directly to bargaining with your specific employer), but that's about it.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > I thought union shops were illegal in the USA. As I understand it, they can force you to pay dues, but that's about it. No, closed shops are illegal, but union shops aren't. An employer can no longer agree only to hire people who are already members of a union (that's a closed shop, which used to be legal), but they can force you to join a union after you are hired. If that's the case, if the union terminates your membership, the employer is forced to terminate your employment as well. (Ironically, the union can force you to pay dues even if you're not a member, but that's a separate matter.)
      - neuland 9y ago
        Right, this is what I'm talking about. I've mentioned this in another thread, too. If an employer chooses to require it's employees be members of a union, I think that's their right. But, I dislike (and think should not be legal) a group voting to unionize and then forcing their agreement onto other employees that don't want to be represented. To my current understanding, there are 2 stumbling blocks to that way of doing things. 1) Employees can force an employer to deal with a union and 2) the union must cover everyone in the bargaining unit. In my opinion, ideally both of those things would stop. A union can operate and negotiate on behalf of it's members. The union contract wouldn't cover non-members. And an employer can choose not to hire union workers.
geofft 9y ago
> I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit, because I believe that compensation should be based purely on your individual skills and the market. But that is the market, is it not? If your employer chooses to require all employees to negotiate as a unit, and is not required to do so by law, aren't they just doing that because they're a rational actor in the market? The law is a different question, yes, but the fundamental motivation is to prevent 80% of the company from negotiating, say, "We all get 1-hour lunch breaks" and the remaining 20% from benefiting from the negotiation because that's the rational thing for the company to do in that situation, thereby providing an incentive for people to remove themselves from the "agreement" and coast on it nonetheless. What would you do to solve this problem in other ways?
- tylerhou 9y ago
  And if the poster you replied to quits from his employer, isn't he just doing that because he's a rational (by his own metric of rationality) actor in the market? Presumably there is at least one un-unionized employer where he could get a job.
  - geofft 9y ago
    I mean, in a sense yes, but also his "rational" explanation is that he doesn't think employers should do X, he thinks employers should just behave as the market demands which clearly cannot include doing X, so I'm pushing back on whether that's actually a rational decision.
    - neuland 9y ago
      You're right that I think an employer should be able to choose who to hire or not hire. So, if an employer wants to be a union shop, that's fine. But, unionization is not something an employer really has a choice in currently. If people vote to form a union, the employer must deal with the union representation (to my understanding). What I'm saying is that an employer should be free to fire any employee (including for the explicit reason that they are a union member) and a group of employees should be able to strike and bargain as a unit if they like. But the union members shouldn't be able to force a non-member to strike or bargain with them. Edit: and the non-member employee shouldn't get any of the pay rates, benefits, or work rules that the union negotiates for it's members.
Avshalom 9y ago
>>compensation should be based purely on your individual skills First: Profit seeking organizations don't care about skill they care: about wait for it... profit which is the money you add vs the money you cost, which may be completely divorced from skill. Second: Literally nobody can accurately measure a specific individuals contribution, through skill or otherwise.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Well... you can try, to varying degrees of success. Commits, tickets, MTTR, sLOC. Not that any of those things can't be gamed if the culture demands it
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    %s/can't/won't/
s73ver_ 9y ago
"because I believe that compensation should be based purely on your individual skills and the market." It's not based on that now.
stale2002 9y ago
I 100% agree. I'd quit immediately from any job that forced me to join a union. I will not have someone else negotiating for me. I can do that on my own, thank you very much.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Except collective bargaining won't exist without that law. The free rider problem will destroy any possibility of collective bargaining. That's why I think it's disingenuous to say: If a group of people wish to collectively bargain with their employer, that's wonderful. But, they can leave me out of it, and I can do without whatever pay schedule and benefits they manage to extract from the employer. Well you can't really 'opt out' of the benefits of their negotiation in that way, and for the same reason you can't opt out of the union. You're not talking about a future with some unions where people can also choose to go it alone, you're talking about a future with no unions at all. At least be honest about that.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
Not necessarily true. If enough people find the union valuable, believe in its aims, and want to participate in it, then the employer can't afford to lose or alienate the union employees, so the union has negotiating power (proportional to the employees that participate). If enough people don't find the union valuable, don't believe in its aims, and don't want to participate in it, then the union will correctly have less negotiating power because it represents fewer people. People should be free to voluntarily associate with groups that represent them and their interests.
- neuland 9y ago
  Absolutely. And an employer can choose to only hire union workers, too. I've seen a couple digital agencies that enthusiastically support unionization of their employees. They market to clients that they are a "union shop" and get business from people who support unionization. That's cool! People get to stand up for what they believe in and support businesses that operate according to their beliefs.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    Agreed, that's completely reasonable. I just don't support enshrining that in law; that's the point at which it becomes rent-seeking.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Any corporation can break any union simply by refusing to negotiate only for union members. So say the union is fighting for a $1 raise and more pto. The corporation just says "okay, everyone, including non union members, gets a $1 raise and more pto." At that point why would you pay union dues? You can just freeride. To think that corporations won't behave this way is naive, they want to maximize free-riding benefit so that the union crumbles.
DrScump 9y ago
Except collective bargaining won't exist without that law. Collective bargaining still exists even in "right-to-work" states.

untog 9y ago

> I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit You realise that unions are something imposed on employers, right? They don't like them.

sigstoat 9y ago
> > I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit > You realise that unions are something imposed on employers, right? They don't like them. and a common first thing for the union to do is to force the employer to only hire union workers.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  I thought union shops were illegal in the USA per the NLRA. As I understand it, they can force you to pay a portion of dues (only stuff related directly to bargaining with your specific employer), but that's about it.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > I thought union shops were illegal in the USA. As I understand it, they can force you to pay dues, but that's about it. No, closed shops are illegal, but union shops aren't. An employer can no longer agree only to hire people who are already members of a union (that's a closed shop, which used to be legal), but they can force you to join a union after you are hired. If that's the case, if the union terminates your membership, the employer is forced to terminate your employment as well. (Ironically, the union can force you to pay dues even if you're not a member, but that's a separate matter.)
    - neuland 9y ago
      Right, this is what I'm talking about. I've mentioned this in another thread, too. If an employer chooses to require it's employees be members of a union, I think that's their right. But, I dislike (and think should not be legal) a group voting to unionize and then forcing their agreement onto other employees that don't want to be represented. To my current understanding, there are 2 stumbling blocks to that way of doing things. 1) Employees can force an employer to deal with a union and 2) the union must cover everyone in the bargaining unit. In my opinion, ideally both of those things would stop. A union can operate and negotiate on behalf of it's members. The union contract wouldn't cover non-members. And an employer can choose not to hire union workers.

geofft 9y ago

> I will quit from any employer that forces all programmers to negotiate as a unit, because I believe that compensation should be based purely on your individual skills and the market. But that is the market, is it not? If your employer chooses to require all employees to negotiate as a unit, and is not required to do so by law, aren't they just doing that because they're a rational actor in the market? The law is a different question, yes, but the fundamental motivation is to prevent 80% of the company from negotiating, say, "We all get 1-hour lunch breaks" and the remaining 20% from benefiting from the negotiation because that's the rational thing for the company to do in that situation, thereby providing an incentive for people to remove themselves from the "agreement" and coast on it nonetheless. What would you do to solve this problem in other ways?

tylerhou 9y ago
And if the poster you replied to quits from his employer, isn't he just doing that because he's a rational (by his own metric of rationality) actor in the market? Presumably there is at least one un-unionized employer where he could get a job.
- geofft 9y ago
  I mean, in a sense yes, but also his "rational" explanation is that he doesn't think employers should do X, he thinks employers should just behave as the market demands which clearly cannot include doing X, so I'm pushing back on whether that's actually a rational decision.
  - neuland 9y ago
    You're right that I think an employer should be able to choose who to hire or not hire. So, if an employer wants to be a union shop, that's fine. But, unionization is not something an employer really has a choice in currently. If people vote to form a union, the employer must deal with the union representation (to my understanding). What I'm saying is that an employer should be free to fire any employee (including for the explicit reason that they are a union member) and a group of employees should be able to strike and bargain as a unit if they like. But the union members shouldn't be able to force a non-member to strike or bargain with them. Edit: and the non-member employee shouldn't get any of the pay rates, benefits, or work rules that the union negotiates for it's members.

Avshalom 9y ago

>>compensation should be based purely on your individual skills First: Profit seeking organizations don't care about skill they care: about wait for it... profit which is the money you add vs the money you cost, which may be completely divorced from skill. Second: Literally nobody can accurately measure a specific individuals contribution, through skill or otherwise.

Karunamon 9y ago
Well... you can try, to varying degrees of success. Commits, tickets, MTTR, sLOC. Not that any of those things can't be gamed if the culture demands it
- Avshalom 9y ago
  %s/can't/won't/

s73ver_ 9y ago

"because I believe that compensation should be based purely on your individual skills and the market." It's not based on that now.

stale2002 9y ago

I 100% agree. I'd quit immediately from any job that forced me to join a union. I will not have someone else negotiating for me. I can do that on my own, thank you very much.