4 ms·

1) Unions in America don’t have the same culture as unions wherever you are. There isn’t the same amount of trust here, and that means each side is just trying

1) Unions in America don’t have the same culture as unions wherever you are. There isn’t the same amount of trust here, and that means each side is just trying to take as much as they can, even if that eventually leads to each other’s destruction. 2) Do you not see the flaw in the logic of “something worked before, so we should keep doing it regardless of changing circumstances.” 3) American tech workers make much more than tech workers everywhere else (except Switzerland I think). Most companies know its better to give us great benefits and perks, give us autonomy and control over our work, not overwork us, etc. some startups are run by people who don’t know what they’re doing. Employees there should leave if they can.

djsumdog 9y ago
The amount of money a tech worker makes shouldn't really factor in. A personal example: Non-competes are banned in California. They're banned in Illinois .. if you make $13/hr or less. Why does your income change your rights? I've never signed a non-compete and refuse to. In the past most companies that had them would just take them out. "Oh they're not enforceable anyway, so if it makes you uncomfortable we'll remove it for you." I still sign NDAs, waver of patent rights, waver of copyright, anti-poaching, agree to all IP transfers, etc. etc. I just refuse to sign things that say "For 6 months after your employment with x .. you have to ask us if you can work for y" (I've never even worked for a direct competitor of a previous company). Lately it's been getting more and more difficult to fight for this right. It's getting to the point where I've considered moving back to California just because I know this right is protected by law. Tech workers don't have unions. We don't collectively bargain. But a lot of us also don't fully read contracts and hold to certain labor standards. And as a side note, if we had unions and they drove down wages a bit so everyone gets paid more fairly, wouldn't that help a lot in cities were rising wages drive a wedge into income inequality? People in Seattle and The Valley who run restaurants and Starbucks have to live pretty far away and commute 1 ~ 2 hours on a train/bus/car to be able to afford to live in cities where only a few decades ago, they could live and work easily within less than an hour bus commute. If unions could drive wages more equal (even if they'd go down a bit with everyone getting paid more equal), wouldn't that be beneficial? Wouldn't it be nice if everyone's wage wasn't a secret? If you're a Junior or Senior or SA-I or SA-II, everyone with that tile gets paid the same so everyone knows what everyone makes and you make that same amount no matter if you're black, white, male, female or other?
- taurath 9y ago
  First mover problem - nobody wants to take a pay cut when the carrot of homeownership is close but still so out of reach.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Housing is largely a positional good, so for that Starbucks employee to live close by, someone else has to commute. Building more housing makes it less accute, but there will always be people willing to deal with long commutes, so that is the behaviour you see. I mean, I work at a company that pays very well in NYC and I have co-workers with 1hr+ commutes because they traded off commute time for a nicer home.
unethical_ban 9y ago
>2) Do you not see the flaw in the logic of “something worked before, so we should keep doing it regardless of changing circumstances.” Do you not see the flaw in the logic "Something is imperfect, therefore discard it"? I work at one of the most rewarding (financially) Information Security employers in the country, I believe, and I enjoy most parts of my job. Does that mean I should not be allowed to coordinate with my coworkers on fair pay and overtime conditions? At what point should I "suck it up" and who gets to say?
- stickfigure 9y ago
  You're somebody I pay for a job done. You could leave me at any time if somebody else offers you more money, and, statistically, you're probably going to in about 2 years. You don't even have to give me 2 week's notice; that's just a courtesy. Employment is a voluntary relationship between two people. Sounds like you're trying to make it voluntary for you but not me.
  - unethical_ban 9y ago
    Just like we have a progressive tax structure, I believe most regulations regarding corporate obligations should be progressive. Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future. Maybe if your PTI is $100,000, and you're a local startup or a bar, or a small MSP, it's more reasonable that you need flexibility in staffing and can't support any "slack" in employee output. But yes, it is absolutely asymmetrical, to the benefit of the party that has the power to withstand ending the relationship more. Which one is that?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future. This is such a spurious comparison. First, it compares the workers wealth to the employer's wealth in an attempt to make a redistributive argument. Making it hard to fire people is not the way to tax the wealthy to help the less wealthy. There are much better measures for that. The second is that it conflates what you think is right as a narrator of the argument but with other people's money. It's always so easy to make other people pay for things you believe in!
marricks 9y ago
I think your point 1) is just a fantastic illustration of how effective companies have been at villianizing and attacking unions. For example, Walmart could stomach some unionized workers, but they straight up close down stores in retaliation, and I bet it's not just Walmart. Those stories then get played as "unions destroy jobs" when it's really companies are so beholden to stock holders they wont let workers get any standing to bargain. That's just one example, union busting and breaking is a business at this point and companies pay for advice and strategies. I get you're probably not trying to seem biased, but it just shows how deeply the US culture has turned against what seems like such a reasonable thing, workers being able to lobby together for fair treatment. Otherwise it's really just letting companies set the rules and workers being forced to play by them.
coliveira 9y ago
Most of the so-called abuses of unions happen only because employers don't want to negotiate fair conditions. They prefer to drive conditions to a dead-end instead of working with union leaders to promote shared interests. This way, they can demonize unions and increase their power over workers.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  That's usually not true. The strongest unions happen to be in the strongest jobs. This happens so because the strongest unions need to have the biggest funds, and the biggest funds come from the better paid workers. Cause and effect mix the other way around in public opinion. This is why the weakest and most populous workers actually dont have strong unions, because there's not enough money to build one.
rbobby 9y ago
> not overwork us, This stuck out to me. More than a few companies require developers to put in a lot of unpaid overtime in order to finish a project close to the original schedule. There's even a lovely name for it.... crunch time. It is endemic in the game industry, and pretty common in regular IT organizations. And don't a lot of startups, especially in the very early founding days, expect devs to put in long hours without additional compensation? And I worry that this has knock on effects such that some folks are locked out of employment opportunities. Got a young family or starting a family? No need to apply. Older and wiser and not willing to trade quality of life so the company can meet a busted schedule? No need to apply. At its core, unpaid overtime, is caused by management mistakes (unrealistic project schedule). And not often enough will managers face up to the consequences of their mistakes.

djsumdog 9y ago

The amount of money a tech worker makes shouldn't really factor in. A personal example: Non-competes are banned in California. They're banned in Illinois .. if you make $13/hr or less. Why does your income change your rights? I've never signed a non-compete and refuse to. In the past most companies that had them would just take them out. "Oh they're not enforceable anyway, so if it makes you uncomfortable we'll remove it for you." I still sign NDAs, waver of patent rights, waver of copyright, anti-poaching, agree to all IP transfers, etc. etc. I just refuse to sign things that say "For 6 months after your employment with x .. you have to ask us if you can work for y" (I've never even worked for a direct competitor of a previous company). Lately it's been getting more and more difficult to fight for this right. It's getting to the point where I've considered moving back to California just because I know this right is protected by law. Tech workers don't have unions. We don't collectively bargain. But a lot of us also don't fully read contracts and hold to certain labor standards. And as a side note, if we had unions and they drove down wages a bit so everyone gets paid more fairly, wouldn't that help a lot in cities were rising wages drive a wedge into income inequality? People in Seattle and The Valley who run restaurants and Starbucks have to live pretty far away and commute 1 ~ 2 hours on a train/bus/car to be able to afford to live in cities where only a few decades ago, they could live and work easily within less than an hour bus commute. If unions could drive wages more equal (even if they'd go down a bit with everyone getting paid more equal), wouldn't that be beneficial? Wouldn't it be nice if everyone's wage wasn't a secret? If you're a Junior or Senior or SA-I or SA-II, everyone with that tile gets paid the same so everyone knows what everyone makes and you make that same amount no matter if you're black, white, male, female or other?

taurath 9y ago
First mover problem - nobody wants to take a pay cut when the carrot of homeownership is close but still so out of reach.
Eridrus 9y ago
Housing is largely a positional good, so for that Starbucks employee to live close by, someone else has to commute. Building more housing makes it less accute, but there will always be people willing to deal with long commutes, so that is the behaviour you see. I mean, I work at a company that pays very well in NYC and I have co-workers with 1hr+ commutes because they traded off commute time for a nicer home.

unethical_ban 9y ago

>2) Do you not see the flaw in the logic of “something worked before, so we should keep doing it regardless of changing circumstances.” Do you not see the flaw in the logic "Something is imperfect, therefore discard it"? I work at one of the most rewarding (financially) Information Security employers in the country, I believe, and I enjoy most parts of my job. Does that mean I should not be allowed to coordinate with my coworkers on fair pay and overtime conditions? At what point should I "suck it up" and who gets to say?

stickfigure 9y ago
You're somebody I pay for a job done. You could leave me at any time if somebody else offers you more money, and, statistically, you're probably going to in about 2 years. You don't even have to give me 2 week's notice; that's just a courtesy. Employment is a voluntary relationship between two people. Sounds like you're trying to make it voluntary for you but not me.
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  Just like we have a progressive tax structure, I believe most regulations regarding corporate obligations should be progressive. Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future. Maybe if your PTI is $100,000, and you're a local startup or a bar, or a small MSP, it's more reasonable that you need flexibility in staffing and can't support any "slack" in employee output. But yes, it is absolutely asymmetrical, to the benefit of the party that has the power to withstand ending the relationship more. Which one is that?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future. This is such a spurious comparison. First, it compares the workers wealth to the employer's wealth in an attempt to make a redistributive argument. Making it hard to fire people is not the way to tax the wealthy to help the less wealthy. There are much better measures for that. The second is that it conflates what you think is right as a narrator of the argument but with other people's money. It's always so easy to make other people pay for things you believe in!

marricks 9y ago

I think your point 1) is just a fantastic illustration of how effective companies have been at villianizing and attacking unions. For example, Walmart could stomach some unionized workers, but they straight up close down stores in retaliation, and I bet it's not just Walmart. Those stories then get played as "unions destroy jobs" when it's really companies are so beholden to stock holders they wont let workers get any standing to bargain. That's just one example, union busting and breaking is a business at this point and companies pay for advice and strategies. I get you're probably not trying to seem biased, but it just shows how deeply the US culture has turned against what seems like such a reasonable thing, workers being able to lobby together for fair treatment. Otherwise it's really just letting companies set the rules and workers being forced to play by them.

coliveira 9y ago

Most of the so-called abuses of unions happen only because employers don't want to negotiate fair conditions. They prefer to drive conditions to a dead-end instead of working with union leaders to promote shared interests. This way, they can demonize unions and increase their power over workers.

conanbatt 9y ago
That's usually not true. The strongest unions happen to be in the strongest jobs. This happens so because the strongest unions need to have the biggest funds, and the biggest funds come from the better paid workers. Cause and effect mix the other way around in public opinion. This is why the weakest and most populous workers actually dont have strong unions, because there's not enough money to build one.

rbobby 9y ago

> not overwork us, This stuck out to me. More than a few companies require developers to put in a lot of unpaid overtime in order to finish a project close to the original schedule. There's even a lovely name for it.... crunch time. It is endemic in the game industry, and pretty common in regular IT organizations. And don't a lot of startups, especially in the very early founding days, expect devs to put in long hours without additional compensation? And I worry that this has knock on effects such that some folks are locked out of employment opportunities. Got a young family or starting a family? No need to apply. Older and wiser and not willing to trade quality of life so the company can meet a busted schedule? No need to apply. At its core, unpaid overtime, is caused by management mistakes (unrealistic project schedule). And not often enough will managers face up to the consequences of their mistakes.