4 ms·

> If you were an employee for/against software patents, how would you feel if the union actively campaigned and donated in the opposite direction? And if your

• humanrebar 8y ago
  Yes, we have this problem. Why would it be better by adding other lobbyists into the mix?
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• manfredo 8y ago
  Then you could change your employer. Outside of right-to-work states, you may have to change your entire field of employment in order to work in a non-unionized job.
  • door5 8y ago
    what if no employers in your field share your values?
    • manfredo 8y ago
      Sure that possiblity exists. But that scenario is a strict subset of the scenarios in which unionization would force people to support views to which they are opposed. If there is exactly one employer in your area you're hosed union or not.
      • munk-a 8y ago
        I disagree, in many cases people disagree with the opinions of organizations they join. Introducing sane gun regulations have polled above 66% but the representatives we have in washington won't touch that with a ten foot pole. Similarly a lot of labourers may share opinions that managers may disagree with, with how lobbying works the opinions of management and above are codified in lobbying efforts, unionization would allow the majority opinion to be expressed.
        • manfredo 8y ago
          True it allows the majority union opinion to be expressed. But it doesn't change the fact the workers are still enabling the company to spread it's message by virtue of working there. They can avoid the latter by working for a different company. Furthermore, there isn't anything that's preventing those employees from voicing their opinions without a union. The story linked in the OP is exactly that. Unless tech companies are firing thier employers for their political views, employees can make their views known regardless of union status. While we have seen a few instances of that, most were views that I doubt the average pro software developer union person wants to see defended (then again a lot of people proposing unionizing developers want to limit H1Bs so you never know). Contrast this with people who are against what the union is doing. The only way to avoid this is to leave the union. In some states (including California) this may mean leaving the entire field of work. Right to work states guarantee the ability to work without union membership, but many (most?) tech jobs are not in those States.
          • munk-a 8y ago
            I make enough that I have consciously chosen to work for a company that I endorse the values of. But this is the second job I have had after immigrating to Canada, the first one paid well and I needed work. Being able to quit a job over a moral objection is a painted as a luxury to most employees (whether it actually is a luxury or not... I think is less relevant than all the media we're fed reinforcing the fact that having a job is a privilege we're lucky to be allowed)
            • manfredo 8y ago
              I don't disagree that quitting one's job over political disagreement is a luxury for many, if not most people. But however hard it is to quit one's job, it is even harder to quit one's entire field - which is what is needed to avoid union membership is non right to work States. Thus to depict union membership as protecting workers' ability to avoid taking part in the endorsement of views is nonsensical. It is strictly harder to quit a union than to quit one's job. Because the latter not only involves quitting one's job, but also finding new employment in a different field.
      • door5 8y ago
        I have very left wing politics, socially and economically. A union is by nature far more likely to represent my views than any corporation. If your politics are "rich people should be able to do whatever they want, collaborate with whatever despicable organizations they like, treat employees however they like and have little oversight over their business", that is a justifiable reason to oppose unionization. I don't share those views, but that's the status quo, and it is almost completely inescapable in this industry.
        • manfredo 8y ago
          I think you're thinking a bit too coarse grained. Do you believe that teachers should get performance based pay? Plenty of liberal teachers think so, but they have no choice but to fund an organization that lobbies for the contrary. Same deal with unions in tech. Say you're in favor of immigration for high skilled workers. Most unions are against immigration when it has the potential to increase the supply of labor in their field (because increased supply = lower costs of labor).
          • door5 8y ago
            I always thought performance based pay was a very right wing proposal, supported by right wing organisations. I think that's a good point -- unions are not perfect and may support the interests of their members over the interests of other workers or society at large. However, in my view they are far preferable to any corporate board of directors, which represents only the interests of the owners of the company. Politics is struggle, it isn't just opting out of things you don't like, or else you'll end up a hermit. it's organizing for representation and power, and unions are one example of that kind of organization. An imperfect one, yes, but far preferable in my view to none at all
          • kiliantics 8y ago
            Performance-based pay just leads to gamification of the performance metric, not better teaching/education. Teachers should get paid a living wage, and that's what their unions should be working for. There are certainly unions with bad politics. The ideal is a union that is embedded as part of a broader pro-worker movement that supports migrants, women, other minorities, the unemployed, etc.