12 ms·

Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class

126 points by aaronbrethorst 8y ago

vharuck 8y ago
I'm not an economist, so I'm genuinely curious: does capitalism require treating unions and companies differently? Couldn't a union be considered a service company? Is there a reason beyond legal definitions and requirements?
popcorn49 8y ago
A nice piece with excellent points, especially as low-to-middle income wage earners see their piece of the pie cut more and more.
jaggederest 8y ago
I've often thought there should be a union in tech, similar to the way the directors guild and screen actors guild operate. Not to set maximums on compensation, but to set humane minimums and provide continuity and health insurance in a pooled way, perhaps.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  Also to lobby (e.g. in favour of trust busting, copyright/IP reform) and to provide a legal heavyweight that can take on systemic abuse like the wage fixing cartel from a few years ago.
- riffic 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13870540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13870540 for some pointers
- Kalium 8y ago
  Some of those guilds set minimums in part to provide barriers to entry. They're not solely acting in the interests of compassion and kindness. We do nobody any favors by pretending there's no economic logic at work.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Some of those guilds set minimums in part to provide barriers to entry. What you call a "barrier to entry", others might call "certification of some base level of quality". Yeah, if you sling spaghetti Javascript, we're not letting you in, or summat. I'm not saying it always does, or even will, work out that way, but it is one option.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      To the extent that guilds are active in ensuring a base level of quality, you're absolutely correct! Certainly I am not interested in writing - or hiring people who write - truly terrible code. It's just perhaps possible that not every currently existing and active guild that enforces minimum rates is also ensuring a minimum level of quality. This suggests that, in some times and some places, there can be a gap between what's possible and what's realized. You're completely right. Guilds can ensure quality!
    - majewsky 8y ago
      I would really like to have something like that, but we currently lack a baseline curriculum that defines this "base level of quality". Stuff that won't change over the course of a programmer's career. Most conventional wisdoms in our craft are little more than fads at this point. Just look at how many colleges teach object-oriented programming with Java, while many professionals declare OOP dead, a thing of the past, only to be found in legacy monstrosities.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        As an additional wrinkle, any baseline curriculum that involves any reasonable amount of computing theory will put a lot of self-taught professional software engineers on the outside. That seems like it might be a hurdle to getting buy-in.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  I would also like such a guild to remove people from the guild for intentionally performing law breaking(or unethical) behavior- such so that individual workers can say "I can't do that, my guild will oust me" and will take the heat off themselves. I'm not sure if actor/director guilds do this, though, I've only seen it in licensing orgs.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    There is a problem with that is how do you define what is "law breaking" / "unethical" - its not a Unions job to be judge an jury here also it would make it hard to recruit widely. And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations. Some actively call themselves guilds today - Writers Guild, Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild of America, etc. Should we not use their word of choice?
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Its problematic for a number of reasons the history of trade unions in the USA and also some of the historical functions of "guilds" run counter to the aims of modern trade unions. 19th century trade union cosplay isn't going to organise professionals in the 21st century or anyone else for that matter - I am sure even Keith Flett would agree with me.
- tuxxy 8y ago
  Interesting idea to incentivize startups to invite the union in. I wouldn't be against joining a union (and paying reasonable dues) if it means that I also have healthcare. Does that mean if I decide to start a venture, my venture will have healthcare from day 0? If so, that's a pretty neat idea. EDIT: I just also thought that the interests of a union of startup developers and union of enterprise/large-co developers are quite different. Does this mean there are two different unions?
  - jaggederest 8y ago
    In the case of DGA/SGA, it means that you get your healthcare from the union, not your employer. So as long as you're a union member in good standing (and the dues are substantial, just to be clear), you have healthcare coverage through them.
    - tuxxy 8y ago
      Well, healthcare costs are substantial. It's probably preferable that we offer employers the ability to either a) completely cover dues, or b) pay for the healthcare costs. My main gripe with Unions are the huge costs and the major lack of benefits people receive. I'd also prefer to join a Union that isn't hugely centralized and falls to the ills of bureaucracy.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  There are unions in tech in some European countries, for example IG Metal in Germany. I really appreciate the benefits I could enjoy thanks to their work. Additionally in countries where being an Informatics Engineer is a proper certified title, the college also helps in some negotiations.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Yeah, guilds for other creative industries seem like a better model for any tech unionization.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Note that one of the UK equivalent of ISATSE merged with the big Uk Tech / Scientific unions as there is a lot of commonality.
- darawk 8y ago
  Do you think there are software engineers making wages you would consider inhumane?
  - jaggederest 8y ago
    It's less about wages and more about work conditions. But I do know people on short contracts making less than I would consider humane wages. Certainly not in the SF bay area, but I'm not located there.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    Game Developers. Around $30-40k per year to live and work for 80 to 100 hours a week in locations where the cost of living is higher than average. Toss in a lack of job security (regular layoffs as projects complete and a ready supply of raw recruits) and it fits my definition of inhumane.
- barnesto 8y ago
  yep and then watch the continued increases in H2B visas or the outright offshoring to any number of Asian nations
mattdeboard 8y ago
This may not be the venue to get good answers but what are the likely costs of unionization in software? How would management respond to organized tech labor? What would be the economic impacts? Not looking for pro- or anti-union sloganeering, but real impacts. The economics of the tech sector would change dramatically with organized labor in computing, and I'm interested in how those changes would manifest.
- jtolmar 8y ago
  Software engineers would have extreme (maybe unprecedented?) striking power. It's an industry where the workers are needed for both interviewing and training, so hiring scabs would be extremely hard. Management knows that already, so they'll do whatever they can to stop unionization. Retaliating against attempts to unionize are illegal, but internal anti-union propaganda campaigns are common in other industries, and I think you can expect not just what already exists, but better-funded campaigns and targeted to people more like you. Management would also try other methods to get around the union. More outsourcing, contracting entire projects out and requesting documentation or support contracts. These don't work well - they always cost more than expected, take longer than expected, and are a pain to maintain - but they do work some, so with unions raising wages that'd move the bar towards a little more outsourcing. I'd also expect it to take management a while to relearn that outsourcing doesn't work very well, since it's been a while. Many companies will be willing to pay more for outsourced labor than union labor, because strong unions are a long-term threat to the investor class. If the union covers multiple companies it'll be more resistant to all of this and generally more effective. The effects on the workers depends on the union's goals and determination. The biggest test is its first strike; how many employees actually go through with it and how long can they last. That depends a lot on the strike fund; even though we're a wealthy industry that should be able to make a strong strike fund, I'd expect a lot of programmers to be suspicious about it (then again I've heard more union talk this year than I have in the rest of my career combined, so maybe they're coming around). I expect the union will achieve all of its goals, as software engineers will drastically underestimate how much striking power they have. Judging by conversations I've had, I'd expect priorities to be: major commitments to privacy/security/ethics/maintainability, improved working conditions (less dense open offices, maybe an end to open offices), and maybe more vacation time. Increased pay seems to be a low priority among workers I've talked to.
lgierth 8y ago
There's the relatively young Tech Workers Coalition: https://techworkerscoalition.org https://techworkerscoalition.org && https://twitter.com/techworkersco https://twitter.com/techworkersco
1999 8y ago
I haven't read the paper and I probably won't, but it seems suspicious to me that the 1940 to 1970 timeframe mentioned just happens to coincide with WW2 and the aftermath and recovery. If you aren't prepared to systematically destroy foreign cities and industry I don't think you can recreate those conditions.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  Generally, inequality increases during times of growth; it's a general rule that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer. It's during times of decline that you normally expect inequality to decline. After all, the rich collect the profits while the poor collect wages. Wages are relatively fixed while profits vary wildly.
  - yellowbuilding 8y ago
    This was a different situation. The union organizing was mostly done in the 30s, alongside voting FDR into office, then the war happened. When veterans came home with the VI Bill a lot of them went to college and got involved with the new science money (military industrial complex, etc.). In addition to the Kaynesian New Deal investments, America was just on top of the world and happened to upon the closest thing it had ever known to socialism.
- laurentoget 8y ago
  These were also the years where the soviet union was at its most threatening and keeping workers happy to reduce the attraction of communism was at the highest. After that threat vanished the gains in productivity have been used to reward investors rather than workers.
  - achillesheels 8y ago
    How does this correlate with the mass exodus of members of the communist party in America in the 1930s after hearing about the conditions in Stalin’s Russia?
gibsonf1 8y ago
Unions were great at stifling innovation and destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very wealthy Detroit. The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota Lean Production system in, as then you would need fewer workers. So in not allowing innovation, the unions were key factors in destroying entire industries which have now been built elsewhere. If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.
- peisistratos 8y ago
  > destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very wealthy Detroit And what destroyed the textile mills of North and South Carolina, which were barely organized at all? They were and still are the states with the lowest unionization rates in the country. The difference is Michigan union activists like Larry Page's grandfather sent his son to college, and then his son writes a search engine while doing his doctorate. Meanwhile, the profits of Carolina textile mills went elsewhere, and the people in those towns are worse off than ever.
- KoenDG 8y ago
  Plenty of countries have unions and their industries have no such problems. Not saying those things you describe didn't happen. However, one should wonder why almost the entire rest of the world manages to do this just fine.
- jshen 8y ago
  It’s funny that you consider China freer than America. It shows that what you mean by freedom isn’t really freedom.
  - gruez 8y ago
    Did GP ninja edit his post? I see no mention of china in his post.
    - 8y ago
mythrwy 8y ago
They did. Right before they didn't. It's a shame grassroots attempts to address exploitation usually turn into another form of exploitation if not out and out gangsterism. See: the communist revolution, the origins of the Italian Mafia, some cartels in Mexico. In the US unions did much good for society in general. But now we are saddled with things like public sector unions which do very much the opposite.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
chimeracoder 8y ago
The title "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" does the topic a great injustice, obfuscating the origins of many modern labor unions (including the AFL-CIO) as functional white supremacist organizations. If you were Chinese or Indian, unions were directly responsible for your deportation. If you were Japanese, unions were directly responsible for your family's forced internment. If you were Puerto Rican, unions were responsible for the genocide that was committed against your mother, wife, and daughter. The AFL wan't shy in the least about its intentions. If you read the contemporary writings of its leaders, as well as the mass media that they produced (flyers, pamphlets, etc.), they were very blatant about their desire to protect jobs for white members by stripping naturalized Americans of Asian descent of their citizenship and deporting them. The language that was used to describe Chinese workers mirrors the exact same dehumanizing comparisons to animals that were later used by the Nazis[0]. If you dislike the current US visa system, with its draconian system of per-country quotas, you have labor unions from the 1950s to thank for that as well. It's highly unpopular to talk about this, and so I fully expect to take a hit for bringing this up, but it needs to be said. [0] They even published a pamphlet which referred to the Chinese as a "race question" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)
- walshemj 8y ago
  Yes there are those issues but I suspect you are not not 100% commenting in good faith here.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > Yes there are those issues but I suspect you are not not 100% commenting in good faith here. I don't even know what this accusation is supposed to mean. Could you spell out what "bad faith" you are imputing here?
    - neonate 8y ago
      I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.
briandear 8y ago
Is wage stagnation an actual problem? Here’s a view challenging that premise: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/myths-of-inequality-and-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/myths-of-inequality-and-s...
- sjg007 8y ago
  You should consider your source here. The Brookings Institute has aggressively courted corporate donations so the article you cite may be biased. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/document-brookings.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/d...
csours 8y ago
Disclaimer: I work for an automaker with union representation. These are solely my own opinions. Yes, Unions did great things in the past, but I have the feeling that what got you here won't get you there. There's a whole heap of politics in this subject, but besides that, there just aren't a lot of clear cut wins anymore. I can think of a lot of things that would make things better for somebody, but they are things that would span multiple employers, something that current unions do not really address.
doh 8y ago
Related, at least in the sentiment https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-manufacturing-they-miss-unions/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-man...
LeanderK 8y ago
I am convinced that unions would have a positive impact even on high-paying and in-demand jobs like software-engineering. From vacations, protection against unfair practices (for example unfairy formulated shares in startups as compensations) to protection agains high-stress burnout-inducing enviroments, there is still a lot to do. It's just not really pressing because everything is good enough, so that's why it's not happenning (in my opinion).
danjayh 8y ago
He mentions the impact of globalization, but I think that it's a much bigger deal than he makes of it. For work that can easily be offshored (manufacturing, software dev, phone/online support, creative work, etc.) the obvious corporate response to unionization it to move shop. OTOH, for professions that can't easily be offshored (medical, local services such as fire/police/utilities, education, etc.), many are still heavily unionized. Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages). OTOH, software is already being offshored at a rapid pace (I really doubt whether I'd recommend that my children go into the profession), and I think that labor organization would only serve to accelerate that. Having said that, it probably could prevent some of the more egregious benefit erosions that plague our industry ("unlimited" vacation, anyone?) ... which would be nice while it lasted.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages). None of this is true. The AMA does not control training in the medical profession. That's determined by the number of residency positions available, which is capped by the AAMC, not the AMA. However, removing the cap wouldn't increase the number of positions, because those are funded by Medicare. The AMA does not control who can practice the profession either; only 25% of practicing physicians even belong to the AMA. (The AMA is also not a union because it does not invoke a monopoly claim over the members of a bargaining unit, which is something that basically every union in the US does - and conversely, something which basically no unions outside the US claim - but that's all a separate matter).
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gaius 8y ago
In Germany unions ensure that Workers get a fair share of the profits - and they understand that the company must be profitable in order for that to happen. But in the UK unions just want to destroy companies in an effort to smash capitalism, they exploit Workers even more than bosses do. It’s probably too late but we need German style unions here, then people would join.
johngalt 8y ago
There is definitely something missing in the current management/employee relationship. For example, the Wells Fargo account fraud issue. Where they had thousands of new accounts being opened without customer authorization. Caused by ratcheting sales mandates and mid level management pushing employees to open accounts fraudulently and firing those who objected. It showed an obvious lack of ability for the branch level employees to push back, and everyone involved being worse off for it. A more organized group of employees could have pushed back effectively and prevented a costly situation for Wells. This benefits more than just the workers. It's not like the shareholders were better off after having a bunch of fraudulent accounts opened to game sales metrics. In my opinion there are many business instances where a small problem becomes a large one because acknowledging a small problem would offset this quarters goals, or embarrass someone who has enough authority to prevent acknowledging it. This missing piece certainly looks union-shaped, but the problem is that any union strong enough to push back against bad policy is also strong enough to push back against good policy. Unions are also not immune to the same power dynamics where small problems can go unacknowledged. Rather than rehash the 1930s, what would a well coordinated 21st century organization look like? One that resists small numbers of managers risking the business just to make a bonus target, or pad their resumes? Yet is also able to take advantage of new efficiencies and market opportunities without employee revolt. Are there existing models that work that we could grow to cover other industries?
- yellowbuilding 8y ago
  Not really. Worker co-ops. Otherwise, the union just needs to implement the right policies as they do in Europe. The problem with unions in the US was largely that the big ones were often very integrated with the government and company owners; not a project so much of the workers.
akafred 8y ago
There needs to be a balance between the powers of employers, employees and government (as a regulator and moderator between the other two parties). I think any reasonable comparison of this power balance between the US and other successful democracies would show that employers have more power in the US than most places. I believe the US system of political clientelism has been especially unfavorable for US workers since the mid-nineties. Globalization has taken away their bargaining power, and politics have been taken over by business interests. I think this shift in the power structure is the major reason for the continued worsening of inequality-measures (e.g GINI-coefficient) in the US, to a level now only comparable to third world and less democratic countries.
Simulacra 8y ago
IMO: I don't like unions in politics. Organized labor has done a lot of good, but they need to stay out of politics.
- akafred 8y ago
  I don't like corporations in politics. Successful businesses have done a lot of good, but they need to stay out of politics. (Read: And as long as they are in politics the unions have to be, too.)
purplezooey 8y ago
We don't like unions because the right-wing Sinclair owned media outlets have spent years convincing people in the red states that they are bad.

I'm not an economist, so I'm genuinely curious: does capitalism require treating unions and companies differently? Couldn't a union be considered a service company? Is there a reason beyond legal definitions and requirements?

popcorn49 8y ago

A nice piece with excellent points, especially as low-to-middle income wage earners see their piece of the pie cut more and more.

jaggederest 8y ago

I've often thought there should be a union in tech, similar to the way the directors guild and screen actors guild operate. Not to set maximums on compensation, but to set humane minimums and provide continuity and health insurance in a pooled way, perhaps.

crdoconnor 8y ago
Also to lobby (e.g. in favour of trust busting, copyright/IP reform) and to provide a legal heavyweight that can take on systemic abuse like the wage fixing cartel from a few years ago.
riffic 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13870540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13870540 for some pointers
Kalium 8y ago
Some of those guilds set minimums in part to provide barriers to entry. They're not solely acting in the interests of compassion and kindness. We do nobody any favors by pretending there's no economic logic at work.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Some of those guilds set minimums in part to provide barriers to entry. What you call a "barrier to entry", others might call "certification of some base level of quality". Yeah, if you sling spaghetti Javascript, we're not letting you in, or summat. I'm not saying it always does, or even will, work out that way, but it is one option.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    To the extent that guilds are active in ensuring a base level of quality, you're absolutely correct! Certainly I am not interested in writing - or hiring people who write - truly terrible code. It's just perhaps possible that not every currently existing and active guild that enforces minimum rates is also ensuring a minimum level of quality. This suggests that, in some times and some places, there can be a gap between what's possible and what's realized. You're completely right. Guilds can ensure quality!
  - majewsky 8y ago
    I would really like to have something like that, but we currently lack a baseline curriculum that defines this "base level of quality". Stuff that won't change over the course of a programmer's career. Most conventional wisdoms in our craft are little more than fads at this point. Just look at how many colleges teach object-oriented programming with Java, while many professionals declare OOP dead, a thing of the past, only to be found in legacy monstrosities.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      As an additional wrinkle, any baseline curriculum that involves any reasonable amount of computing theory will put a lot of self-taught professional software engineers on the outside. That seems like it might be a hurdle to getting buy-in.
SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I would also like such a guild to remove people from the guild for intentionally performing law breaking(or unethical) behavior- such so that individual workers can say "I can't do that, my guild will oust me" and will take the heat off themselves. I'm not sure if actor/director guilds do this, though, I've only seen it in licensing orgs.
- walshemj 8y ago
  There is a problem with that is how do you define what is "law breaking" / "unethical" - its not a Unions job to be judge an jury here also it would make it hard to recruit widely. And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations. Some actively call themselves guilds today - Writers Guild, Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild of America, etc. Should we not use their word of choice?
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Its problematic for a number of reasons the history of trade unions in the USA and also some of the historical functions of "guilds" run counter to the aims of modern trade unions. 19th century trade union cosplay isn't going to organise professionals in the 21st century or anyone else for that matter - I am sure even Keith Flett would agree with me.
tuxxy 8y ago
Interesting idea to incentivize startups to invite the union in. I wouldn't be against joining a union (and paying reasonable dues) if it means that I also have healthcare. Does that mean if I decide to start a venture, my venture will have healthcare from day 0? If so, that's a pretty neat idea. EDIT: I just also thought that the interests of a union of startup developers and union of enterprise/large-co developers are quite different. Does this mean there are two different unions?
- jaggederest 8y ago
  In the case of DGA/SGA, it means that you get your healthcare from the union, not your employer. So as long as you're a union member in good standing (and the dues are substantial, just to be clear), you have healthcare coverage through them.
  - tuxxy 8y ago
    Well, healthcare costs are substantial. It's probably preferable that we offer employers the ability to either a) completely cover dues, or b) pay for the healthcare costs. My main gripe with Unions are the huge costs and the major lack of benefits people receive. I'd also prefer to join a Union that isn't hugely centralized and falls to the ills of bureaucracy.
pjmlp 8y ago
There are unions in tech in some European countries, for example IG Metal in Germany. I really appreciate the benefits I could enjoy thanks to their work. Additionally in countries where being an Informatics Engineer is a proper certified title, the college also helps in some negotiations.
ummonk 8y ago
Yeah, guilds for other creative industries seem like a better model for any tech unionization.
walshemj 8y ago
Note that one of the UK equivalent of ISATSE merged with the big Uk Tech / Scientific unions as there is a lot of commonality.
darawk 8y ago
Do you think there are software engineers making wages you would consider inhumane?
- jaggederest 8y ago
  It's less about wages and more about work conditions. But I do know people on short contracts making less than I would consider humane wages. Certainly not in the SF bay area, but I'm not located there.
- falcolas 8y ago
  Game Developers. Around $30-40k per year to live and work for 80 to 100 hours a week in locations where the cost of living is higher than average. Toss in a lack of job security (regular layoffs as projects complete and a ready supply of raw recruits) and it fits my definition of inhumane.
barnesto 8y ago
yep and then watch the continued increases in H2B visas or the outright offshoring to any number of Asian nations

mattdeboard 8y ago

This may not be the venue to get good answers but what are the likely costs of unionization in software? How would management respond to organized tech labor? What would be the economic impacts? Not looking for pro- or anti-union sloganeering, but real impacts. The economics of the tech sector would change dramatically with organized labor in computing, and I'm interested in how those changes would manifest.

jtolmar 8y ago
Software engineers would have extreme (maybe unprecedented?) striking power. It's an industry where the workers are needed for both interviewing and training, so hiring scabs would be extremely hard. Management knows that already, so they'll do whatever they can to stop unionization. Retaliating against attempts to unionize are illegal, but internal anti-union propaganda campaigns are common in other industries, and I think you can expect not just what already exists, but better-funded campaigns and targeted to people more like you. Management would also try other methods to get around the union. More outsourcing, contracting entire projects out and requesting documentation or support contracts. These don't work well - they always cost more than expected, take longer than expected, and are a pain to maintain - but they do work some, so with unions raising wages that'd move the bar towards a little more outsourcing. I'd also expect it to take management a while to relearn that outsourcing doesn't work very well, since it's been a while. Many companies will be willing to pay more for outsourced labor than union labor, because strong unions are a long-term threat to the investor class. If the union covers multiple companies it'll be more resistant to all of this and generally more effective. The effects on the workers depends on the union's goals and determination. The biggest test is its first strike; how many employees actually go through with it and how long can they last. That depends a lot on the strike fund; even though we're a wealthy industry that should be able to make a strong strike fund, I'd expect a lot of programmers to be suspicious about it (then again I've heard more union talk this year than I have in the rest of my career combined, so maybe they're coming around). I expect the union will achieve all of its goals, as software engineers will drastically underestimate how much striking power they have. Judging by conversations I've had, I'd expect priorities to be: major commitments to privacy/security/ethics/maintainability, improved working conditions (less dense open offices, maybe an end to open offices), and maybe more vacation time. Increased pay seems to be a low priority among workers I've talked to.

lgierth 8y ago

There's the relatively young Tech Workers Coalition: https://techworkerscoalition.org https://techworkerscoalition.org && https://twitter.com/techworkersco https://twitter.com/techworkersco

1999 8y ago

I haven't read the paper and I probably won't, but it seems suspicious to me that the 1940 to 1970 timeframe mentioned just happens to coincide with WW2 and the aftermath and recovery. If you aren't prepared to systematically destroy foreign cities and industry I don't think you can recreate those conditions.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
Generally, inequality increases during times of growth; it's a general rule that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer. It's during times of decline that you normally expect inequality to decline. After all, the rich collect the profits while the poor collect wages. Wages are relatively fixed while profits vary wildly.
- yellowbuilding 8y ago
  This was a different situation. The union organizing was mostly done in the 30s, alongside voting FDR into office, then the war happened. When veterans came home with the VI Bill a lot of them went to college and got involved with the new science money (military industrial complex, etc.). In addition to the Kaynesian New Deal investments, America was just on top of the world and happened to upon the closest thing it had ever known to socialism.
laurentoget 8y ago
These were also the years where the soviet union was at its most threatening and keeping workers happy to reduce the attraction of communism was at the highest. After that threat vanished the gains in productivity have been used to reward investors rather than workers.
- achillesheels 8y ago
  How does this correlate with the mass exodus of members of the communist party in America in the 1930s after hearing about the conditions in Stalin’s Russia?

gibsonf1 8y ago

Unions were great at stifling innovation and destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very wealthy Detroit. The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota Lean Production system in, as then you would need fewer workers. So in not allowing innovation, the unions were key factors in destroying entire industries which have now been built elsewhere. If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.

peisistratos 8y ago
> destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very wealthy Detroit And what destroyed the textile mills of North and South Carolina, which were barely organized at all? They were and still are the states with the lowest unionization rates in the country. The difference is Michigan union activists like Larry Page's grandfather sent his son to college, and then his son writes a search engine while doing his doctorate. Meanwhile, the profits of Carolina textile mills went elsewhere, and the people in those towns are worse off than ever.
KoenDG 8y ago
Plenty of countries have unions and their industries have no such problems. Not saying those things you describe didn't happen. However, one should wonder why almost the entire rest of the world manages to do this just fine.
jshen 8y ago
It’s funny that you consider China freer than America. It shows that what you mean by freedom isn’t really freedom.
- gruez 8y ago
  Did GP ninja edit his post? I see no mention of china in his post.
  - 8y ago

mythrwy 8y ago

They did. Right before they didn't. It's a shame grassroots attempts to address exploitation usually turn into another form of exploitation if not out and out gangsterism. See: the communist revolution, the origins of the Italian Mafia, some cartels in Mexico. In the US unions did much good for society in general. But now we are saddled with things like public sector unions which do very much the opposite.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

chimeracoder 8y ago

The title "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" does the topic a great injustice, obfuscating the origins of many modern labor unions (including the AFL-CIO) as functional white supremacist organizations. If you were Chinese or Indian, unions were directly responsible for your deportation. If you were Japanese, unions were directly responsible for your family's forced internment. If you were Puerto Rican, unions were responsible for the genocide that was committed against your mother, wife, and daughter. The AFL wan't shy in the least about its intentions. If you read the contemporary writings of its leaders, as well as the mass media that they produced (flyers, pamphlets, etc.), they were very blatant about their desire to protect jobs for white members by stripping naturalized Americans of Asian descent of their citizenship and deporting them. The language that was used to describe Chinese workers mirrors the exact same dehumanizing comparisons to animals that were later used by the Nazis[0]. If you dislike the current US visa system, with its draconian system of per-country quotas, you have labor unions from the 1950s to thank for that as well. It's highly unpopular to talk about this, and so I fully expect to take a hit for bringing this up, but it needs to be said. [0] They even published a pamphlet which referred to the Chinese as a "race question" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)

walshemj 8y ago
Yes there are those issues but I suspect you are not not 100% commenting in good faith here.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Yes there are those issues but I suspect you are not not 100% commenting in good faith here. I don't even know what this accusation is supposed to mean. Could you spell out what "bad faith" you are imputing here?
  - neonate 8y ago
    I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.

briandear 8y ago

Is wage stagnation an actual problem? Here’s a view challenging that premise: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/myths-of-inequality-and-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/myths-of-inequality-and-s...

sjg007 8y ago
You should consider your source here. The Brookings Institute has aggressively courted corporate donations so the article you cite may be biased. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/document-brookings.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/d...

csours 8y ago

Disclaimer: I work for an automaker with union representation. These are solely my own opinions. Yes, Unions did great things in the past, but I have the feeling that what got you here won't get you there. There's a whole heap of politics in this subject, but besides that, there just aren't a lot of clear cut wins anymore. I can think of a lot of things that would make things better for somebody, but they are things that would span multiple employers, something that current unions do not really address.

doh 8y ago

Related, at least in the sentiment https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-manufacturing-they-miss-unions/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-man...

LeanderK 8y ago

I am convinced that unions would have a positive impact even on high-paying and in-demand jobs like software-engineering. From vacations, protection against unfair practices (for example unfairy formulated shares in startups as compensations) to protection agains high-stress burnout-inducing enviroments, there is still a lot to do. It's just not really pressing because everything is good enough, so that's why it's not happenning (in my opinion).

danjayh 8y ago

He mentions the impact of globalization, but I think that it's a much bigger deal than he makes of it. For work that can easily be offshored (manufacturing, software dev, phone/online support, creative work, etc.) the obvious corporate response to unionization it to move shop. OTOH, for professions that can't easily be offshored (medical, local services such as fire/police/utilities, education, etc.), many are still heavily unionized. Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages). OTOH, software is already being offshored at a rapid pace (I really doubt whether I'd recommend that my children go into the profession), and I think that labor organization would only serve to accelerate that. Having said that, it probably could prevent some of the more egregious benefit erosions that plague our industry ("unlimited" vacation, anyone?) ... which would be nice while it lasted.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages). None of this is true. The AMA does not control training in the medical profession. That's determined by the number of residency positions available, which is capped by the AAMC, not the AMA. However, removing the cap wouldn't increase the number of positions, because those are funded by Medicare. The AMA does not control who can practice the profession either; only 25% of practicing physicians even belong to the AMA. (The AMA is also not a union because it does not invoke a monopoly claim over the members of a bargaining unit, which is something that basically every union in the US does - and conversely, something which basically no unions outside the US claim - but that's all a separate matter).
- vonmoltke 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gaius 8y ago

In Germany unions ensure that Workers get a fair share of the profits - and they understand that the company must be profitable in order for that to happen. But in the UK unions just want to destroy companies in an effort to smash capitalism, they exploit Workers even more than bosses do. It’s probably too late but we need German style unions here, then people would join.

johngalt 8y ago

There is definitely something missing in the current management/employee relationship. For example, the Wells Fargo account fraud issue. Where they had thousands of new accounts being opened without customer authorization. Caused by ratcheting sales mandates and mid level management pushing employees to open accounts fraudulently and firing those who objected. It showed an obvious lack of ability for the branch level employees to push back, and everyone involved being worse off for it. A more organized group of employees could have pushed back effectively and prevented a costly situation for Wells. This benefits more than just the workers. It's not like the shareholders were better off after having a bunch of fraudulent accounts opened to game sales metrics. In my opinion there are many business instances where a small problem becomes a large one because acknowledging a small problem would offset this quarters goals, or embarrass someone who has enough authority to prevent acknowledging it. This missing piece certainly looks union-shaped, but the problem is that any union strong enough to push back against bad policy is also strong enough to push back against good policy. Unions are also not immune to the same power dynamics where small problems can go unacknowledged. Rather than rehash the 1930s, what would a well coordinated 21st century organization look like? One that resists small numbers of managers risking the business just to make a bonus target, or pad their resumes? Yet is also able to take advantage of new efficiencies and market opportunities without employee revolt. Are there existing models that work that we could grow to cover other industries?

yellowbuilding 8y ago
Not really. Worker co-ops. Otherwise, the union just needs to implement the right policies as they do in Europe. The problem with unions in the US was largely that the big ones were often very integrated with the government and company owners; not a project so much of the workers.

akafred 8y ago

There needs to be a balance between the powers of employers, employees and government (as a regulator and moderator between the other two parties). I think any reasonable comparison of this power balance between the US and other successful democracies would show that employers have more power in the US than most places. I believe the US system of political clientelism has been especially unfavorable for US workers since the mid-nineties. Globalization has taken away their bargaining power, and politics have been taken over by business interests. I think this shift in the power structure is the major reason for the continued worsening of inequality-measures (e.g GINI-coefficient) in the US, to a level now only comparable to third world and less democratic countries.

Simulacra 8y ago

IMO: I don't like unions in politics. Organized labor has done a lot of good, but they need to stay out of politics.

akafred 8y ago
I don't like corporations in politics. Successful businesses have done a lot of good, but they need to stay out of politics. (Read: And as long as they are in politics the unions have to be, too.)

purplezooey 8y ago

We don't like unions because the right-wing Sinclair owned media outlets have spent years convincing people in the red states that they are bad.