7 ms·

Workers need unions, plain and simple. The addition of an impartial arbitrator at any step along this process could’ve helped so much.

ams6110 8y ago
"impartial arbitrator" No such thing. They are being paid by someone.
- wvenable 8y ago
  Right. So it's good to have someone on your side.
- plainOldText 8y ago
  Speaking of payments: I was actually amazed to find out how much certain union leaders make. Some of them are in the top 1%, with yearly salaries of over $400,000. [1] [1] https://laborpains.org/2018/06/04/union-president-pay-watch-2018/ https://laborpains.org/2018/06/04/union-president-pay-watch-...
  - rmrfrmrf 8y ago
    ...which is pennies compared to tech CEO salaries.
    - plainOldText 8y ago
      You're right, but please consider this: unions leaders are paper shufflers, bureaucrats, whereas tech CEOs are doers, risk takers and innovators; big difference.
      - metabagel 8y ago
        Depends on the tech CEO. A lot of them seem to be mainly concerned with 'innovating' the stock price higher. Also, union leaders aren't bureaucrats. Also, bureaucrats serve a useful function.
      - ardy42 8y ago
        > You're right, but please consider this: unions leaders are paper shufflers, bureaucrats, whereas tech CEOs are doers, risk takers and innovators; big difference. There's actually not a big difference, after one factors out the remarkable level of spin you've worked into your characterizations.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    For reference-- that's $318,160 more than Jeff Bezos' salary. That's insane. How is a union able to pay that much to their leader on the one hand, yet completely unable to help defend this Amazon employee against an abusive manager? If journalists focused on developer unions for even a fraction of the time they spend criticizing Amazon, I'd bet we'd have some blogs that sound just as damning as the one the author has written.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      The bulk of Bezos's compensation is all in his equity.
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        Sure, but that's because the company is doing better. If it stagnated then he would only make base salary. If the union does their job poorly the Union leader still gets paid.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > How is a union able to pay that much to their leader on the one hand, yet completely unable to help defend this Amazon employee against an abusive manager? Are you saying the Amazon has a developer union that could have helped defend this employee? Citation needed. AFAIK, developer unions have been advocated for, but don't actually exist (in a functional form, in the US at least).
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Speaking of payments: I was actually amazed to find out how much certain union leaders make. Some of them are in the top 1%, with yearly salaries of over $400,000. If you object that people in large-organization senior management roles can make that much, you won't believe what many corporate CEOs make. It'll blow your mind! https://laborpains.org/ https://laborpains.org/: > LaborPains is a joint blog of the Center for Union Facts and the Enterprise Freedom Action Committee. > We expose the truth about labor unions and the pain they impose upon free enterprise. So, basically garbage anti-union propaganda. You might as well have just linked this video https://youtu.be/ONKkoiszVSs?t=17 https://youtu.be/ONKkoiszVSs?t=17.
- tivert 8y ago
  > No such thing. They are being paid by someone. Having a union represent you at work is like having a lawyer represent you at court. Sure some rugged individualists choose to represent themselves pro se, but we all know how smart that is.
alecco 8y ago
I used to believe that. But I saw very close how an IT union was taken over by old school, corrupt fat union guys. And they just pander to the lowest common denominator. They go against meritocracy. I'd rather pay attention and vote with my feet.
- femiagbabiaka 8y ago
  agreed, unions have had issues akin to this across the board in the last decade or so, and it's extremely sad (to say the least). active worker participation and leadership of the union is the antidote to that.
- maximente 8y ago
  "divided we fall" is a cliche but may have some merit here, especially if this will be filled by another starry eyed immigrant visa holder who can be treated as such. the information asymmetry gap is just too high imo. there's other opportunities for organizing labor that don't include old-school unions. screen actors' guild is one example that, e.g., mandates various "newer" members get roles on films and seems to be really well regarded. a guild could serve techies as well. read up on some of michael o church's old blog about his ideas about organized labor in tech, but be careful espousing the same views as it very well might get you into irredeemable trouble.
  - 8ytecoder 8y ago
    Agreed. But the fight to keep management in check shouldn't devolve into a fight to keep the union leaders in check. What's the guarantee that won't happen?
    - maximente 8y ago
      i don't know, my first reaction is introduce democratic elements to the system as opposed to seniority but perhaps that's been done. "worst system but best we've had" and all that - at least labor would have a fighting chance
Tehchops 8y ago
Absolutely not. We don't want union cruft within a hundred miles of tech. It's already far too hard to shed incompetent people.
- vkou 8y ago
  I don't want corporate politics and all the worst parts of MBA culture within a hundred miles of tech, yet here we are. Solidarity is the only way that workers can negotiate on an even playing field.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    Always, it's insane how people who work in this tech can think about reshaping this social convention or disrupting that industry and still think that "nope, unions are inherently bad and always will be bad, there is no way for us innovators to redesign labor relations for the good of workers."
  - Tehchops 8y ago
    >I don't want corporate politics and all the worst parts of MBA culture within a hundred miles of tech, yet here we are. If you think politics isn't an implicit reality of any organized group of human beings, I've got a bridge to sell you.
    - vkou 8y ago
      I do think it is an implicit reality of any organized group of human beings, which is why I want a group that does it on my behalf, not just one that does it against my behalf. One may not like militarism, but even the most extreme anarcho-libertarians see the benefit in having a military to protect them. Unions are the same way. They are the only way you, as an employee, can meaningfully protect yourself.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      So sounds like you should be okay with the minimum amount of politics that unions have! At any rate, it's definitely arguable that office politics in tech have gotten worse and worse in the last few decades, as more money and money-men have poured into the industry. Compare Silicon Valley now to how it was prior to the Netscape IPO, and the toxicity has definitely grown. Politics may be inherent, but the type of politics can vary in quality and livability. Ditto for the politics in a union.
fareesh 8y ago
Wouldn't this situation and others like it simply devolve into an accusation and a denial? What can a truly impartial arbiter do in such a scenario?

ams6110 8y ago

"impartial arbitrator" No such thing. They are being paid by someone.

wvenable 8y ago
Right. So it's good to have someone on your side.
plainOldText 8y ago
Speaking of payments: I was actually amazed to find out how much certain union leaders make. Some of them are in the top 1%, with yearly salaries of over $400,000. [1] [1] https://laborpains.org/2018/06/04/union-president-pay-watch-2018/ https://laborpains.org/2018/06/04/union-president-pay-watch-...
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  ...which is pennies compared to tech CEO salaries.
  - plainOldText 8y ago
    You're right, but please consider this: unions leaders are paper shufflers, bureaucrats, whereas tech CEOs are doers, risk takers and innovators; big difference.
    - metabagel 8y ago
      Depends on the tech CEO. A lot of them seem to be mainly concerned with 'innovating' the stock price higher. Also, union leaders aren't bureaucrats. Also, bureaucrats serve a useful function.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > You're right, but please consider this: unions leaders are paper shufflers, bureaucrats, whereas tech CEOs are doers, risk takers and innovators; big difference. There's actually not a big difference, after one factors out the remarkable level of spin you've worked into your characterizations.
- jancsika 8y ago
  For reference-- that's $318,160 more than Jeff Bezos' salary. That's insane. How is a union able to pay that much to their leader on the one hand, yet completely unable to help defend this Amazon employee against an abusive manager? If journalists focused on developer unions for even a fraction of the time they spend criticizing Amazon, I'd bet we'd have some blogs that sound just as damning as the one the author has written.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    The bulk of Bezos's compensation is all in his equity.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      Sure, but that's because the company is doing better. If it stagnated then he would only make base salary. If the union does their job poorly the Union leader still gets paid.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > How is a union able to pay that much to their leader on the one hand, yet completely unable to help defend this Amazon employee against an abusive manager? Are you saying the Amazon has a developer union that could have helped defend this employee? Citation needed. AFAIK, developer unions have been advocated for, but don't actually exist (in a functional form, in the US at least).
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Speaking of payments: I was actually amazed to find out how much certain union leaders make. Some of them are in the top 1%, with yearly salaries of over $400,000. If you object that people in large-organization senior management roles can make that much, you won't believe what many corporate CEOs make. It'll blow your mind! https://laborpains.org/ https://laborpains.org/: > LaborPains is a joint blog of the Center for Union Facts and the Enterprise Freedom Action Committee. > We expose the truth about labor unions and the pain they impose upon free enterprise. So, basically garbage anti-union propaganda. You might as well have just linked this video https://youtu.be/ONKkoiszVSs?t=17 https://youtu.be/ONKkoiszVSs?t=17.
tivert 8y ago
> No such thing. They are being paid by someone. Having a union represent you at work is like having a lawyer represent you at court. Sure some rugged individualists choose to represent themselves pro se, but we all know how smart that is.

alecco 8y ago

I used to believe that. But I saw very close how an IT union was taken over by old school, corrupt fat union guys. And they just pander to the lowest common denominator. They go against meritocracy. I'd rather pay attention and vote with my feet.

femiagbabiaka 8y ago
agreed, unions have had issues akin to this across the board in the last decade or so, and it's extremely sad (to say the least). active worker participation and leadership of the union is the antidote to that.
maximente 8y ago
"divided we fall" is a cliche but may have some merit here, especially if this will be filled by another starry eyed immigrant visa holder who can be treated as such. the information asymmetry gap is just too high imo. there's other opportunities for organizing labor that don't include old-school unions. screen actors' guild is one example that, e.g., mandates various "newer" members get roles on films and seems to be really well regarded. a guild could serve techies as well. read up on some of michael o church's old blog about his ideas about organized labor in tech, but be careful espousing the same views as it very well might get you into irredeemable trouble.
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  Agreed. But the fight to keep management in check shouldn't devolve into a fight to keep the union leaders in check. What's the guarantee that won't happen?
  - maximente 8y ago
    i don't know, my first reaction is introduce democratic elements to the system as opposed to seniority but perhaps that's been done. "worst system but best we've had" and all that - at least labor would have a fighting chance

Tehchops 8y ago

Absolutely not. We don't want union cruft within a hundred miles of tech. It's already far too hard to shed incompetent people.

vkou 8y ago
I don't want corporate politics and all the worst parts of MBA culture within a hundred miles of tech, yet here we are. Solidarity is the only way that workers can negotiate on an even playing field.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Always, it's insane how people who work in this tech can think about reshaping this social convention or disrupting that industry and still think that "nope, unions are inherently bad and always will be bad, there is no way for us innovators to redesign labor relations for the good of workers."
- Tehchops 8y ago
  >I don't want corporate politics and all the worst parts of MBA culture within a hundred miles of tech, yet here we are. If you think politics isn't an implicit reality of any organized group of human beings, I've got a bridge to sell you.
  - vkou 8y ago
    I do think it is an implicit reality of any organized group of human beings, which is why I want a group that does it on my behalf, not just one that does it against my behalf. One may not like militarism, but even the most extreme anarcho-libertarians see the benefit in having a military to protect them. Unions are the same way. They are the only way you, as an employee, can meaningfully protect yourself.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    So sounds like you should be okay with the minimum amount of politics that unions have! At any rate, it's definitely arguable that office politics in tech have gotten worse and worse in the last few decades, as more money and money-men have poured into the industry. Compare Silicon Valley now to how it was prior to the Netscape IPO, and the toxicity has definitely grown. Politics may be inherent, but the type of politics can vary in quality and livability. Ditto for the politics in a union.

fareesh 8y ago

Wouldn't this situation and others like it simply devolve into an accusation and a denial? What can a truly impartial arbiter do in such a scenario?