7 ms·

>They should grow a spine and say no to ridiculous work conditions. YES! You're absolutely right! > They don’t need to unionize. Err... Why on earth not? Tha

>They should grow a spine and say no to ridiculous work conditions. YES! You're absolutely right! > They don’t need to unionize. Err... Why on earth not? That would literally be the definition of growing a spine and saying no to ridiculous work conditions but also having it be effective.

lovetocode 8y ago
I probably jumped the gun on the unionization part. I don’t know a lot about it but my impression of unions is not so bright. Maybe my ignorance is showing with that regard
- glitchc 8y ago
  It's all the propaganda corporations have been feeding you about how evil unions are. The wage stagnation of employees and stratospheric rise in senior management pay can be directly correlated to the decline of unions in North America.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    How can you tell you haven't been fooled by all the union propaganda about evil corporations are? Maybe the truth is in the middle? Unions died in the US by a mix of suicide and overreach. Unions are still glorified to kids as saving us from child labor (which they did!). The bulk of the negativity around unions comes from people old enough to observer the decline of the manufacturing industry. The unions weren't the cause but helped accelerate the decline.
- maxehmookau 8y ago
  My knowledge of unions is based entirely on the UK. They allow groups of employees who are subject to poor conditions to group together and participate in collective bargaining. Most programmers in the UK are not a member of a union as pay is fairly high and conditions relatively good, but the majority of public-sector and a lot of private-sector workers are. Unionising would be an excellent first step for employees fighting back. I see a lot of anti-union talk on HN, I don't think a lot of the criticism of unions I see here is fair.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnarn 8y ago
    > I see a lot of anti-union talk on HN That's because most people on HN are from the U.S. where a century of propaganda has convinced most people not only that poor people are lazy, but by extension that unions are evil, corrupt and lazy organizations infiltrated by organized crime. While this propaganda has a minority basis in reality in some cases, as all propaganda will have because propaganda can't be 100% fantasy and make-believe, it's an ignorant basis to take when discussing broad and general questions like unions as a concept. If you ask someone from Spain or Germany about unions and attempt to explain why they're "evil" from the US perspective, I can guarantee you will be met with complete disbelief. Most people in Europe may not actively be a part of a union, but they normally recognize them as beneficial entities in the labor market, and as something that will help balance the scales against employers of normally vastly larger influence, both politically and economically.
    - megous 8y ago
      There are/were some excesses, though. And if you ask an european about (union supported) rubber rooms, s/he would also express some disbelief. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city-22-million_n_1969749 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room
    - Funes- 8y ago
      >If you ask someone from Spain or Germany about unions and attempt to explain why they're "evil" from the US perspective, I can guarantee you will be met with complete disbelief. How can you possibly guarantee (no less!) what someone, regardless of where they come from, will say about any subject? You cannot complain about generalizations and broad statements, as in here: >...a century of propaganda has convinced most people not only that poor people are lazy, but by extension that unions are evil, corrupt and lazy organizations infiltrated by organized crime. And then try to fit reality into your own narrative at the same time without being a hypocrite. I will tell you this, though: CCOO and UGT (the two major trade unions in Spain) are publicly funded, which I find absolutely wrong. Moreover, they tend to be incredibly incompetent and useless in most cases. Of course, I'm drawing from my own personal experience and others' accounts of their own.
- diggan 8y ago
  Would be interesting to know exactly why you think (even if you know you don't know) unionization are not so good. So far on HN, I've noticed that people from the US seems to not like the idea at all about unionization while people from EU (me included!) see unionization as something good that protect workers. I do know that efforts around unionization are very strong in Europe, and helpful for the workers. Maybe there was a previously unsuccessful attempt in the US and peoples impression comes from that?
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    It’s a combination of multiple reasons. First, culturally, US Americans are much more individualist than most Europeans. (Obviously I am painting with broad strokes here, but it’s true in a general sense, on average). US Americans are somewhat less likely to feel solidarity or a sense of common cause with coworkers, and more likely to value the freedom to negotiate their contract on their own. They are also much more likely to distrust large organizations and bureaucracy, sometimes to an extreme extent that would be puzzling to Western and Northern Europeans. Rather than being on their side, many would perceive the union as just one more large bureaucracy trying to screw them. Third, there are many current examples of unions in the US that have made industries meaningfully less efficient. And highly-paid US Americans are less likely to see themselves as oppressed by their employers and more likely to see themselves as making common cause: after all, they have a common goal of making a lot of money. If my company, say, found it harder to fire low performers (an almost certain consequence of a union), it would be less efficient, make less profit, and be less able to pay me my current high salary. I hope I’ve genuinely answered your question and given you some insight into the mindset without implying either side is right or wrong. Just different viewpoints...
    - boomlinde 8y ago
      Some sensible (IMHO) responses: > US Americans are somewhat less likely to feel solidarity or a sense of common cause with coworkers, and more likely to value the freedom to negotiate their contract on their own. No one is negotiating their contracts on their own. A negotiation requires at least two parties, and when it comes to negotiating employment terms, one party typically had no problem incorporating and using that to their advantage. > They are also much more likely to distrust large organizations and bureaucracy, sometimes to an extreme extent that would be puzzling to Western and Northern Europeans. Yet some of the largest and most powerful organizations in the world are US based. For a place where so many buy their food at large restaurant and store chains, buy their internet and phone plans from large national service providers, trust large organizations like Google or Facebook with information about their browsing and communication habits and depend on large credit organizations and banks, this just doesn't strike me as true. Large, bureaucratic organizations thrive in the US and people love them. Maybe not meaningfully more than in European countries and probably even less, but to call it an extreme distrust is a mischaracterization IMO. > Third, there are many current examples of unions in the US that have made industries meaningfully less efficient. IMO this is an important point, but in a country with the GDP per capita of the US I think that there is some margin to improve conditions in a lot of industries, of course at the expense of some very rich people. The problem is that consumers cover that margin instead of shareholders.
- kcolford 8y ago
  This comment right here is why I love HN so much. Nowhere else on the internet do I see such civility and humility. Thank you for actively being a part of making this community so wonderful and inclusive. Not to say that the mods don't work hard at this as well nor that there aren't others who contribute positively here. This is just such a perfect example that I'd like to draw attention to it.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    This is not unique to or typical of HN.
  - organizenow 8y ago
    Inclusive is an interesting way of putting it.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  “Maybe my ignorance is showing with that regard” I commend you for saying this. Usually people just keep digging in and stick to their previous statement.
- Deinos 8y ago
  I originally downvoted that comment, but removed it based on this comment. It takes a lot of character to admit making rash generalizations. Kudos! Back on topic, I think unions are like anything else; if they are not well managed/maintained, they can become top heavy and easily corrupted. The key (much like any other organization) is consistent involvement from membership to keep the top honest... and move leaders along that don't have the organization's best interest at the forefront. While unionization is the formalized structure of collective bargaining, there is nothing keeping these individuals away from collective bargaining without forming an official union to do so.
  - lovetocode 8y ago
    > there is nothing keeping these individuals away from collective bargaining without forming an official union to do so. I think this is the main reason why I just "don't get" unions. Why do we have to put a name to it? Trying to understand unions, I guess it provides some sort of legitimacy to the organization. Or perhaps unions are more efficient at bargaining multiple issues simultaneously. I guess I am just really hung up on paying a union money.
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      > Why do we have to put a name to it? To set up a communications and decision-making structure. > hung up on paying a union money. Agreed. Am open to unions, but their worst tendencies such as significant monetary collection and (everyday) work obstruction should be against the rules. Just as anti-employee corporate policy should as well.
    - nabnob 8y ago
      Because without putting a name to it, you don't have the same level of organization. If you have a group of workers who organize collectively but don't have a real organization with a leadership structure, how do you vote and decide what your goals are? I know someone who's in a union as a mechanic. Her union dues are $50 and she gets fantastic benefits, that more than pay for the union dues.
    - meheleventyone 8y ago
- tomjohnneill 8y ago
  In the UK at least, there's also quite a few people working on 'reinventing the union' (e.g.: https://www.organise.org.uk/ https://www.organise.org.uk/ [1]). There's definitely an element to which old-school unions aren't particularly well suited to the modern workplace. For example, they don't work very well for freelancers/gig economy type jobs; and their traditional focus on job safety in factories/assembly lines doesn't really apply in the same way to programmers sitting at desks. [1] I'm not affiliated with them, but have met the team, and they seem like smart people.
- chobeat 8y ago
  If you like weekends and holidays, you like unions.
Helloworldboy 8y ago
Because there's a line out the door of young, fresh-out-of-college programmers and artists ready to replace them the instant they consider unionizing.
usefulcat 8y ago
A big part of the root cause of sucky gamedev working conditions (and I'm speaking mainly about developers here, as that is what I have first hand experience with) is the fact that a lot of people just really want to work on games and choose to put up with it. This is especially true for developers; there are plenty of developer jobs out there that are nothing like your typical game studio, and the skills that game developers have are not so unique to that industry that they couldn't find work elsewhere if they wanted to. So yes, unions are one way to try to solve that problem. But if you choose to advocate for that, just be aware that attempting to solve these problems via a union would result in trading one set of problems for another: you'd probably end up with better working conditions, at a cost of new, artificial barriers to entry for all those people who want to work in that industry. Maybe it would be worth it, I don't know, but given the root causes, it definitely seems like this tradeoff would exist.
- moate 8y ago
  Unions do not exist to protect potential members, they exist to protect actual members. Saying "it's harder to break into the industry" isn't going to discourage someone already in the industry. This actually does hit on the major difficulty in unionizing, which is that people want to make games. It seems fun. It feels rewarding to point to something bringing joy to your friends and family and go "I helped make that!" Because this feeling is so common, it's extremely easy to find someone to to do the job for less. If you're a cost minded manager (instead of a results minded manager) you might be willing to take on 3 dirt cheap juniors to do the work of one really expensive senior dev.
  - usefulcat 8y ago
    > Unions do not exist to protect potential members, they exist to protect actual members. Yes. Often (though not always) by increasing barriers to entry. Either directly, for example by requiring union membership, or indirectly, by increasing the cost of labor, which could mean that companies in the industry will higher fewer people in aggregate.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tertius 8y ago
Forming a union is not growing a spine. It's combining the wish of a spine with 100 others until you collectively have a spine. I'm not against unions, but his suggestion is about the individual.
merpnderp 8y ago
If you have two people equally passionate and capable about doing a job, but one wants more money for fewer hours and the other is happy with less money for more hours, why should the more costly, less productive person get the job?
- nf05papsjfVbc 8y ago
  Exactly! And of course this ought to go further and only the desperate are ultimately deserving of that job. They won't even demand safe working conditions. They'll be grateful for the opportunity. It's not slavery if the employer doesn't "own" that person.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    I'd prefer our improvements and working conditions come through the political process. That way it remains fair across the board without the lucky few who make it into unions, which nearly always become a good 'ol boy network, handing out favors to someone's cousins first, or beating the crap out of people who dare to not join them.

lovetocode 8y ago

I probably jumped the gun on the unionization part. I don’t know a lot about it but my impression of unions is not so bright. Maybe my ignorance is showing with that regard

glitchc 8y ago
It's all the propaganda corporations have been feeding you about how evil unions are. The wage stagnation of employees and stratospheric rise in senior management pay can be directly correlated to the decline of unions in North America.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  How can you tell you haven't been fooled by all the union propaganda about evil corporations are? Maybe the truth is in the middle? Unions died in the US by a mix of suicide and overreach. Unions are still glorified to kids as saving us from child labor (which they did!). The bulk of the negativity around unions comes from people old enough to observer the decline of the manufacturing industry. The unions weren't the cause but helped accelerate the decline.
maxehmookau 8y ago
My knowledge of unions is based entirely on the UK. They allow groups of employees who are subject to poor conditions to group together and participate in collective bargaining. Most programmers in the UK are not a member of a union as pay is fairly high and conditions relatively good, but the majority of public-sector and a lot of private-sector workers are. Unionising would be an excellent first step for employees fighting back. I see a lot of anti-union talk on HN, I don't think a lot of the criticism of unions I see here is fair.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hnarn 8y ago
  > I see a lot of anti-union talk on HN That's because most people on HN are from the U.S. where a century of propaganda has convinced most people not only that poor people are lazy, but by extension that unions are evil, corrupt and lazy organizations infiltrated by organized crime. While this propaganda has a minority basis in reality in some cases, as all propaganda will have because propaganda can't be 100% fantasy and make-believe, it's an ignorant basis to take when discussing broad and general questions like unions as a concept. If you ask someone from Spain or Germany about unions and attempt to explain why they're "evil" from the US perspective, I can guarantee you will be met with complete disbelief. Most people in Europe may not actively be a part of a union, but they normally recognize them as beneficial entities in the labor market, and as something that will help balance the scales against employers of normally vastly larger influence, both politically and economically.
  - megous 8y ago
    There are/were some excesses, though. And if you ask an european about (union supported) rubber rooms, s/he would also express some disbelief. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city-22-million_n_1969749 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rubber_Room
  - Funes- 8y ago
    >If you ask someone from Spain or Germany about unions and attempt to explain why they're "evil" from the US perspective, I can guarantee you will be met with complete disbelief. How can you possibly guarantee (no less!) what someone, regardless of where they come from, will say about any subject? You cannot complain about generalizations and broad statements, as in here: >...a century of propaganda has convinced most people not only that poor people are lazy, but by extension that unions are evil, corrupt and lazy organizations infiltrated by organized crime. And then try to fit reality into your own narrative at the same time without being a hypocrite. I will tell you this, though: CCOO and UGT (the two major trade unions in Spain) are publicly funded, which I find absolutely wrong. Moreover, they tend to be incredibly incompetent and useless in most cases. Of course, I'm drawing from my own personal experience and others' accounts of their own.
diggan 8y ago
Would be interesting to know exactly why you think (even if you know you don't know) unionization are not so good. So far on HN, I've noticed that people from the US seems to not like the idea at all about unionization while people from EU (me included!) see unionization as something good that protect workers. I do know that efforts around unionization are very strong in Europe, and helpful for the workers. Maybe there was a previously unsuccessful attempt in the US and peoples impression comes from that?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  It’s a combination of multiple reasons. First, culturally, US Americans are much more individualist than most Europeans. (Obviously I am painting with broad strokes here, but it’s true in a general sense, on average). US Americans are somewhat less likely to feel solidarity or a sense of common cause with coworkers, and more likely to value the freedom to negotiate their contract on their own. They are also much more likely to distrust large organizations and bureaucracy, sometimes to an extreme extent that would be puzzling to Western and Northern Europeans. Rather than being on their side, many would perceive the union as just one more large bureaucracy trying to screw them. Third, there are many current examples of unions in the US that have made industries meaningfully less efficient. And highly-paid US Americans are less likely to see themselves as oppressed by their employers and more likely to see themselves as making common cause: after all, they have a common goal of making a lot of money. If my company, say, found it harder to fire low performers (an almost certain consequence of a union), it would be less efficient, make less profit, and be less able to pay me my current high salary. I hope I’ve genuinely answered your question and given you some insight into the mindset without implying either side is right or wrong. Just different viewpoints...
  - boomlinde 8y ago
    Some sensible (IMHO) responses: > US Americans are somewhat less likely to feel solidarity or a sense of common cause with coworkers, and more likely to value the freedom to negotiate their contract on their own. No one is negotiating their contracts on their own. A negotiation requires at least two parties, and when it comes to negotiating employment terms, one party typically had no problem incorporating and using that to their advantage. > They are also much more likely to distrust large organizations and bureaucracy, sometimes to an extreme extent that would be puzzling to Western and Northern Europeans. Yet some of the largest and most powerful organizations in the world are US based. For a place where so many buy their food at large restaurant and store chains, buy their internet and phone plans from large national service providers, trust large organizations like Google or Facebook with information about their browsing and communication habits and depend on large credit organizations and banks, this just doesn't strike me as true. Large, bureaucratic organizations thrive in the US and people love them. Maybe not meaningfully more than in European countries and probably even less, but to call it an extreme distrust is a mischaracterization IMO. > Third, there are many current examples of unions in the US that have made industries meaningfully less efficient. IMO this is an important point, but in a country with the GDP per capita of the US I think that there is some margin to improve conditions in a lot of industries, of course at the expense of some very rich people. The problem is that consumers cover that margin instead of shareholders.
kcolford 8y ago
This comment right here is why I love HN so much. Nowhere else on the internet do I see such civility and humility. Thank you for actively being a part of making this community so wonderful and inclusive. Not to say that the mods don't work hard at this as well nor that there aren't others who contribute positively here. This is just such a perfect example that I'd like to draw attention to it.
- root_axis 8y ago
  This is not unique to or typical of HN.
- organizenow 8y ago
  Inclusive is an interesting way of putting it.
maxxxxx 8y ago
“Maybe my ignorance is showing with that regard” I commend you for saying this. Usually people just keep digging in and stick to their previous statement.
Deinos 8y ago
I originally downvoted that comment, but removed it based on this comment. It takes a lot of character to admit making rash generalizations. Kudos! Back on topic, I think unions are like anything else; if they are not well managed/maintained, they can become top heavy and easily corrupted. The key (much like any other organization) is consistent involvement from membership to keep the top honest... and move leaders along that don't have the organization's best interest at the forefront. While unionization is the formalized structure of collective bargaining, there is nothing keeping these individuals away from collective bargaining without forming an official union to do so.
- lovetocode 8y ago
  > there is nothing keeping these individuals away from collective bargaining without forming an official union to do so. I think this is the main reason why I just "don't get" unions. Why do we have to put a name to it? Trying to understand unions, I guess it provides some sort of legitimacy to the organization. Or perhaps unions are more efficient at bargaining multiple issues simultaneously. I guess I am just really hung up on paying a union money.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    > Why do we have to put a name to it? To set up a communications and decision-making structure. > hung up on paying a union money. Agreed. Am open to unions, but their worst tendencies such as significant monetary collection and (everyday) work obstruction should be against the rules. Just as anti-employee corporate policy should as well.
  - nabnob 8y ago
    Because without putting a name to it, you don't have the same level of organization. If you have a group of workers who organize collectively but don't have a real organization with a leadership structure, how do you vote and decide what your goals are? I know someone who's in a union as a mechanic. Her union dues are $50 and she gets fantastic benefits, that more than pay for the union dues.
  - meheleventyone 8y ago
tomjohnneill 8y ago
In the UK at least, there's also quite a few people working on 'reinventing the union' (e.g.: https://www.organise.org.uk/ https://www.organise.org.uk/ [1]). There's definitely an element to which old-school unions aren't particularly well suited to the modern workplace. For example, they don't work very well for freelancers/gig economy type jobs; and their traditional focus on job safety in factories/assembly lines doesn't really apply in the same way to programmers sitting at desks. [1] I'm not affiliated with them, but have met the team, and they seem like smart people.
chobeat 8y ago
If you like weekends and holidays, you like unions.

Helloworldboy 8y ago

Because there's a line out the door of young, fresh-out-of-college programmers and artists ready to replace them the instant they consider unionizing.

usefulcat 8y ago

A big part of the root cause of sucky gamedev working conditions (and I'm speaking mainly about developers here, as that is what I have first hand experience with) is the fact that a lot of people just really want to work on games and choose to put up with it. This is especially true for developers; there are plenty of developer jobs out there that are nothing like your typical game studio, and the skills that game developers have are not so unique to that industry that they couldn't find work elsewhere if they wanted to. So yes, unions are one way to try to solve that problem. But if you choose to advocate for that, just be aware that attempting to solve these problems via a union would result in trading one set of problems for another: you'd probably end up with better working conditions, at a cost of new, artificial barriers to entry for all those people who want to work in that industry. Maybe it would be worth it, I don't know, but given the root causes, it definitely seems like this tradeoff would exist.

moate 8y ago
Unions do not exist to protect potential members, they exist to protect actual members. Saying "it's harder to break into the industry" isn't going to discourage someone already in the industry. This actually does hit on the major difficulty in unionizing, which is that people want to make games. It seems fun. It feels rewarding to point to something bringing joy to your friends and family and go "I helped make that!" Because this feeling is so common, it's extremely easy to find someone to to do the job for less. If you're a cost minded manager (instead of a results minded manager) you might be willing to take on 3 dirt cheap juniors to do the work of one really expensive senior dev.
- usefulcat 8y ago
  > Unions do not exist to protect potential members, they exist to protect actual members. Yes. Often (though not always) by increasing barriers to entry. Either directly, for example by requiring union membership, or indirectly, by increasing the cost of labor, which could mean that companies in the industry will higher fewer people in aggregate.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

tertius 8y ago

Forming a union is not growing a spine. It's combining the wish of a spine with 100 others until you collectively have a spine. I'm not against unions, but his suggestion is about the individual.

merpnderp 8y ago

If you have two people equally passionate and capable about doing a job, but one wants more money for fewer hours and the other is happy with less money for more hours, why should the more costly, less productive person get the job?

nf05papsjfVbc 8y ago
Exactly! And of course this ought to go further and only the desperate are ultimately deserving of that job. They won't even demand safe working conditions. They'll be grateful for the opportunity. It's not slavery if the employer doesn't "own" that person.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  I'd prefer our improvements and working conditions come through the political process. That way it remains fair across the board without the lucky few who make it into unions, which nearly always become a good 'ol boy network, handing out favors to someone's cousins first, or beating the crap out of people who dare to not join them.