4 ms·

I don't think the perspectives on unionization in tech are representative of the perspectives of unionization in other industries. Unionization's primary purpos

I don't think the perspectives on unionization in tech are representative of the perspectives of unionization in other industries. Unionization's primary purpose is to increase the price of labor (in the form of wages, or in the form of increased benefits) by constricting supply. The going rate for job Y is $X, but if everyone that does job Y goes on strike and demands $X + $N then they can get higher wages. In tech, though, the demand for labor is already considerably higher than the supply. In my experience, tech unions are not concerned with traditional union topics (working hours, safety, etc.) but instead fall into two camps: * People that see the use of H1Bs as suppressing wages for American tech workers. This camp is often broadly against immigration in general, and is more closely aligned with the right. You won't encounter many of these in the Bay Area, but they do exist and are more prevalent in other parts of the country. * People who want to make tech companies even more progressive, often wanting more aggressive diversity representation OKRs and abolishing interviews. Some good ideas are present here (like ending forced arbitration) but this camp is often adverse to meritocracy which runs contrary to the ethics of many, if not most, tech workers. Really, software development and tech are fantastic jobs that pay well and have effectively zero risk of injury. Hours can be difficult in specific segments (e.g. Game Dev) but compensation as a function of work life balance is far better than the overwhelming majority of other industries.

jacquesm 7y ago
> Unionization's primary purpose is to increase the price of labor (in the form of wages, or in the form of increased benefits) by constricting supply. That's an interesting theory, but no, that is not Unionization's primary purpose. The primary purpose of Unionization is to make it possible for employees to collectively bargain about whatever subjects they see fit through a horizontal link between all employees in order re-balance the vastly asymmetric employer-employee relationship.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Right, and why is collective bargaining any more useful and individual bargaining? Because when individuals rejects the company's offer, the total supply of labor is nearly unchanged. When whole industries reject the companies offer, the supply of labor drops to zero (or to the subset of workers that aren't part of the union). Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met. Saying that unionization is about collective bargaining is a more long-winded way of saying the same thing. Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond: So in the end, you don't actually disagree that constricting the supply of labor is the primary purpose of unions. I agree that this discussion has been non-productive, so why did you bother kicking it off by trying to claim that this isn't how unions operate in your first reply?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > why is collective bargaining any more useful and individual bargaining Because collective bargaining means that the party with the largest resources and the power, in this case the company, will have to at least take into account their ability to operate. > Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met. Exactly. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that when that power is used appropriately. As evidenced by a very long history that turned out to be an extremely good thing. Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement. This whole discussion is right along the lines of 'what have the Romans ever done for us' from Monty Python.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement. Those things always get brought up but that's history from 50-75+ years ago. Got any more recent examples?
      - Frondo 7y ago
        Medical coverage is still very much a concern; Whole Foods just announced they were cutting benefits for part-time workers. Parental leave, workplace conditions, scheduling are other common things that are still very much up to unions to negotiate for, on behalf of their members.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        The best 'more recent example' that I can think of is that even 50-75 years later there is still a continuous struggle to get basics such as healthcare sorted out in such a way that the outcome of the lottery does not immediately mean bankruptcy for those lower on the totempole. If unions were to be massively disbanded you'd be back to square one in a heartbeat. It's a bit like marketing: if you stop doing it your marketshare will dwindle, even if you're top dog.
      - 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

> Unionization's primary purpose is to increase the price of labor (in the form of wages, or in the form of increased benefits) by constricting supply. That's an interesting theory, but no, that is not Unionization's primary purpose. The primary purpose of Unionization is to make it possible for employees to collectively bargain about whatever subjects they see fit through a horizontal link between all employees in order re-balance the vastly asymmetric employer-employee relationship.

manfredo 7y ago
Right, and why is collective bargaining any more useful and individual bargaining? Because when individuals rejects the company's offer, the total supply of labor is nearly unchanged. When whole industries reject the companies offer, the supply of labor drops to zero (or to the subset of workers that aren't part of the union). Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met. Saying that unionization is about collective bargaining is a more long-winded way of saying the same thing. Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond: So in the end, you don't actually disagree that constricting the supply of labor is the primary purpose of unions. I agree that this discussion has been non-productive, so why did you bother kicking it off by trying to claim that this isn't how unions operate in your first reply?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > why is collective bargaining any more useful and individual bargaining Because collective bargaining means that the party with the largest resources and the power, in this case the company, will have to at least take into account their ability to operate. > Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met. Exactly. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that when that power is used appropriately. As evidenced by a very long history that turned out to be an extremely good thing. Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement. This whole discussion is right along the lines of 'what have the Romans ever done for us' from Monty Python.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement. Those things always get brought up but that's history from 50-75+ years ago. Got any more recent examples?
    - Frondo 7y ago
      Medical coverage is still very much a concern; Whole Foods just announced they were cutting benefits for part-time workers. Parental leave, workplace conditions, scheduling are other common things that are still very much up to unions to negotiate for, on behalf of their members.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      The best 'more recent example' that I can think of is that even 50-75 years later there is still a continuous struggle to get basics such as healthcare sorted out in such a way that the outcome of the lottery does not immediately mean bankruptcy for those lower on the totempole. If unions were to be massively disbanded you'd be back to square one in a heartbeat. It's a bit like marketing: if you stop doing it your marketshare will dwindle, even if you're top dog.
    - 7y ago