5 ms·

So here's something I always wonder about when I see arguments that unions aren't necessary at tech companies like Google because the workers are highly compens

So here's something I always wonder about when I see arguments that unions aren't necessary at tech companies like Google because the workers are highly compensated and presumably well-treated: if we're all sure that's objectively the case, then why should management fight unionization efforts? Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? And, yes, one answer is "if there are no reasonable demands to be made, the union will make unreasonable ones," and sure, that's possible. Maybe newly-unionized employees will suddenly demand double bonuses, three months' paid vacation a year, and free ice cream for life. But I'm not convinced that's the real worry.

marcinzm 7y ago
>Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote in union leadership that promises to give them more? That's all fine except unions push for these benefits for existing members equally and only existing members. That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things.
- vageli 7y ago
  > >Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? > Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? By this logic every union pushes for every possible benefit. That doesn't seem to be the reality though (at least in the cases I've read, there are often concessions from both sides of th bargaining table).
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    Concessions are part of negotiating, you never ask for what you want, you ask for twice as much and bargain down. Union looks good for pushing hard and company looks good for getting a better deal. It's also more successful to increase the demands gradually over time since no single round of negotiations goes over the "replace them all with non-union" threshold even if together they do.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  > That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things. Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in recreating things from first principles, and claims to embody a spirit of invention, will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past? I thought our whole shtick was about innovating things for the better?
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    Silicon Valley is composed of humans with the same drives, limitations, etc. as everyone else. The fact that they think they're better than the rest of humanity doesn't mean they are. It just means they're more self delusional. Self delusion tends to make you repeat history more rather than less.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      You're still making the assumption that labor unions are inherently limited by human nature, and not worth attempting a v2. That goes against the SV ethos of tinkering with existing systems and reinventing them.
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
        Labor unions are inherently limited by human nature because they’re made up of humans, not cats. They’re also limited by economic facts which would be the same if they were made of lizard people. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth attempting version 2 but there are very real constraints on what’s possible.
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        But you could say the same thing of the various industries and basic social practices that the tech industry has disrupted.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  What does management have to lose by not pushing for every single way to reduce labor costs? If they didn't provide any benefits and got as close to the legal minimum wage as they could, think of all the savings! After all, the point of management isn't to do what's fair, but to extract maximum benefits for the company. Well, even though some labor cost-cutting is helpful to them, at some point that stops being the rational choice, right? At some point they're not going to be able to attract talented workers. Likewise, it's not in a union's best interest to demand so much they drive a company into bankruptcy, whether directly or indirectly. They might do it anyway -- just like there are, in fact, examples of companies driving good employees away through bad management practices -- but that's not a rational choice.

marcinzm 7y ago

>Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote in union leadership that promises to give them more? That's all fine except unions push for these benefits for existing members equally and only existing members. That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things.

vageli 7y ago
> >Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? > Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? By this logic every union pushes for every possible benefit. That doesn't seem to be the reality though (at least in the cases I've read, there are often concessions from both sides of th bargaining table).
- marcinzm 7y ago
  Concessions are part of negotiating, you never ask for what you want, you ask for twice as much and bargain down. Union looks good for pushing hard and company looks good for getting a better deal. It's also more successful to increase the demands gradually over time since no single round of negotiations goes over the "replace them all with non-union" threshold even if together they do.
Apocryphon 7y ago
> That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things. Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in recreating things from first principles, and claims to embody a spirit of invention, will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past? I thought our whole shtick was about innovating things for the better?
- marcinzm 7y ago
  Silicon Valley is composed of humans with the same drives, limitations, etc. as everyone else. The fact that they think they're better than the rest of humanity doesn't mean they are. It just means they're more self delusional. Self delusion tends to make you repeat history more rather than less.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    You're still making the assumption that labor unions are inherently limited by human nature, and not worth attempting a v2. That goes against the SV ethos of tinkering with existing systems and reinventing them.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Labor unions are inherently limited by human nature because they’re made up of humans, not cats. They’re also limited by economic facts which would be the same if they were made of lizard people. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth attempting version 2 but there are very real constraints on what’s possible.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        But you could say the same thing of the various industries and basic social practices that the tech industry has disrupted.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
What does management have to lose by not pushing for every single way to reduce labor costs? If they didn't provide any benefits and got as close to the legal minimum wage as they could, think of all the savings! After all, the point of management isn't to do what's fair, but to extract maximum benefits for the company. Well, even though some labor cost-cutting is helpful to them, at some point that stops being the rational choice, right? At some point they're not going to be able to attract talented workers. Likewise, it's not in a union's best interest to demand so much they drive a company into bankruptcy, whether directly or indirectly. They might do it anyway -- just like there are, in fact, examples of companies driving good employees away through bad management practices -- but that's not a rational choice.