4 ms·

> You can feel however you want about power, about not joining a union, about not paying dues, but the employer always has more power than the employee; they pa

> You can feel however you want about power, about not joining a union, about not paying dues, but the employer always has more power than the employee; they pay you a small fraction of the value you produce for them, you collect a paycheck at their leisure, and they can replace you more easily than you can find another job. "Balance of power between labor and management" doesn't mean 50:50. It means the employee has some leverage. The employer should have more power than the employee. Just like the president should have more power than the citizen, the general should have more power than the private, and the parent should have more power than the child. Power differentials are necessary. > The employer has a workforce and resources at their disposal, you bring to the table only your time. You can eschew unions all you want, but it's simply untrue to state that "a union is no more pure than management." Unions are pure when they are correcting an imbalance of power. They're corrupt when they're are accumulating power for its own sake. > I'm sorry you feel condescended to to be told this, presumably yet again. Perhaps we can find a way to preserve your feelings, because condescension isn't my intent; I'm just trying to address a century's worth of anti-union propaganda. After reading this paragraph, I have a really hard time believing that condescension isn't your intent. I don't think "unions are bad," I think they are a valid tool to correct power imbalances but they're just a tool, sometimes there is no power imbalance, and a union for programmers is a terrible idea. > By the way, labor organizing is significantly harder than volunteering at a soup kitchen. In the past, employers have hired private armies (the Pinkertons, etc) to attack and kill labor organizers; these days, despite it being illegal, employers often fire workers for legally-protected labor organizing activity. No one's being fired from a soup kitchen. Yeah, we've all heard the stories about Google putting out hits on dissident employees.

Frondo 7y ago
Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc". A unionized workplace doesn't mean you 1) need to join the union (closed shops are illegal in the US) or 2) be involved in the "grubby underhanded maneuvering for power" -- in a pragmatic sense because you can't be compelled to join a union, but more importantly because that is not what union activity is. What I would find far more convincing is an explanation of how a workplace like Google would be worse if it were a union shop. Lower pay? Nope, union shops consistently draw larger salaries for their workers. Less workplace safety? Nope, union shops consistently have fewer injuries than non-union shops. Fixed salary schedule? Nope, a technical union could easily be structured like SAG -- e.g. Tom Cruise doesn't have a salary cap. Can't fire a bad apple? That seems like a bad idea until someone decides you're the bad apple. I bet that Damore guy would've appreciated having a union rep sitting at the table with him in those HR meetings where they were going over his blog posts or whatever.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc". Really? My argument is very straightforward: > The solution is a balance of power between labor and management. In my case, I feel I have plenty of power. In the case of Google employees, I feel they have plenty of power. Broadly speaking, programmers (in the US) have plenty of power. > I don't think "unions are bad," I think they are a valid tool to correct power imbalances but they're just a tool, sometimes there is no power imbalance, and a union for programmers is a terrible idea. I'm not a cog in a machine. I have a significant amount of control over what I'm working on and who I'm working for and how that work gets done. > What I would find far more convincing is an explanation of how a workplace like Google would be worse if it were a union shop. Lower pay? Nope, union shops consistently draw larger salaries for their workers. Less workplace safety? Nope, union shops consistently have fewer injuries than non-union shops. Fixed salary schedule? Nope, a technical union could easily be structured like SAG -- e.g. Tom Cruise doesn't have a salary cap. Can't fire a bad apple? That seems like a bad idea until someone decides you're the bad apple. This is exactly my point. Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability. It's an employee cartel. The idea that agitating for a union is a moral endeavor is laughable. It's a moral endeavor when you're a serf or a coal miner.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    "Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability." Correct, and it is certainly your right to wish for less money and more work, even if that is an unorthodox position to take. Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers for, in your own words, less money and more work, however.
    - shaftway 7y ago
      > Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers... I'm under the impression that once a union takes hold of a company, you're required to join the union to work there. That was certainly the case when my spouse was a teacher. So, then, isn't fighting for a union shop also unfairly advocating on behalf of your coworkers?

Frondo 7y ago

Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc". A unionized workplace doesn't mean you 1) need to join the union (closed shops are illegal in the US) or 2) be involved in the "grubby underhanded maneuvering for power" -- in a pragmatic sense because you can't be compelled to join a union, but more importantly because that is not what union activity is. What I would find far more convincing is an explanation of how a workplace like Google would be worse if it were a union shop. Lower pay? Nope, union shops consistently draw larger salaries for their workers. Less workplace safety? Nope, union shops consistently have fewer injuries than non-union shops. Fixed salary schedule? Nope, a technical union could easily be structured like SAG -- e.g. Tom Cruise doesn't have a salary cap. Can't fire a bad apple? That seems like a bad idea until someone decides you're the bad apple. I bet that Damore guy would've appreciated having a union rep sitting at the table with him in those HR meetings where they were going over his blog posts or whatever.

leftyted 7y ago
> Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc". Really? My argument is very straightforward: > The solution is a balance of power between labor and management. In my case, I feel I have plenty of power. In the case of Google employees, I feel they have plenty of power. Broadly speaking, programmers (in the US) have plenty of power. > I don't think "unions are bad," I think they are a valid tool to correct power imbalances but they're just a tool, sometimes there is no power imbalance, and a union for programmers is a terrible idea. I'm not a cog in a machine. I have a significant amount of control over what I'm working on and who I'm working for and how that work gets done. > What I would find far more convincing is an explanation of how a workplace like Google would be worse if it were a union shop. Lower pay? Nope, union shops consistently draw larger salaries for their workers. Less workplace safety? Nope, union shops consistently have fewer injuries than non-union shops. Fixed salary schedule? Nope, a technical union could easily be structured like SAG -- e.g. Tom Cruise doesn't have a salary cap. Can't fire a bad apple? That seems like a bad idea until someone decides you're the bad apple. This is exactly my point. Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability. It's an employee cartel. The idea that agitating for a union is a moral endeavor is laughable. It's a moral endeavor when you're a serf or a coal miner.
- Frondo 7y ago
  "Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability." Correct, and it is certainly your right to wish for less money and more work, even if that is an unorthodox position to take. Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers for, in your own words, less money and more work, however.
  - shaftway 7y ago
    > Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers... I'm under the impression that once a union takes hold of a company, you're required to join the union to work there. That was certainly the case when my spouse was a teacher. So, then, isn't fighting for a union shop also unfairly advocating on behalf of your coworkers?