6 ms·

"Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand." Is there historical proof that this is more effective than

"Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand." Is there historical proof that this is more effective than a union effort?

FussyZeus 7y ago
That is basically a union effort. The cognitive dissonance on display with regard to labor in tech is fascinating. Many have internalized the propaganda created by big business that "unions are bad, unions are expensive, you don't want to unionize" and they aren't willing to revisit that internally, but they're like "what if we just organize without a union, refuse to work unless our demands are met" failing to realize that's exactly what a union is. Union dues aren't collected so somebody else can get paid for doing nothing. That somebody (or somebodies) else is your advocate. They know your industry like your bosses do, except they aren't on your bosses payroll, they're on YOURS, meaning they go to bat for YOU, not the company. And Union membership is often a requirement for working. Why? Because if it wasn't, the company would staff up on workers not wanting to be part of the union, until they had enough to survive the resulting strike, and fire all the union people. The effectiveness of corporate America's attack on organized labor over the last century cannot be overstated. They have done a fantastic job of demonizing any efforts at bargaining from the employee's side, and employee's wages demonstrate it.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  FWIW, what's amazing to someone like me, who is anti-union (in tech, at least), is that pro-union people don't seem to understand why people who have succeeded by being highly differentiated from the rest of the talent pool would want to participate in a scheme where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block.
  - simion314 7y ago
    >where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block. Maybe do what actors do?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      My understanding is that actors don't typically have a choice whether to join a union. SAG-AFTRA has enough power and preference agreements that you can't really make it in the industry without joining, even if you don't otherwise want to.
      - rstupek 7y ago
        You are mostly correct. You can do one off acting but any major production will only hire SAG artists
      - PeterisP 7y ago
        Possibly, but it doesn't have the problem of treating the actors as a homogeneous equally skilled block; "10X actors" are definitely getting adequate compensation while at the same time all guild members benefit from the common protections.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    I don't know where this perception comes from but it's not true. Collective bargaining isn't about the entire employee pool being represented as one skilled homogeneous block. It's about giving employees a voice at the decision-making tables in a company. I'm sure you've heard the myriad stories about where the decision makers at a company have done some damn boneheaded thing, something so rock stupid that could only come from never having worked on whatever ground floor the business has. And what can the employees do? Nothing. They have to comply because they don't have a voice, because if they argue, they're fired. If they don't do it, they're fired. THAT is what a union can fix, among tons of other problems. A smart boss is one that listens to his employees when they speak up about problems; a boss working with a union doesn't have a choice. And that's not to say that unions are perfect, like anything else made by humans and run by humans they have flaws. But IMO, problematic representation is better than no representation.
    - Animats 7y ago
      Right. Unions have their problems, but they provide considerable protection against arbitrary actions by management. Here's The Animation Guild, Local 839, IATSE, which represents Hollywood animators at the major studios.[1] Disney, Pixar, Warner, etc. This union is all creative people. They have salary floors, but not ceilings. Most usefully, they have overtime rules. Beyond 8 hours, time and a half. Weekends, time and a half. Crunches, double time. In Hollywood, management tries hard to avoid crunches, because they have to pay for them. The Animation Guild has a pension plan, which has, they point out, outlived all but two animation studios. The Animation Guild tried to organize game development companies. They got Pixar, but not EA. They used to send a labor organizer to Bay Area SIGGRAPH meetings. That's what Silicon Valley needs. [1] https://animationguild.org/ https://animationguild.org/
- ahelwer 7y ago
  I wouldn't categorize individual decisions to quit as union action. The whole point of unions is that collective action is massively more powerful than individual voluntary action.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  I would argue that the cognitive dissonance regarding labor from pro-union advocates is more fascinating. Anyone can organize themselves already, independent of organized labor laws - it's called a company. If employees are so confident in their abilities, they could just as well form their own company and sell their labor as a service back to their former employer. It doesn't make sense to have a special allowance for unions that forces everyone into collective bargaining and effectively a second, parallel management structure.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    How does trying to form a different company (which has additional concerns a union doesnt) deal with issues like noncompete, arbitration clauses, etc?
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      California is solving those issues by passing laws, which solves the problem for everyone, not just a subset.
    - whateveracct 7y ago
      It doesn't. The comment you're replying to completely discounts the systemic power imbalance at play that unionization is meant to counteract.
  - whateveracct 7y ago
    This is some capitalist nonsense.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and especially not name-calling ones and ideological battle ones. We're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - 7y ago
- nradov 7y ago
  That's an overly idealized view of unions. In practice union leaders are often going to bat for themselves rather than the members. The level of corruption in larger unions is off the charts. In principle I do support the right of workers to unionize. But the current implementation of unions in the US has a lot of problems.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    And this is an overly cynical one, painting all unions as the same despite them being individual entities, all composed of different people. Plenty of them have problems. Plenty more don't. Generalizing them all in this way is exactly how big business has demonized them to the average worker. If you're part of a union, you have say in how that union operates. Can you say the same for your employer?
    - pc86 7y ago
      Which are the unions without these problems?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > If you're part of a union, you have say in how that union operates. Really? I'd likely have very close to the same amount of say I have in my company, namely, zero. I might even have more in my company, depending on my position and the relative size. Honestly, you sound like a propagandist here.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  I agree completely. Going to work without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. Are there incompetent lawyers? Does it cost money to hire a lawyer? Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't a stupid idea to try to represent yourself pro se. Unfortunately, workers in the US have been the subject to the equivalent of a fifty year propaganda campaign bankrolled by prosecutors (business owners) to convince people they're really better off if they represent themselves pro se (without a union).

"Best way to incentivize the company to change is to have enough talent leave to force their hand." Is there historical proof that this is more effective than a union effort?

FussyZeus 7y ago

That is basically a union effort. The cognitive dissonance on display with regard to labor in tech is fascinating. Many have internalized the propaganda created by big business that "unions are bad, unions are expensive, you don't want to unionize" and they aren't willing to revisit that internally, but they're like "what if we just organize without a union, refuse to work unless our demands are met" failing to realize that's exactly what a union is. Union dues aren't collected so somebody else can get paid for doing nothing. That somebody (or somebodies) else is your advocate. They know your industry like your bosses do, except they aren't on your bosses payroll, they're on YOURS, meaning they go to bat for YOU, not the company. And Union membership is often a requirement for working. Why? Because if it wasn't, the company would staff up on workers not wanting to be part of the union, until they had enough to survive the resulting strike, and fire all the union people. The effectiveness of corporate America's attack on organized labor over the last century cannot be overstated. They have done a fantastic job of demonizing any efforts at bargaining from the employee's side, and employee's wages demonstrate it.

toasterlovin 7y ago
FWIW, what's amazing to someone like me, who is anti-union (in tech, at least), is that pro-union people don't seem to understand why people who have succeeded by being highly differentiated from the rest of the talent pool would want to participate in a scheme where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block.
- simion314 7y ago
  >where the entirety of labor is presented to an employer as a homogenous block. Maybe do what actors do?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    My understanding is that actors don't typically have a choice whether to join a union. SAG-AFTRA has enough power and preference agreements that you can't really make it in the industry without joining, even if you don't otherwise want to.
    - rstupek 7y ago
      You are mostly correct. You can do one off acting but any major production will only hire SAG artists
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      Possibly, but it doesn't have the problem of treating the actors as a homogeneous equally skilled block; "10X actors" are definitely getting adequate compensation while at the same time all guild members benefit from the common protections.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  I don't know where this perception comes from but it's not true. Collective bargaining isn't about the entire employee pool being represented as one skilled homogeneous block. It's about giving employees a voice at the decision-making tables in a company. I'm sure you've heard the myriad stories about where the decision makers at a company have done some damn boneheaded thing, something so rock stupid that could only come from never having worked on whatever ground floor the business has. And what can the employees do? Nothing. They have to comply because they don't have a voice, because if they argue, they're fired. If they don't do it, they're fired. THAT is what a union can fix, among tons of other problems. A smart boss is one that listens to his employees when they speak up about problems; a boss working with a union doesn't have a choice. And that's not to say that unions are perfect, like anything else made by humans and run by humans they have flaws. But IMO, problematic representation is better than no representation.
  - Animats 7y ago
    Right. Unions have their problems, but they provide considerable protection against arbitrary actions by management. Here's The Animation Guild, Local 839, IATSE, which represents Hollywood animators at the major studios.[1] Disney, Pixar, Warner, etc. This union is all creative people. They have salary floors, but not ceilings. Most usefully, they have overtime rules. Beyond 8 hours, time and a half. Weekends, time and a half. Crunches, double time. In Hollywood, management tries hard to avoid crunches, because they have to pay for them. The Animation Guild has a pension plan, which has, they point out, outlived all but two animation studios. The Animation Guild tried to organize game development companies. They got Pixar, but not EA. They used to send a labor organizer to Bay Area SIGGRAPH meetings. That's what Silicon Valley needs. [1] https://animationguild.org/ https://animationguild.org/
ahelwer 7y ago
I wouldn't categorize individual decisions to quit as union action. The whole point of unions is that collective action is massively more powerful than individual voluntary action.
throwawaysea 7y ago
I would argue that the cognitive dissonance regarding labor from pro-union advocates is more fascinating. Anyone can organize themselves already, independent of organized labor laws - it's called a company. If employees are so confident in their abilities, they could just as well form their own company and sell their labor as a service back to their former employer. It doesn't make sense to have a special allowance for unions that forces everyone into collective bargaining and effectively a second, parallel management structure.
- ergothus 7y ago
  How does trying to form a different company (which has additional concerns a union doesnt) deal with issues like noncompete, arbitration clauses, etc?
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    California is solving those issues by passing laws, which solves the problem for everyone, not just a subset.
  - whateveracct 7y ago
    It doesn't. The comment you're replying to completely discounts the systemic power imbalance at play that unionization is meant to counteract.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  This is some capitalist nonsense.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and especially not name-calling ones and ideological battle ones. We're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - 7y ago
nradov 7y ago
That's an overly idealized view of unions. In practice union leaders are often going to bat for themselves rather than the members. The level of corruption in larger unions is off the charts. In principle I do support the right of workers to unionize. But the current implementation of unions in the US has a lot of problems.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  And this is an overly cynical one, painting all unions as the same despite them being individual entities, all composed of different people. Plenty of them have problems. Plenty more don't. Generalizing them all in this way is exactly how big business has demonized them to the average worker. If you're part of a union, you have say in how that union operates. Can you say the same for your employer?
  - pc86 7y ago
    Which are the unions without these problems?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > If you're part of a union, you have say in how that union operates. Really? I'd likely have very close to the same amount of say I have in my company, namely, zero. I might even have more in my company, depending on my position and the relative size. Honestly, you sound like a propagandist here.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
I agree completely. Going to work without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. Are there incompetent lawyers? Does it cost money to hire a lawyer? Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't a stupid idea to try to represent yourself pro se. Unfortunately, workers in the US have been the subject to the equivalent of a fifty year propaganda campaign bankrolled by prosecutors (business owners) to convince people they're really better off if they represent themselves pro se (without a union).