4 ms·

This is FUD. There are seniority based unions, and there are merit based unions. Nothing about a union means you can't negotiate, have merit based promotion, et

This is FUD. There are seniority based unions, and there are merit based unions. Nothing about a union means you can't negotiate, have merit based promotion, etc. Also, as someone in tech, I constantly hear people talking about downleveling when they change jobs, I hear people talking about unclear promotion criteria, etc.

ralph84 7y ago
This. Some of the highest paid individual contributors in the world are actors and professional athletes. They're represented by unions.
- mrep 7y ago
  Aren't those industry wide unions whose main purpose is to set wage floors because there are so many people desperately trying to get into the industry that without them, employee conditions would be terrible for those just starting out? I don't think that is a problem for programmers and it is way different than a company specific union. If you want to start an industry wide programmer union, by all means, start one and then try and get people to join it. I'd love to hear what benefits you think I would get by joining an industry wide programmer union.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    Not a problem, yet...
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Hollywood unions are not industry-wide. The unions have only negotiated with the major studios and some of the more prolific independent studios. For example, Netflix hasn't (currently) entered into any agreements with the unions, though rumors are that Netflix will become sometime before the end of 2020.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    1) Wage floors (this is a problem in some parts of our industry. Game development, for instance. Maybe in other tech related fields like sysadmins? I'm less familiar.) 2) Healthcare benefits 3) Negotiating better IP control. Side projects, open source, etc. are locked down at various companies. There was a front page story about this today. 4) Better treatment for oncall. I know folks who have had to work for 17 consecutive hours for an incident and got nothing. 5) Better treatment for crunch -- tech workers in games have this particularly bad, but it's not limited to just that industry. 6) More control over how the company outsources/contracts with workers 7) All sorts of other side benefits that could be collectively funded -- union libraries, training, networks, publications, resources for new professionals, discounts on union developed software, etc. 8) Parental leave, sick time, and other basic benefits 9) Ensure and oversee processes to protect people who end up on the public stage. If you believe cancel culture is a thing, maybe having a union rep on hand and an established process for managing firings would be in your best interest. 10) Forced arbitration is another thing I'd consider talking with a union about. 11) Having a union rep on hand for HR proceedings
stale2002 7y ago
> Nothing about a union means you can't negotiate, have merit based promotion, etc. Yes there is. It is the fact that many unions do indeed do this. For whatever reason, people will often democratically choose to have stupid rules, such as seniority rules. The problem with a union is that if people democratically choose the dumb decision, then I am screwed. No thank you!
esoterica 7y ago
All unions are structurally designed to reward tenure. Current members of the union can vote but future members cannot, and current members have more seniority than future members, so union members will always vote to screw over the people who join the union after them.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  This is FUD, and runs counter to what players' unions in professional sports have actually done...every single time they've negotiated in the past decade.
  - esoterica 7y ago
    Have you never heard of rookie vs veteran contracts? Player unions are incredibly stacked in favor of senior players.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  > All unions are structurally designed to reward tenure. This is objectively false. I agree that some unions are structured this way. Maybe even most. But all is incorrect.
yellowapple 7y ago
> There are seniority based unions, and there are merit based unions. In my observation (going by reports from both my own teachers back in the day and from friends and family members who are teachers), teachers' unions are squarely in the former category. Tenured teachers get raises, competent teachers get pink slips.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  So, there are no competent, tenured teachers? And you aren't addressing what I'm saying. I acknowledge unions that promote/pay based on seniority. Those exist, 100%. They do not necessarily need to be the way a union operates. While it may be in the best interest for a union to reward people for how long they've been a working member of the union, it isn't the only structure that exists.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    > So, there are no competent, tenured teachers? My middle/high school teachers certainly seemed to have an inverse relationship between tenure and effectiveness, with maybe two exceptions. > They do not necessarily need to be the way a union operates. And you aren't addressing what I'm saying: sure, meritocratic unions might exist, but given that this is about teachers' unions specifically, and given that (at least in my observation, as anecdotal and therefore flawed as it may be) teachers' unions seem to very rarely (if ever) be meritocratic, any mention of "oh but unions can be meritocratic" without even so much as providing an example seems off-topic and irrelevant. Realistically, merit is much harder to measure than tenure. No surprise that tenure is consequently the more common metric by which teachers' unions measure the teachers thereof.

ralph84 7y ago

This. Some of the highest paid individual contributors in the world are actors and professional athletes. They're represented by unions.

mrep 7y ago
Aren't those industry wide unions whose main purpose is to set wage floors because there are so many people desperately trying to get into the industry that without them, employee conditions would be terrible for those just starting out? I don't think that is a problem for programmers and it is way different than a company specific union. If you want to start an industry wide programmer union, by all means, start one and then try and get people to join it. I'd love to hear what benefits you think I would get by joining an industry wide programmer union.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  Not a problem, yet...
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Hollywood unions are not industry-wide. The unions have only negotiated with the major studios and some of the more prolific independent studios. For example, Netflix hasn't (currently) entered into any agreements with the unions, though rumors are that Netflix will become sometime before the end of 2020.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  1) Wage floors (this is a problem in some parts of our industry. Game development, for instance. Maybe in other tech related fields like sysadmins? I'm less familiar.) 2) Healthcare benefits 3) Negotiating better IP control. Side projects, open source, etc. are locked down at various companies. There was a front page story about this today. 4) Better treatment for oncall. I know folks who have had to work for 17 consecutive hours for an incident and got nothing. 5) Better treatment for crunch -- tech workers in games have this particularly bad, but it's not limited to just that industry. 6) More control over how the company outsources/contracts with workers 7) All sorts of other side benefits that could be collectively funded -- union libraries, training, networks, publications, resources for new professionals, discounts on union developed software, etc. 8) Parental leave, sick time, and other basic benefits 9) Ensure and oversee processes to protect people who end up on the public stage. If you believe cancel culture is a thing, maybe having a union rep on hand and an established process for managing firings would be in your best interest. 10) Forced arbitration is another thing I'd consider talking with a union about. 11) Having a union rep on hand for HR proceedings

stale2002 7y ago

> Nothing about a union means you can't negotiate, have merit based promotion, etc. Yes there is. It is the fact that many unions do indeed do this. For whatever reason, people will often democratically choose to have stupid rules, such as seniority rules. The problem with a union is that if people democratically choose the dumb decision, then I am screwed. No thank you!

esoterica 7y ago

All unions are structurally designed to reward tenure. Current members of the union can vote but future members cannot, and current members have more seniority than future members, so union members will always vote to screw over the people who join the union after them.

gamblor956 7y ago
This is FUD, and runs counter to what players' unions in professional sports have actually done...every single time they've negotiated in the past decade.
- esoterica 7y ago
  Have you never heard of rookie vs veteran contracts? Player unions are incredibly stacked in favor of senior players.
Pfhreak 7y ago
> All unions are structurally designed to reward tenure. This is objectively false. I agree that some unions are structured this way. Maybe even most. But all is incorrect.

yellowapple 7y ago

> There are seniority based unions, and there are merit based unions. In my observation (going by reports from both my own teachers back in the day and from friends and family members who are teachers), teachers' unions are squarely in the former category. Tenured teachers get raises, competent teachers get pink slips.

Pfhreak 7y ago
So, there are no competent, tenured teachers? And you aren't addressing what I'm saying. I acknowledge unions that promote/pay based on seniority. Those exist, 100%. They do not necessarily need to be the way a union operates. While it may be in the best interest for a union to reward people for how long they've been a working member of the union, it isn't the only structure that exists.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > So, there are no competent, tenured teachers? My middle/high school teachers certainly seemed to have an inverse relationship between tenure and effectiveness, with maybe two exceptions. > They do not necessarily need to be the way a union operates. And you aren't addressing what I'm saying: sure, meritocratic unions might exist, but given that this is about teachers' unions specifically, and given that (at least in my observation, as anecdotal and therefore flawed as it may be) teachers' unions seem to very rarely (if ever) be meritocratic, any mention of "oh but unions can be meritocratic" without even so much as providing an example seems off-topic and irrelevant. Realistically, merit is much harder to measure than tenure. No surprise that tenure is consequently the more common metric by which teachers' unions measure the teachers thereof.