3 ms·

No. Not if you understand how unions work. Professional sports leagues have unions because they are necessary. There is exactly 1 league, and you’re required t

No. Not if you understand how unions work. Professional sports leagues have unions because they are necessary. There is exactly 1 league, and you’re required to sign exclusivity contracts with your team. You are owned by your team. You play for them, or you don’t play at all. You move your family to whatever shitty city bought your rights. Only rarely does a player get any say, unless they’re a superstar with a special contract. They’re also very prone to injuries that can take them out during their narrow prime earning window, and that risk needs to be hedged. As does the risk of permanent damage, including brain damage, by being required to play when it is not safe. And NBA players actually got paid very poorly before the union. Far worse than software engineers. They had no leverage. There are many reasons for players to have unions, and none of them apply to software developers. The Hollywood situation was similar. New actors were locked up in bad contracts. But generally, all of Hollywood is a mess of negotiations, unconventional and confusing compensation structures, scheming lawyers, and conflicts of interest all over the place. These also don’t really apply to software developers. We don’t have agents, royalties, multi-year exclusivity, or a huge population willing to fight for scraps and slave for free in hopes of getting a big break (game development - which has much more in common with Hollywood - being an exception). Unions are not free. The layer of bureaucracy that they introduce is a huge cost, and one that many companies cannot bear. Startups definitely can’t. Then you have to account for the widespread abuse by employees in unions. Your salary has to subsidize everybody who decides they’re going to be lazy and take a free ride by exploiting union rules. Those people are everywhere in unions. And it’s completely rational. Most people will do the minimum required for the maximum take, especially when there is no risk to doing so. Sometimes, this cost is worth it. But, if we ranked industries in need of a union, I can’t really think of anything that would have less need for a union than software development.

criddell 7y ago
> There are many reasons for players to have unions, and none of them apply to software developers. There are analogs to some of the things you listed. For example, exclusivity contracts sounds a lot like non-compete agreements. You play for them, or you don't play at all sound like employment agreements where the employer demands rights to everything you create during your time of employment. You move your family to whatever shitty city bought your rights sounds a lot like being transferred to some place you don't want to go.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  I think your analogs are superficial. An NBA player have exactly one employer (the NBA) to work for. I have far greater mobility career wise. Nothing beats this difference.
- noirbot 7y ago
  They're analogs in only the most surface way though. There's no "Computer Science Draft" where companies get to pick you and lock you into a contract that you must accept no matter which company it is. Sure, things like non-competes and inventions clauses are restrictive, but not even within the ballpark of the restrictions on most sports contracts. Most leagues make it literally impossible for you to "change jobs" to a different team AT ALL for years at a time, while at the same time reserving the right for them to transfer you to any other job they want. Sure, Google or whoever might try to transfer you to a different office, but you have the option to quit and try to find another job in the same city. Most athletes, if they're being traded from LA to Boston can either A. Move as commanded or B. Retire completely forever unless they move to another country. Being forced to quit and find a new job in the same industry sucks, but it's better than forced retirement...
- topkai22 7y ago
  Not really- non-compete agreements are very hard to enforce in many jurisdictions, and even where enforceable are limited in scope- you might be able to go from working on a check clearing system at one company to another company working on a check clearing system, but going from working on a check clearing system to working on software for medical equipment is going to be OK. Also, unions may not necessarily be interested in ending non-compete- they have a vested interest on keeping union employees within union employers. Your other two examples are completely different- while your statements are true for a single given employer, there are plenty of other employers out there willing to pay a roughly comparable wage. If you want to a side gig and your current employer won't allow it, you can start submitting resumes. If you don't want to transfer, you can start applying to other companies in your current location, or go for remote work. There is no equivalent in sport- US Professional sport leagues have a monopoly exemption approved by congress.

criddell 7y ago

> There are many reasons for players to have unions, and none of them apply to software developers. There are analogs to some of the things you listed. For example, exclusivity contracts sounds a lot like non-compete agreements. You play for them, or you don't play at all sound like employment agreements where the employer demands rights to everything you create during your time of employment. You move your family to whatever shitty city bought your rights sounds a lot like being transferred to some place you don't want to go.

Aperocky 7y ago
I think your analogs are superficial. An NBA player have exactly one employer (the NBA) to work for. I have far greater mobility career wise. Nothing beats this difference.
noirbot 7y ago
They're analogs in only the most surface way though. There's no "Computer Science Draft" where companies get to pick you and lock you into a contract that you must accept no matter which company it is. Sure, things like non-competes and inventions clauses are restrictive, but not even within the ballpark of the restrictions on most sports contracts. Most leagues make it literally impossible for you to "change jobs" to a different team AT ALL for years at a time, while at the same time reserving the right for them to transfer you to any other job they want. Sure, Google or whoever might try to transfer you to a different office, but you have the option to quit and try to find another job in the same city. Most athletes, if they're being traded from LA to Boston can either A. Move as commanded or B. Retire completely forever unless they move to another country. Being forced to quit and find a new job in the same industry sucks, but it's better than forced retirement...
topkai22 7y ago
Not really- non-compete agreements are very hard to enforce in many jurisdictions, and even where enforceable are limited in scope- you might be able to go from working on a check clearing system at one company to another company working on a check clearing system, but going from working on a check clearing system to working on software for medical equipment is going to be OK. Also, unions may not necessarily be interested in ending non-compete- they have a vested interest on keeping union employees within union employers. Your other two examples are completely different- while your statements are true for a single given employer, there are plenty of other employers out there willing to pay a roughly comparable wage. If you want to a side gig and your current employer won't allow it, you can start submitting resumes. If you don't want to transfer, you can start applying to other companies in your current location, or go for remote work. There is no equivalent in sport- US Professional sport leagues have a monopoly exemption approved by congress.