6 ms·

> Generally speaking for well run, ethical companies, whose management actively try to do the right thing, unions add unnecessary redundancy and bureaucracy. T

> Generally speaking for well run, ethical companies, whose management actively try to do the right thing, unions add unnecessary redundancy and bureaucracy. The only type of "well run, ethical companies" where unions are redundant are worker-owned cooperatives. Otherwise, an employer, regardless of how ethical they are, can never replicate the most critical aspect of unions: collective bargaining rights. Sure, an employer can essentially just implement the kind of benefits that would be negotiated by a union, but it does not replace the fact that until a union exists employees have essentially no means to collectively demand changes to compensation and working conditions unless they unionize.

Camas 7y ago
An employee can at any time choose to work somewhere else.
- zpallin 7y ago
  Indeed. They can also choose to unionize.
  - Camas 7y ago
    Sure, it's just not the only way like you implied.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      What I "implied" was: 1. union benefits are redundant in worker owned-cooperative, not in typical corporations 2. and that's because corporate employers cannot emulate collective bargaining rights (but co-ops can) Please, I'd really like you to explain to me how how "an employee can at any time choose to work somewhere else" emulates collective bargaining rights.
wpietri 7y ago
That's becoming my take as well. I think the tech industry was, at least for a while, an exception here. Developers were so hard to get and retain that the power of individual workers did a lot to keep things sane. But I think that power is, for a variety of reasons, waning. If we want to keep our unusually good working conditions, and especially if we want to make sure our colleagues enjoy them as well, then I think collective action is going to become more and more necessary. (For those wondering why, a key part is the intrinsic size difference. It's much easier to lose one employee than to lose your full-time job. This inherent power imbalance is easily exploited.) For the next thing I start, I've been looking into worker- and member-owned co-op structures. It turns out some of my favorite businesses are run that way, from my local bakery (Arizmendi) to my favorite outdoor goods company, REI. My explorations are early yet, but I'm seeing a lot to be optimistic about. I think it's possible to combine the discipline of a value-for-money business with the mission orientation of a not-for-profit. For example, imagine if WhatsApp had been a worker- or member-owned co-op. If instead of selling to Facebook, they'd just kept making the thing they thought the world needed. If this resonates with people, feel free to contact me on email or Twitter. Maybe we can get a mailing list together for further discussion.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  "For example, imagine if WhatsApp had been a worker- or member-owned co-op." Given the price-per-employee WhatsApp got, they might have agreed to a buyout sooner as a co-op.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    If it were possible to sell out, of course. But that depends a lot on the bylaws. And selling out also depends on the people who join. I'll also note that there's nothing incompatible between being a worker-owned co-op and making a lot of money. Whatsapp had plenty of potential to generate revenue. Forbes estimates that it's making $4 billion/year. They could have paid their small staff incredibly well without having to sell out. And one thing that people can't easily buy is interesting work. Even at my modest-for-a-tech-worker income, I'm choosing work by who I'm with and how interesting it is. If people already have more money than they can plausibly spend, would they take even more money to stop doing something they love, something that lets them influence the world at enormous scale? Some would, I'm sure. Some wouldn't.
proc0 7y ago
Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two masters.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  That's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord. In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. With a good union you are serving yourself in a far more significant way than without the union.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.
    - arrosenberg 7y ago
      > Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude. > I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". I have no first-hand experience with German unions, so I won't comment beyond observing that in either case, the issue comes down to a lack of a meritocratic reward structure. Unions are neutral on that front, it all comes down to the laws and culture. American unions were born out of capitalist greed run amok, so they tend to be pretty antagonistic and confrontational. I get the impressions that German unions are more of a cooperative with capital to ensure work stoppages are minimized. > Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss. I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological, and I don't personally feel an ideological bent toward unions. I wouldn't personally join one because I don't need it, but a union would benefit most of the developers I know from a practical standpoint. Getting on the bad side of the union is no different than getting on the bad side of an executive - at least with a union you have 2 centers of gravity to pull on instead of one.
skybrian 7y ago
Collective bargaining is one way to do better for yourself but the other is to change jobs and negotiate for better pay and conditions as part of the hiring process. This has other advantages too, like meeting new people and learning new things.
- zpallin 7y ago
  However, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Camas 7y ago

An employee can at any time choose to work somewhere else.

zpallin 7y ago
Indeed. They can also choose to unionize.
- Camas 7y ago
  Sure, it's just not the only way like you implied.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    What I "implied" was: 1. union benefits are redundant in worker owned-cooperative, not in typical corporations 2. and that's because corporate employers cannot emulate collective bargaining rights (but co-ops can) Please, I'd really like you to explain to me how how "an employee can at any time choose to work somewhere else" emulates collective bargaining rights.

wpietri 7y ago

That's becoming my take as well. I think the tech industry was, at least for a while, an exception here. Developers were so hard to get and retain that the power of individual workers did a lot to keep things sane. But I think that power is, for a variety of reasons, waning. If we want to keep our unusually good working conditions, and especially if we want to make sure our colleagues enjoy them as well, then I think collective action is going to become more and more necessary. (For those wondering why, a key part is the intrinsic size difference. It's much easier to lose one employee than to lose your full-time job. This inherent power imbalance is easily exploited.) For the next thing I start, I've been looking into worker- and member-owned co-op structures. It turns out some of my favorite businesses are run that way, from my local bakery (Arizmendi) to my favorite outdoor goods company, REI. My explorations are early yet, but I'm seeing a lot to be optimistic about. I think it's possible to combine the discipline of a value-for-money business with the mission orientation of a not-for-profit. For example, imagine if WhatsApp had been a worker- or member-owned co-op. If instead of selling to Facebook, they'd just kept making the thing they thought the world needed. If this resonates with people, feel free to contact me on email or Twitter. Maybe we can get a mailing list together for further discussion.

jimbokun 7y ago
"For example, imagine if WhatsApp had been a worker- or member-owned co-op." Given the price-per-employee WhatsApp got, they might have agreed to a buyout sooner as a co-op.
- wpietri 7y ago
  If it were possible to sell out, of course. But that depends a lot on the bylaws. And selling out also depends on the people who join. I'll also note that there's nothing incompatible between being a worker-owned co-op and making a lot of money. Whatsapp had plenty of potential to generate revenue. Forbes estimates that it's making $4 billion/year. They could have paid their small staff incredibly well without having to sell out. And one thing that people can't easily buy is interesting work. Even at my modest-for-a-tech-worker income, I'm choosing work by who I'm with and how interesting it is. If people already have more money than they can plausibly spend, would they take even more money to stop doing something they love, something that lets them influence the world at enormous scale? Some would, I'm sure. Some wouldn't.

proc0 7y ago

Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two masters.

arrosenberg 7y ago
That's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord. In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. With a good union you are serving yourself in a far more significant way than without the union.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    > Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory... Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude. > I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management". I have no first-hand experience with German unions, so I won't comment beyond observing that in either case, the issue comes down to a lack of a meritocratic reward structure. Unions are neutral on that front, it all comes down to the laws and culture. American unions were born out of capitalist greed run amok, so they tend to be pretty antagonistic and confrontational. I get the impressions that German unions are more of a cooperative with capital to ensure work stoppages are minimized. > Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss. I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological, and I don't personally feel an ideological bent toward unions. I wouldn't personally join one because I don't need it, but a union would benefit most of the developers I know from a practical standpoint. Getting on the bad side of the union is no different than getting on the bad side of an executive - at least with a union you have 2 centers of gravity to pull on instead of one.

skybrian 7y ago

Collective bargaining is one way to do better for yourself but the other is to change jobs and negotiate for better pay and conditions as part of the hiring process. This has other advantages too, like meeting new people and learning new things.

zpallin 7y ago
However, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]