5 ms·

I brought up professional sports unions in the context of having a highly competitive group of workers who make large salaries, and that a union can still be us

I brought up professional sports unions in the context of having a highly competitive group of workers who make large salaries, and that a union can still be useful in that environment as far as negotiations. That professional sports are monopolies and monopsonies isn't particularly relevant to this point. The fact that tech workers can find a job elsewhere is even more motiviation to unionize because you have even more bargaining power and there are smaller risks.

baron816 7y ago
> That professional sports are monopolies and monopsonies isn't particularly relevant to this point. What are you talking about. That’s entirely relevant. What’s not relevant is that the workers are rich. Market dynamics are the entirety of what determines your compensation and working conditions. Being able to leave for a competitor is pretty all the leverage you’re ever going to have.
- elicash 7y ago
  If that was true, Kickstarter wouldn't have fought it as hard as they did. The workers just gained additional leverage. What's the evidence that these workers have zero additional leverage?
  - baron816 7y ago
    There’s no evidence that they do have additional leverage either. I could argue that they acted against their own self interest in many ways, but still don’t know for sure how things will work out in one way or another.
    - elicash 7y ago
      There's absolutely evidence that unions increase wages. 100%. I suppose you could argue that's happening out of employer generosity? And that they're more generous when there's a union?
      - aianus 7y ago
        > There's absolutely evidence that unions increase wages. 100%. Does that hold for unprofitable VC-subsidized companies? They might go bankrupt if VCs are turned off by a unionized workforce in the next round.
      - baron816 7y ago
        Yes there is evidence that unions increase wages. But none for this specific case.
        gamblor956 7y ago
        There can't be evidence of unions increasing wages in the tech industry because, as this article points out, prior to today there were no unions in the tech industry. Ever. However, there is significant evidence in blue-collar and white-collar industries, and in artistic and athletic fields, that unions increased members' earnings.
        baron816 7y ago
        Tech vs non-tech. Blue-collar vs white-collar. That’s not what matters. What matters is market dynamics. That’s all I’m saying here.
jkingsbery 7y ago
It's really not a fair comparison: we think of athletes as making large salaries, but beyond the stars, many who make the highest level professional league will make a league minimum salary over a relatively short career, as opposed to white collar workers who typically make 6 figure salaries over multiple decades. That sports leagues are actually very relevant. See for example from https://theundefeated.com/features/all-22-why-decertification-of-the-nflpa-and-other-unions-could-pay-off-big/ https://theundefeated.com/features/all-22-why-decertificatio... : >Counterintuitively, the owners benefit from the existence of a union as well. The existence of unions allows leagues to operate under rules that are in violation of federal antitrust law, which is why decertifying has been the most impactful threat to leagues. That same article goes on to explain how unions actually in some ways have acted against the interest of athletes in some way, since the collective bargaining agreements that they entered in to have locked in conditions for years that would not make sense in a more free floating market.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Anyone who thinks that players' unions are suppressing athlete salaries doesn't remember how little athletes made before the unions negotiated higher scales. Even the best NFL athletes used to have day jobs. The 2014 minimum base salary for MLS players was just $48,500 (which increased to $7x,xxx in 2019 as a result of the union renegotiating pay scales). On average (median or mode), a professional soccer player will make less than an entry-level programmer in the valley, despite a significantly smaller potential workforce.
  - jkingsbery 7y ago
    I agree that unions have done a lot; the point is that the evidence shows it to be a double edged sword. Following the link I posted, it explains how one effect of current collective bargaining agreements enables owners of sports teams to cap the percentage of the overall revenue going to players. For example, collective bargaining has given us free agency in baseball, which has been great; it's also given us a system in which players don't hit free agency until they've been playing for 5 or 6 years, at which point they're usually in their late 20's or early 30's, and have missed prime earning years on the free market (having to settle for whatever comes out of the arbitration process). Some of the increase in pay is due to the union, and they should be applauded for that, but part of the increase in pay in all these leagues also is due in part to the increase in revenues from media deals
sjg007 7y ago
It actually wasn't until baseball unions that players actually started getting paid well.

baron816 7y ago

> That professional sports are monopolies and monopsonies isn't particularly relevant to this point. What are you talking about. That’s entirely relevant. What’s not relevant is that the workers are rich. Market dynamics are the entirety of what determines your compensation and working conditions. Being able to leave for a competitor is pretty all the leverage you’re ever going to have.

elicash 7y ago
If that was true, Kickstarter wouldn't have fought it as hard as they did. The workers just gained additional leverage. What's the evidence that these workers have zero additional leverage?
- baron816 7y ago
  There’s no evidence that they do have additional leverage either. I could argue that they acted against their own self interest in many ways, but still don’t know for sure how things will work out in one way or another.
  - elicash 7y ago
    There's absolutely evidence that unions increase wages. 100%. I suppose you could argue that's happening out of employer generosity? And that they're more generous when there's a union?
    - aianus 7y ago
      > There's absolutely evidence that unions increase wages. 100%. Does that hold for unprofitable VC-subsidized companies? They might go bankrupt if VCs are turned off by a unionized workforce in the next round.
    - baron816 7y ago
      Yes there is evidence that unions increase wages. But none for this specific case.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        There can't be evidence of unions increasing wages in the tech industry because, as this article points out, prior to today there were no unions in the tech industry. Ever. However, there is significant evidence in blue-collar and white-collar industries, and in artistic and athletic fields, that unions increased members' earnings.
        baron816 7y ago
        Tech vs non-tech. Blue-collar vs white-collar. That’s not what matters. What matters is market dynamics. That’s all I’m saying here.

jkingsbery 7y ago

It's really not a fair comparison: we think of athletes as making large salaries, but beyond the stars, many who make the highest level professional league will make a league minimum salary over a relatively short career, as opposed to white collar workers who typically make 6 figure salaries over multiple decades. That sports leagues are actually very relevant. See for example from https://theundefeated.com/features/all-22-why-decertification-of-the-nflpa-and-other-unions-could-pay-off-big/ https://theundefeated.com/features/all-22-why-decertificatio... : >Counterintuitively, the owners benefit from the existence of a union as well. The existence of unions allows leagues to operate under rules that are in violation of federal antitrust law, which is why decertifying has been the most impactful threat to leagues. That same article goes on to explain how unions actually in some ways have acted against the interest of athletes in some way, since the collective bargaining agreements that they entered in to have locked in conditions for years that would not make sense in a more free floating market.

gamblor956 7y ago
Anyone who thinks that players' unions are suppressing athlete salaries doesn't remember how little athletes made before the unions negotiated higher scales. Even the best NFL athletes used to have day jobs. The 2014 minimum base salary for MLS players was just $48,500 (which increased to $7x,xxx in 2019 as a result of the union renegotiating pay scales). On average (median or mode), a professional soccer player will make less than an entry-level programmer in the valley, despite a significantly smaller potential workforce.
- jkingsbery 7y ago
  I agree that unions have done a lot; the point is that the evidence shows it to be a double edged sword. Following the link I posted, it explains how one effect of current collective bargaining agreements enables owners of sports teams to cap the percentage of the overall revenue going to players. For example, collective bargaining has given us free agency in baseball, which has been great; it's also given us a system in which players don't hit free agency until they've been playing for 5 or 6 years, at which point they're usually in their late 20's or early 30's, and have missed prime earning years on the free market (having to settle for whatever comes out of the arbitration process). Some of the increase in pay is due to the union, and they should be applauded for that, but part of the increase in pay in all these leagues also is due in part to the increase in revenues from media deals

sjg007 7y ago

It actually wasn't until baseball unions that players actually started getting paid well.