24 ms·

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Wh

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more bureaucratic" * "Unions are corrupt, and only care about themselves" It was always clear that there was a huge misconception about what unions are, and how they work, based on the depiction of unions in popular culture or the past. When you talked about unions, people would think about the Teamsters, the police unions, etc. Myself and others would end up pointing out that yes, that's true of some blur collar unions, but that's not what we're talking about. Think about the Writers Guild, or SAG. Dwayne Johnson earned $90 million last year - he still pays his union dues. You'd struggle to find any writer who didn't think the Writers Guild had actively improved their working conditions. Are the various Hollywood unions perfect? No, they're not. But I think you would really struggle to argue that working conditions would be better for those in the creative arts without them. Tech companies have spent a long time cultivating an image of benevolence towards their employees, but ultimately they are not your friends. You need somebody to fight your corner. Hollywood found this out years ago with the studios - hopefully Silicon Valley will discover it too, however unlikely it seems.

mindslight 6y ago
For an example of how unions can get involved in unexpected ways, take a look at the SAG releases for participating in hobby projects (eg 48 Hour Film Festival). It's just an additional piece of paperwork, but it does demonstrate a dynamic that the union has a legitimate interest in overseeing and could just as well prohibit. A software union would surely become involved in bootstrapped startups, hackathons, and work on Free software. It's possible for these areas to be treated intelligently by a union, but it's also possible they wouldn't be.
regularfry 6y ago
I'm endlessly surprised that unions are collectively as bad at PR as their image suggests.
- scarmig 6y ago
  1) A lot of the good PR individual professions have is the result of union PR. Teachers, nurses, cops, etc all have unions that put out endless propaganda (no negative connotation intended) about how great and vital to society they are. A lot of our nostalgia for jobs associated with heavy industry comes from old union propaganda. 2) Good PR can easily be outweighed by negative PR. Coal companies have excellent PR departments, but their opposition has invested a lot in negative PR. 3) PR images always exist in your head, but regular encounters with union workers can cause that image, rightly or wrongly, to crash against reality. People think relatively highly of scientists, partially because they never encounter them in real life; compare their image with lawyers or corporate managers.
  - regularfry 6y ago
    On 1) sure, I'm not discounting that. Great PR for the members. For the union itself? For the concept of a union? Not so much. 2) I said this further down the thread, but isn't that table stakes? If you're going to advocate for your members, you yourself need to have a support base beyond that membership. Otherwise you get the situation we've got now, where a request in support of the members is viewed negatively precisely because it's coming from a union. 3) Again, table stakes. Especially so if union members buy into the negative-PR-driven image and create a feedback loop.
- praptak 6y ago
  The media companies are employers and their ad revenue comes from employers.
- pydry 6y ago
  Not much money and rich enemies will do that.
  - adwww 6y ago
    Here in the UK the union leaders manage to look like tits all on their own. I'd love to have a workable union system for tech workers here, but I just don't see what they offer unless you can persuade meaningful numbers of your coworkers to sign up.
wpietri 6y ago
There are certainly bad unions. But I think that often arises as a reaction to poisonous management behavior, a zero-sum mentality that treats workers as a cost center, not a value generator. It's a "fuck me, no fuck you" scenario. Your point about the Hollywood unions is a great one. Like tech, in Hollywood everybody has clear incentives to create a great final product. Positive-sum thinking usually part of the culture. In that context, I think unions can be a big help, especially when there are such large wealth and power differentials between the bosses and the workers. I also think your former colleagues' seeming lack of agency is weird. The union is something the workers create and run. If they think a union they create would be bad, what are they saying about themselves?
- michaelt 6y ago
  > The union is something the workers create and run. If they think a union they create would be bad, what are they saying about themselves? They think a union would be a bit like a homeowners association - in principle owned and run by them and never acting against their interests, but in practice a threat as much as an opportunity.
  - mcv 6y ago
    US homeowners association are another great example that doesn't match European experience. Why do Americans turn everything that's supposed to be in their own interest, into a vehicle for power abuse? That seems to be the recurring story in American unions, as well as homeowner associations. Are there any other supposedly-good organisations that are toxic in the US? Political parties? News? Boy scouts?
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > Are there any other supposedly-good organisations that are toxic in the US? There aren't many supposedly-good organizations in the US. According to Gallup[1], in 2019 there were only three institutions in which more than half of Americans had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of trust: the military, police, and small business. The police probably lost that trust recently, leaving only small business and the military. Only 29% trusted organized labor, which puts it below the presidency, in 2019. But even fewer trust big business, and trust in organized labor has been rising, so there might be some hope for unions. 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.as...
0xy 6y ago
What if the person to fight in my corner is me? Unions drag everyone's wages to an average. Poor performers get paid more, top performers get paid less. No thanks, I can negotiate for myself. Look at teachers and police unions for a prime example. Great police get paid the same as the police who racially profile. Great teachers get paid the same as the teachers who phone it in. Additionally unions protect incompetent employees, which I don't want. So the value prop for unions seems to be: get paid way less money, we'll make sure your incompetent colleagues never get fired and we'll make a stack of money for union bosses in the process. I want to negotiate my own pay and benefits, and it's worked out excellent for me. A union only serves to harm my interests.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  ok, but hear me out on this: how do you know you are earning as much as you should? I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay. You're slapped on a scale and thats it. You might be able to up your share offer, but actual pay is fixed on a scale. Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised. Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always going to be low[1] However in other countries, teachers unions are very effective at settling compensation. (The UK for example has reasonably well paid teachers) I think the problem is that you seem to be labouring under the pretence that you are special, and earn a specially high wage. Statistics say that in practice your probably earning close to median for tech. Make of that what you will... [1] well yes and no, depending on country, but lets assume the USA
  - 0xy 6y ago
    >I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible. >Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised Firstly, no. The scale is wide and you are placed somewhere between the low and high points of the scale for your level. Not every L5 engineer earns the same thing. Secondly, total compensation is what matters. >Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always going to be low Tech contractors for public organisations in my area are paid more or less market rate. >However in other countries, teachers unions are very effective at settling compensation Not for top performers, they are paid the same as low performers. >The UK for example has reasonably well paid teachers If you are the best teacher in the country, you get severely underpaid. >Statistics say that in practice your probably earning close to median for tech I earn 110% more than the median wage for my particular level, according to Glassdoor/Levels/etc. I don't think I'm special, but I think I perform highly and are paid in kind for that. Given I'm capable of analysing my own impact, it's pretty clear I'm paid a fraction of the value I provide to the company too.
KaiserPro 6y ago
Its even more surprising as the workplace team are mainly london based. I suspect what actually happened is that a customer said: "my minions are organising on workplace, let me control most viral posts". The PM looked as what it was, and the posts the employer was complaining about, and made a scenario on that. Knowing some of the engineers on workplace, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they didn't think about what they were doing, only whether they could do it, and what was the best design.
rwmj 6y ago
I'm in a union, and when I mentioned it to my work colleagues at dinner one day there was a kind of open-mouthed aghast shock similar to if I'd announced that I was a visitor from Mars. Anyway, while you don't really get the benefit of unionisation unless a large number of people join at a workplace, it's still possible to join some unions as an individual, and there are some lesser benefits like free legal and employment advice.
koheripbal 6y ago
> Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more bureaucratic Anyone who's actually had to deal with a union can agree with this point. At our company, a number of job functions are union-only work, meaning it is a violation of the union contract for any non-union employee to perform that work. In principle, you might think that makes sense, until you need to get something very simple done - that you are willing to do yourself and cannot. It becomes infuriating. Need to plug that new PC into the socket? Sorry, equipment installation is a union job. But the new employee can't start if the new PC on his desk isn't plugged in? Tough shit - please put in a requisition and it'll get scheduled within the 48hr SLA, and completed in 7-10 business days. Need that extra monitor moved between two adjacent cubes? Sorry, equipment relocation is union work. If you do it yourself, you'll be fired. But it's just a monitor, you say? Tough shit - please put in a requisition and it'll get scheduled within the 48hr SLA, and completed in 7-10 business days. Oh, you want to move that folding table and a few chairs to the conference room so you can have a design meeting with the whole team? Sorry furniture movement is union-only work. But it'll take me literally 10 minutes and the alternative is to cancel the meeting. Tough shit - please put in a requisition and it'll get scheduled within the 48hr SLA, and completed in 7-10 business days. These are real examples at my company - I didn't make them up. So what's the ultimate outcome here? Employees obviously look for ways to circumvent the union. Then the union finds out and sends a few reps in to take pictures of things that have been touched/moved by non-union workers, and sends it to their lawyers (paid for by union dues). The lawyers then send formal notices that the company has violated the company contract, and notices go out to the whole company - union workers get all riled up that the company isn't respecting them, and non-union workers roll their eyes and vow never to work for another unionized company again. Bad feelings all around & Giant waste of everyone's time. The alternative to carving out job functions for union workers, is to force everyone to unionize - and that's got its own problems. Unions are great in unsafe industries in an unregulated market - ie. 1940's coal mines (extreme example). Six figured desk jobs can manage with some reasonable labor laws made at the State level. A union is a huge additional layer of bureaucracy.
- handoflixue 6y ago
  I've worked plenty of union jobs that didn't have this problem. Like the original comment said: yes, some unions are bad. But it's ridiculous to pretend they're all like what you dealt with.
Aunche 6y ago
> You'd struggle to find any writer who didn't think the Writers Guild had actively improved their working conditions. Writing and acting are race to the bottom. There are plenty of people who would be willing to act for free. You can't say the same for working at Facebook. In order to stop the race-to-the bottom SAG-AFTRA artificially constrains the marketplace by forcing studios hire a certain number of union actors. In this case, it doesn't really hurt newbies because they'd otherwise get paid peanuts anyways. However, that isn't something that people would want in tech expect perhaps in the videogame industry.
goatinaboat 6y ago
many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions “Union” is a trigger word but call it an association like BMA, BALPA, or a Federation (Police) or even a guild, and everyone would be if not on board, at least willing to have a non-emotive conversation.
- kaibee 6y ago
  I have no doubt in my mind that most programmers would at least listen to the pitch if it was to join a guild.
  - mcv 6y ago
    And yet guilds are traditionally vehicles for monopoly and control. All the things Americans complain about with regards to unions, are actually guild-like behaviour.
    - C1sc0cat 6y ago
      And in labour organisations "guild" has some unfortunate racist conations in the USA.
      - abj 6y ago
        Serious question - maybe the word "union" or "guild" is a branding problem? We could do some basic user research and come up with a more appealing name.(Think Universal Basic Income -> Freedom Dividend) I'd be more likely to join an organization called "Gathered Friends for Salary Negation And Fair Treatment".
        C1sc0cat 6y ago
        A lot of early US workers organisations where called guilds and one of the aims was excluding BAME (to use a modern term) workers. Also Guild does imply exclusion which is the medieval guild system which I think others have mentioned.
jkinudsjknds 6y ago
I don't think its that clear cut. Unions add another system that you need to cooperate with, and over which you may have very little influence. Devs aren't cops, but they aren't artists either. You do not know how a union would work out. I don't think devs at affluent companies that are highly invested in tech workers stand to gain much. Especially in america, you have no recourse to "the union". You can't start a new union as an alternative organization. Game devs and other subsets should probably unionize. But cushy FAANG dev jobs? Probably not. If you're in a shitty team there, you should just try to find a better team.
humanrebar 6y ago
> It was always clear that there was a huge misconception about what unions are, and how they work, based on the depiction of unions in popular culture or the past. Police and teacher unions are very much current events in the U.S. between COVID and the protests.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Even on a professional level, anyone who has dealt with trade show unions or construction labor unions can attest to how awful it is to deal with these as a customer. Many people assume unions are simply squeezing their employers, but unions also put the squeeze on customers. We had union members protesting in front of our office building and harassing our visitors for an entire month because our building owner refused to pay 3X the cost to use union labor for the drywall work.
TrackerFF 6y ago
Then again, how many tech-workers at Facebook have previously been unionized employees? Software development is rarely, if ever, unionized - and I'd imagine the majority of FAANG workers starting at said companies within 5 years of graduating from college.
philwelch 6y ago
If you want to be a unionized software engineer you could always work at Boeing. God knows they need the help.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
Support for unions is based on a basic misunderstanding of economics. It is not mandates from the state that lead to wages and work conditions improving. It's rising demand from employers, as their revenue increases, and they compete with other employers for a limited pool of workers. Unions obstruct the flexibility and freedom of the market, and thereby hamper economic efficiency and competitiveness. Firms will, all things being equal, see less revenue growth in a unionized labor market, than a non-unionized one.
- knorker 6y ago
  > all things being equal The whole point of unions is to affect change, so what does that sentence even mean? All else being equal means the union did nothing to change anything, and therefore is 100% overhead.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    The changes that unions make will not neutralize the negative impact they have on an industry's efficiency/competitivess. The outlier is if unions succeed in changing immigration policy to restrict the inflow of foreign labor. That can have unexpected effects that boost the country's economic growth rate or at least help its wage growth rate. Depending on the situation, immigration restrictions can also harm the country's economy/wages.
    - knorker 6y ago
      Yes, but all else is not equal, so... Unions are there as a counterpart to business screwing employees. I understand the US has a different experience with unions than the rest of the world, but they can be really good. Employers have certainly tried to screw me (e.g. "you need to work overtime with no pay"), and it's really useful to have someone have your back saying "uh, nope that's not legal", instead of being alone as a newgrad.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        Communal support (e.g. telling your friends about your work situation, and receiving advice from those who are informed) and legal mechanisms like lawsuits already ensures workers are by and large receiving the best the market can offer them. The effect that unions have on ensuring employment contracts are not being broken by exploitive employers pales in comparison to the effect they have in restricting the labor market by giving unions what effectively amounts to government-enforced monopolies over various work units, which lets unions exploit companies. There are numerous alternatives to granting unions enormous extra-contractual powers over employers that are available to society to prevent employer violations of labor contracts.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adrianmonk 6y ago
> Myself and others would end up pointing out that yes, that's true of some blur collar unions, but that's not what we're talking about. I'm not totally against unions, but it seems like that's probably how all the messed up union situations started. As far as I know, they probably all started with good intentions to improve conditions where change was really needed. None of them started with the intention of creating a bunch of bureaucracy, nor to negotiate wages higher than the market can handle, thus jeopardizing the financial health of their employer, etc. But, like all organizations (every type in every sphere of life -- government, private sector, charity, religious, and more), there is always the danger that once the organization gets enough power to fulfill its mission, it then moves on to using the power for things it shouldn't. That's not a reason to dismiss the idea of starting a union, but it is a hazard to be avoided. So it should probably be part of the discussion, just not in a way that's used to instantly shut down the idea.
starpilot 6y ago
Aerospace engineers at Boeing with PhD's are part of the union SPEEA. It seems to work well for them.
- notnap 6y ago
  I wonder if significant part of their compensation is stock as in FAANG companies
hedora 6y ago
Unions would be much more attractive if US were an open shop country. Instead, we’re closed shop, which means that, once a union is in place, you can’t choose to join a different union. This routinely leads to situations where corrupt unions abuse their own members. For an example of how this works in practice, look at the UAW’s conduct with UC’s grad students. Years ago, they negotiated salary caps for grad students, and then negotiated contracts that severely cut health care benefits for women over their own members’ objections. Getting anything done involves baroque red tape, so even complaining about this sort of thing would take dozens of people multiple months (and almost certainly wouldn’t cause the union bosses to take action). Recently, they ratified contracts when the rank and file protested at union meetings, and some UC campuses voted against the contract. This led to illegal “wildcat” strikes where the students walked out because they couldn’t pay rent. The university then fired them. This was only possible because of closed shops. If people want to switch unions, they should be allowed to.
- redbeard0x0a 6y ago
  Where did the closed shop restrictions come from, did it come from anti-union lobbying or some think tank somewhere? This smells completely like "the government is useless", then going in and defunding things that the government is responsible for.
  - thejynxed 6y ago
    Such rules come in at the state level and are usually pushed for by the large national unions to bully and push out local and regional small unions. Every major union from UAW to SEIU has been guilty of this.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      This is not true. Unionization based on enterprise-level votes was put in place with NRLA in 1935. The NRLA and Taft-Hartley would have to be amended or replaced to change this. I have no idea if large unions have ever lobbied against replacing them at the Federal level, but there hasn’t (in recent history) been any serious push to do so that these unions would oppose.
jeffdavis 6y ago
Maybe it's one of those things where a good union is good and a bad union is terrible. It's easy to say how good a union could be, but will it actually be that good? What kinds of things can go wrong? What weird laws are in place and how could that complicate things? The bottom line is that if I am happy already, a union is more risk than reward.
yibg 6y ago
I don't think it's necessarily based on misconceptions about what unions are, but also their own experience and from what they hear from people they know. We've already seen in this thread very different personal experiences with unions, often based on where they are. e.g. folks in Europe seems to have mostly positive interactions, where as folks in the US negative. I personally don't want an union in my work place. It's not because I've watched too many movies, but because I've worked at unionized environments before and they are absolutely terrible for me. All the usual symptoms often talked about were there. Maybe there are good unionized workplaces out there (Hollywood has been frequently pointed to as an example), but I've never experienced them. Out of my interactions with unions, they've been 100% negative, hence my views on unions. Until some of these underlying issues are resolved, I think we'll always have this very mixed to negative view of unionizing.
- hrktb 6y ago
  It’s usually a symptom more than the cause. Unions are formed in environments where people feel it’d bad enough to pay the price. The same way if we looked at jobs hiring bodyguards, most would look pretty dangerous, but we wouldn’t blame the bodyguards.
  - yibg 6y ago
    Perhaps, but even so I still wouldn't want to work at a place that requires bodyguards, even if bodyguards are not the cause of the danger. Without getting into the details of cause and effect, look at it from the perspective of the current employees. Currently it's a nice place to work. Contrasting with previous experiences with unions where they've been terrible experiences to work at. Why would I want this kind of change?
    - hrktb 6y ago
      > Currently it’s a nice place to work If they’re seriously discussing unionizing, perhaps that assumption is to be revisited ?
      - 6y ago
dominotw 6y ago
> Are the various Hollywood unions perfect? No, they're not. How are they not perfect?
jimmaswell 6y ago
I'll never forget the union at a convention center that forced vendors to pay them to move anything from their own car they couldn't carry. Nothing but extortionist bullies squeezing every cent of protection money they could out of the people there who actually make things and add value to the world. In contrast, these union employees were nothing but parasites. They did nothing the vendors couldn't do themselves, who WANTED to do it themselves and were fully capable of with their own dollies and carts but weren't allowed to for no other reason than greed. They could have just stayed out of the way and still gotten (over) paid by the convention center but that wasn't good enough. Most people including me justifiably hated those selfish monsters. Name and shame, this was at the Baltimore Convention Center. And you hear about this all the time in other workplaces. Not allowed to move a monitor to the next desk over because the union guy has to be the one to do it. Not allowed to move a piece of equipment out of the way until the union guy finishes his lunch break and does it. Unions can be good but unions like this are so bad for everyone around them that it cancels out any good.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  So because you can't move a piece of furniture, you believe it cancels the amount of protections and good from unionization?!
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    That kinda shows you what privilege is and how it conditions the political discussion. If you never had to face a problem (never needed someone to protect you against greedy employers), it is so hard to understand why that it's relevant.
    - ttwinder 6y ago
      It's offensive to see this valid point of view dismissed with such shallow accusations of privilege. The point in bringing up trivial issues like moving monitors is to emphasize the greed and absurdity that ensure that even simple, quick tasks become cash sinks and long term blockers, directly because of common union practices. This is the inefficiency that unions tend to breed, and it is a direct consequence of their purpose: protect members even at the expense of nonmembers and the rest of the corporate collective. No one is complaining that they aren't allowed to move their own monitors. We are explaining that these ubiquitous policies in sum do more harm than good to greater modern society.
mberning 6y ago
I don’t think any of those examples are really misconceptions. You even admit that many people have this experience with “blue collar” unions. Most developers are not foolish enough to think they are immune to these foibles. We have a lot more in common with blue collar workers than big name actors.
nogabebop23 6y ago
There's no oligopoly of tech companies like hollywood studios though. Even the salary-collusion BS was a very small group of companies and illegal without union protection. Also the Rock may pay his union dues because (a) he's required to be a memeber and (b) the cost is immaterial to him. The top performers are usually hampered by unions they'd be fine without; he's not going to need the pension and health insurance the collective bargaining agreement gets him.
chasd00 6y ago
how exactly would a union improve working conditions for engineers at Facebook? Engineers at Facebook are probably the most catered to and sheltered workers in all of capitalism.
ecf 6y ago
Many tech people have had very limited interaction with unions, and usually those interactions are negative. For example, I was not allowed to run ethernet through the paneled ceiling to hard wire our conference rooms for the startup I was at. Why? Well the building had a contract with a unionized cabling company so every cabling job in the building HAD to be done by them. We would have been charged thousands and had to wait weeks for a job I could do myself in 30 minutes.
kelvin0 6y ago
From my personal (limited) research and observations. I am in no way an expert. Unions originally seem to have made a very positive impact on the working conditions of workers. Just think of the horrible situation of steel workers (and others) during the start of the industrial revolution. Workers organized to make a change and improve their lot. Fast forward a few decades: Unions seem to have become self-sustained entities whose incentive have switched from helping workers, to sustaining the union's economic interests. They also sometimes help some workers, but it's not free. There is a very well known case in Quebec, Canada. It's the Gaspesia debacle: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/gaspesia-mill-bailout-is-a-lesson-in-failure-likely-to-go-unheeded/article747046/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comme... "Work on the mill conversion began in the spring of 2002. From the beginning, the project -- established as a limited partnership 50 per cent owned by the Fonds de solidarité with the SGF and Tembec each holding 25-per-cent stakes -- was plagued by delays and mismanagement. The FTQ was accused of blocking workers affiliated with other unions from getting construction jobs on the site. Contractors complained that workers were paid for eight-hour days, but put in only three hours of productive labour." This is only the tip of the Iceberg, and illustrates why there seems a negative perception of unions.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eagsalazar2 6y ago
There is no broad support for unions not because of the bogeyman arguments your co-workers were raising but because for most US based software developers there is no acute problem they feel that unions would solve because almost all of us are doing pretty well. On the other hand no single developer really has that much leverage because the importance of even the best individual devs doesn't compare to an individual LeBron and/or there isn't the massive amount of money at stake that depends massively on the work of specific people. Unions for writers, actors, NBA players, etc are frequently representing for extremes of the totally destitute who are easily taken advantage of or groups of the ultra important where the Unions are essentially acting as high powered negotiators for those they represent. All very good reasons for unions, none of which is true for developers in the US right now. I'm not saying there aren't things a union could help with, I'm just saying that for most devs, those things aren't pinching very hard. Also, you have to be realistic about the impact of unions, they are a double edged sword. Police unions aren't a straw man, they are a real example of the worst case scenario for abusive concentration of power and agendas at odds with the public good. The best examples always come with some bureaucratic overhead. So it is valid to consider the cost/benefit of unions. Again, I'm not taking a stance on what is right here, just saying unions are not as obviously a good idea in every case as you might imagine and the hesitance of your co-workers, right or wrong, is at least understandable.
- eagsalazar2 6y ago
  Oh and to be clear how I feel about the larger question here, I'm not at all defending Facebook. Zuckerberg is the vilest piece of sh*t for allowing this and for profiting off Facebook as tool for misleading so many people. Recent events have really made it clear what a massively damaging thing Facebook's complacency really is.
- CodeMage 6y ago
  The tech industry in general might not need unions yet, but game dev industry is a clear example of where they're sorely needed.
chrisseaton 6y ago
At the moment I negotiate my work against one entity: my employer. If I had a union I'd have to negotiate my work against two entities: my employer and a union. Why on earth would I want to do that? Seems more complicated and I'm less powerful in the negotiation. Because the union would be 'on my side'? Lol I don't buy it. I think the union would be on the side of their management and whatever political hobby opinions they held, and possibly the majority of the members, but not on my side. No thanks.
bequestry 6y ago
Maybe pro unionists should focus on the possibility that they could negotiate for getting their members better internal tooling/more focus on tech debt. At all companies ive been at, ive seen sooo many managers ignore internal tooling and ignoring tech debt, leading to engineers having to be on call 24/7 for legacy stuff.
diogenescynic 6y ago
You know unions are effective because all the most powerful groups have them—actors, athletes, doctors (AMA) cops, firefighters, and other professional guilds... America just seems against the working class being able to organize in any way.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
> I'll be paid less under a union This is a valid point. Your two examples are guilds not unions; they're inherently geared more towards contractors and individuals due to the nature of the work. While job hopping has become both more prevalent and more frequent among software engineers, it's certainly still mostly an employee-oriented field. It's very true that under unions, high performers specifically are paid a bit less and low performers a bit more. This is both the upside and the downside of collective bargaining and a fundamental characteristic thereof rather than a flaw of a specific union. As someone who's generally been promoted faster and paid more because I worked hard and put in long hours, unions are anathema to me. I'd likely be paid less and a less-productive peer paid more. I can see, however, why such a prospect would appeal to most people. But as an outlier among most employees, I see no reason to entrust my situation to majority rule as that takes it from a negotiation between me and an employer (a person who represents my interests and one who doesn't) to one between someone who represents the average employee and an employer, both of whom probably don't represent my interests.

mindslight 6y ago

For an example of how unions can get involved in unexpected ways, take a look at the SAG releases for participating in hobby projects (eg 48 Hour Film Festival). It's just an additional piece of paperwork, but it does demonstrate a dynamic that the union has a legitimate interest in overseeing and could just as well prohibit. A software union would surely become involved in bootstrapped startups, hackathons, and work on Free software. It's possible for these areas to be treated intelligently by a union, but it's also possible they wouldn't be.

regularfry 6y ago

I'm endlessly surprised that unions are collectively as bad at PR as their image suggests.

scarmig 6y ago
1) A lot of the good PR individual professions have is the result of union PR. Teachers, nurses, cops, etc all have unions that put out endless propaganda (no negative connotation intended) about how great and vital to society they are. A lot of our nostalgia for jobs associated with heavy industry comes from old union propaganda. 2) Good PR can easily be outweighed by negative PR. Coal companies have excellent PR departments, but their opposition has invested a lot in negative PR. 3) PR images always exist in your head, but regular encounters with union workers can cause that image, rightly or wrongly, to crash against reality. People think relatively highly of scientists, partially because they never encounter them in real life; compare their image with lawyers or corporate managers.
- regularfry 6y ago
  On 1) sure, I'm not discounting that. Great PR for the members. For the union itself? For the concept of a union? Not so much. 2) I said this further down the thread, but isn't that table stakes? If you're going to advocate for your members, you yourself need to have a support base beyond that membership. Otherwise you get the situation we've got now, where a request in support of the members is viewed negatively precisely because it's coming from a union. 3) Again, table stakes. Especially so if union members buy into the negative-PR-driven image and create a feedback loop.
praptak 6y ago
The media companies are employers and their ad revenue comes from employers.
pydry 6y ago
Not much money and rich enemies will do that.
- adwww 6y ago
  Here in the UK the union leaders manage to look like tits all on their own. I'd love to have a workable union system for tech workers here, but I just don't see what they offer unless you can persuade meaningful numbers of your coworkers to sign up.

wpietri 6y ago

There are certainly bad unions. But I think that often arises as a reaction to poisonous management behavior, a zero-sum mentality that treats workers as a cost center, not a value generator. It's a "fuck me, no fuck you" scenario. Your point about the Hollywood unions is a great one. Like tech, in Hollywood everybody has clear incentives to create a great final product. Positive-sum thinking usually part of the culture. In that context, I think unions can be a big help, especially when there are such large wealth and power differentials between the bosses and the workers. I also think your former colleagues' seeming lack of agency is weird. The union is something the workers create and run. If they think a union they create would be bad, what are they saying about themselves?

michaelt 6y ago
> The union is something the workers create and run. If they think a union they create would be bad, what are they saying about themselves? They think a union would be a bit like a homeowners association - in principle owned and run by them and never acting against their interests, but in practice a threat as much as an opportunity.
- mcv 6y ago
  US homeowners association are another great example that doesn't match European experience. Why do Americans turn everything that's supposed to be in their own interest, into a vehicle for power abuse? That seems to be the recurring story in American unions, as well as homeowner associations. Are there any other supposedly-good organisations that are toxic in the US? Political parties? News? Boy scouts?
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > Are there any other supposedly-good organisations that are toxic in the US? There aren't many supposedly-good organizations in the US. According to Gallup[1], in 2019 there were only three institutions in which more than half of Americans had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of trust: the military, police, and small business. The police probably lost that trust recently, leaving only small business and the military. Only 29% trusted organized labor, which puts it below the presidency, in 2019. But even fewer trust big business, and trust in organized labor has been rising, so there might be some hope for unions. 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.as...

0xy 6y ago

What if the person to fight in my corner is me? Unions drag everyone's wages to an average. Poor performers get paid more, top performers get paid less. No thanks, I can negotiate for myself. Look at teachers and police unions for a prime example. Great police get paid the same as the police who racially profile. Great teachers get paid the same as the teachers who phone it in. Additionally unions protect incompetent employees, which I don't want. So the value prop for unions seems to be: get paid way less money, we'll make sure your incompetent colleagues never get fired and we'll make a stack of money for union bosses in the process. I want to negotiate my own pay and benefits, and it's worked out excellent for me. A union only serves to harm my interests.

KaiserPro 6y ago
ok, but hear me out on this: how do you know you are earning as much as you should? I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay. You're slapped on a scale and thats it. You might be able to up your share offer, but actual pay is fixed on a scale. Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised. Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always going to be low[1] However in other countries, teachers unions are very effective at settling compensation. (The UK for example has reasonably well paid teachers) I think the problem is that you seem to be labouring under the pretence that you are special, and earn a specially high wage. Statistics say that in practice your probably earning close to median for tech. Make of that what you will... [1] well yes and no, depending on country, but lets assume the USA
- 0xy 6y ago
  >I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible. >Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised Firstly, no. The scale is wide and you are placed somewhere between the low and high points of the scale for your level. Not every L5 engineer earns the same thing. Secondly, total compensation is what matters. >Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always going to be low Tech contractors for public organisations in my area are paid more or less market rate. >However in other countries, teachers unions are very effective at settling compensation Not for top performers, they are paid the same as low performers. >The UK for example has reasonably well paid teachers If you are the best teacher in the country, you get severely underpaid. >Statistics say that in practice your probably earning close to median for tech I earn 110% more than the median wage for my particular level, according to Glassdoor/Levels/etc. I don't think I'm special, but I think I perform highly and are paid in kind for that. Given I'm capable of analysing my own impact, it's pretty clear I'm paid a fraction of the value I provide to the company too.

KaiserPro 6y ago

Its even more surprising as the workplace team are mainly london based. I suspect what actually happened is that a customer said: "my minions are organising on workplace, let me control most viral posts". The PM looked as what it was, and the posts the employer was complaining about, and made a scenario on that. Knowing some of the engineers on workplace, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they didn't think about what they were doing, only whether they could do it, and what was the best design.

rwmj 6y ago

I'm in a union, and when I mentioned it to my work colleagues at dinner one day there was a kind of open-mouthed aghast shock similar to if I'd announced that I was a visitor from Mars. Anyway, while you don't really get the benefit of unionisation unless a large number of people join at a workplace, it's still possible to join some unions as an individual, and there are some lesser benefits like free legal and employment advice.

koheripbal 6y ago

> Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more bureaucratic Anyone who's actually had to deal with a union can agree with this point. At our company, a number of job functions are union-only work, meaning it is a violation of the union contract for any non-union employee to perform that work. In principle, you might think that makes sense, until you need to get something very simple done - that you are willing to do yourself and cannot. It becomes infuriating. Need to plug that new PC into the socket? Sorry, equipment installation is a union job. But the new employee can't start if the new PC on his desk isn't plugged in? Tough shit - please put in a requisition and it'll get scheduled within the 48hr SLA, and completed in 7-10 business days. Need that extra monitor moved between two adjacent cubes? Sorry, equipment relocation is union work. If you do it yourself, you'll be fired. But it's just a monitor, you say? Tough shit - please put in a requisition and it'll get scheduled within the 48hr SLA, and completed in 7-10 business days. Oh, you want to move that folding table and a few chairs to the conference room so you can have a design meeting with the whole team? Sorry furniture movement is union-only work. But it'll take me literally 10 minutes and the alternative is to cancel the meeting. Tough shit - please put in a requisition and it'll get scheduled within the 48hr SLA, and completed in 7-10 business days. These are real examples at my company - I didn't make them up. So what's the ultimate outcome here? Employees obviously look for ways to circumvent the union. Then the union finds out and sends a few reps in to take pictures of things that have been touched/moved by non-union workers, and sends it to their lawyers (paid for by union dues). The lawyers then send formal notices that the company has violated the company contract, and notices go out to the whole company - union workers get all riled up that the company isn't respecting them, and non-union workers roll their eyes and vow never to work for another unionized company again. Bad feelings all around & Giant waste of everyone's time. The alternative to carving out job functions for union workers, is to force everyone to unionize - and that's got its own problems. Unions are great in unsafe industries in an unregulated market - ie. 1940's coal mines (extreme example). Six figured desk jobs can manage with some reasonable labor laws made at the State level. A union is a huge additional layer of bureaucracy.

handoflixue 6y ago
I've worked plenty of union jobs that didn't have this problem. Like the original comment said: yes, some unions are bad. But it's ridiculous to pretend they're all like what you dealt with.

Aunche 6y ago

> You'd struggle to find any writer who didn't think the Writers Guild had actively improved their working conditions. Writing and acting are race to the bottom. There are plenty of people who would be willing to act for free. You can't say the same for working at Facebook. In order to stop the race-to-the bottom SAG-AFTRA artificially constrains the marketplace by forcing studios hire a certain number of union actors. In this case, it doesn't really hurt newbies because they'd otherwise get paid peanuts anyways. However, that isn't something that people would want in tech expect perhaps in the videogame industry.

goatinaboat 6y ago

many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions “Union” is a trigger word but call it an association like BMA, BALPA, or a Federation (Police) or even a guild, and everyone would be if not on board, at least willing to have a non-emotive conversation.

kaibee 6y ago
I have no doubt in my mind that most programmers would at least listen to the pitch if it was to join a guild.
- mcv 6y ago
  And yet guilds are traditionally vehicles for monopoly and control. All the things Americans complain about with regards to unions, are actually guild-like behaviour.
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    And in labour organisations "guild" has some unfortunate racist conations in the USA.
    - abj 6y ago
      Serious question - maybe the word "union" or "guild" is a branding problem? We could do some basic user research and come up with a more appealing name.(Think Universal Basic Income -> Freedom Dividend) I'd be more likely to join an organization called "Gathered Friends for Salary Negation And Fair Treatment".
      - C1sc0cat 6y ago
        A lot of early US workers organisations where called guilds and one of the aims was excluding BAME (to use a modern term) workers. Also Guild does imply exclusion which is the medieval guild system which I think others have mentioned.

jkinudsjknds 6y ago

I don't think its that clear cut. Unions add another system that you need to cooperate with, and over which you may have very little influence. Devs aren't cops, but they aren't artists either. You do not know how a union would work out. I don't think devs at affluent companies that are highly invested in tech workers stand to gain much. Especially in america, you have no recourse to "the union". You can't start a new union as an alternative organization. Game devs and other subsets should probably unionize. But cushy FAANG dev jobs? Probably not. If you're in a shitty team there, you should just try to find a better team.

humanrebar 6y ago

> It was always clear that there was a huge misconception about what unions are, and how they work, based on the depiction of unions in popular culture or the past. Police and teacher unions are very much current events in the U.S. between COVID and the protests.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Even on a professional level, anyone who has dealt with trade show unions or construction labor unions can attest to how awful it is to deal with these as a customer. Many people assume unions are simply squeezing their employers, but unions also put the squeeze on customers. We had union members protesting in front of our office building and harassing our visitors for an entire month because our building owner refused to pay 3X the cost to use union labor for the drywall work.

TrackerFF 6y ago

Then again, how many tech-workers at Facebook have previously been unionized employees? Software development is rarely, if ever, unionized - and I'd imagine the majority of FAANG workers starting at said companies within 5 years of graduating from college.

philwelch 6y ago

If you want to be a unionized software engineer you could always work at Boeing. God knows they need the help.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

Support for unions is based on a basic misunderstanding of economics. It is not mandates from the state that lead to wages and work conditions improving. It's rising demand from employers, as their revenue increases, and they compete with other employers for a limited pool of workers. Unions obstruct the flexibility and freedom of the market, and thereby hamper economic efficiency and competitiveness. Firms will, all things being equal, see less revenue growth in a unionized labor market, than a non-unionized one.

knorker 6y ago
> all things being equal The whole point of unions is to affect change, so what does that sentence even mean? All else being equal means the union did nothing to change anything, and therefore is 100% overhead.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  The changes that unions make will not neutralize the negative impact they have on an industry's efficiency/competitivess. The outlier is if unions succeed in changing immigration policy to restrict the inflow of foreign labor. That can have unexpected effects that boost the country's economic growth rate or at least help its wage growth rate. Depending on the situation, immigration restrictions can also harm the country's economy/wages.
  - knorker 6y ago
    Yes, but all else is not equal, so... Unions are there as a counterpart to business screwing employees. I understand the US has a different experience with unions than the rest of the world, but they can be really good. Employers have certainly tried to screw me (e.g. "you need to work overtime with no pay"), and it's really useful to have someone have your back saying "uh, nope that's not legal", instead of being alone as a newgrad.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      Communal support (e.g. telling your friends about your work situation, and receiving advice from those who are informed) and legal mechanisms like lawsuits already ensures workers are by and large receiving the best the market can offer them. The effect that unions have on ensuring employment contracts are not being broken by exploitive employers pales in comparison to the effect they have in restricting the labor market by giving unions what effectively amounts to government-enforced monopolies over various work units, which lets unions exploit companies. There are numerous alternatives to granting unions enormous extra-contractual powers over employers that are available to society to prevent employer violations of labor contracts.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

adrianmonk 6y ago

> Myself and others would end up pointing out that yes, that's true of some blur collar unions, but that's not what we're talking about. I'm not totally against unions, but it seems like that's probably how all the messed up union situations started. As far as I know, they probably all started with good intentions to improve conditions where change was really needed. None of them started with the intention of creating a bunch of bureaucracy, nor to negotiate wages higher than the market can handle, thus jeopardizing the financial health of their employer, etc. But, like all organizations (every type in every sphere of life -- government, private sector, charity, religious, and more), there is always the danger that once the organization gets enough power to fulfill its mission, it then moves on to using the power for things it shouldn't. That's not a reason to dismiss the idea of starting a union, but it is a hazard to be avoided. So it should probably be part of the discussion, just not in a way that's used to instantly shut down the idea.

starpilot 6y ago

Aerospace engineers at Boeing with PhD's are part of the union SPEEA. It seems to work well for them.

notnap 6y ago
I wonder if significant part of their compensation is stock as in FAANG companies

hedora 6y ago

Unions would be much more attractive if US were an open shop country. Instead, we’re closed shop, which means that, once a union is in place, you can’t choose to join a different union. This routinely leads to situations where corrupt unions abuse their own members. For an example of how this works in practice, look at the UAW’s conduct with UC’s grad students. Years ago, they negotiated salary caps for grad students, and then negotiated contracts that severely cut health care benefits for women over their own members’ objections. Getting anything done involves baroque red tape, so even complaining about this sort of thing would take dozens of people multiple months (and almost certainly wouldn’t cause the union bosses to take action). Recently, they ratified contracts when the rank and file protested at union meetings, and some UC campuses voted against the contract. This led to illegal “wildcat” strikes where the students walked out because they couldn’t pay rent. The university then fired them. This was only possible because of closed shops. If people want to switch unions, they should be allowed to.

redbeard0x0a 6y ago
Where did the closed shop restrictions come from, did it come from anti-union lobbying or some think tank somewhere? This smells completely like "the government is useless", then going in and defunding things that the government is responsible for.
- thejynxed 6y ago
  Such rules come in at the state level and are usually pushed for by the large national unions to bully and push out local and regional small unions. Every major union from UAW to SEIU has been guilty of this.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    This is not true. Unionization based on enterprise-level votes was put in place with NRLA in 1935. The NRLA and Taft-Hartley would have to be amended or replaced to change this. I have no idea if large unions have ever lobbied against replacing them at the Federal level, but there hasn’t (in recent history) been any serious push to do so that these unions would oppose.

jeffdavis 6y ago

Maybe it's one of those things where a good union is good and a bad union is terrible. It's easy to say how good a union could be, but will it actually be that good? What kinds of things can go wrong? What weird laws are in place and how could that complicate things? The bottom line is that if I am happy already, a union is more risk than reward.

yibg 6y ago

I don't think it's necessarily based on misconceptions about what unions are, but also their own experience and from what they hear from people they know. We've already seen in this thread very different personal experiences with unions, often based on where they are. e.g. folks in Europe seems to have mostly positive interactions, where as folks in the US negative. I personally don't want an union in my work place. It's not because I've watched too many movies, but because I've worked at unionized environments before and they are absolutely terrible for me. All the usual symptoms often talked about were there. Maybe there are good unionized workplaces out there (Hollywood has been frequently pointed to as an example), but I've never experienced them. Out of my interactions with unions, they've been 100% negative, hence my views on unions. Until some of these underlying issues are resolved, I think we'll always have this very mixed to negative view of unionizing.

hrktb 6y ago
It’s usually a symptom more than the cause. Unions are formed in environments where people feel it’d bad enough to pay the price. The same way if we looked at jobs hiring bodyguards, most would look pretty dangerous, but we wouldn’t blame the bodyguards.
- yibg 6y ago
  Perhaps, but even so I still wouldn't want to work at a place that requires bodyguards, even if bodyguards are not the cause of the danger. Without getting into the details of cause and effect, look at it from the perspective of the current employees. Currently it's a nice place to work. Contrasting with previous experiences with unions where they've been terrible experiences to work at. Why would I want this kind of change?
  - hrktb 6y ago
    > Currently it’s a nice place to work If they’re seriously discussing unionizing, perhaps that assumption is to be revisited ?
    - 6y ago

dominotw 6y ago

> Are the various Hollywood unions perfect? No, they're not. How are they not perfect?

jimmaswell 6y ago

I'll never forget the union at a convention center that forced vendors to pay them to move anything from their own car they couldn't carry. Nothing but extortionist bullies squeezing every cent of protection money they could out of the people there who actually make things and add value to the world. In contrast, these union employees were nothing but parasites. They did nothing the vendors couldn't do themselves, who WANTED to do it themselves and were fully capable of with their own dollies and carts but weren't allowed to for no other reason than greed. They could have just stayed out of the way and still gotten (over) paid by the convention center but that wasn't good enough. Most people including me justifiably hated those selfish monsters. Name and shame, this was at the Baltimore Convention Center. And you hear about this all the time in other workplaces. Not allowed to move a monitor to the next desk over because the union guy has to be the one to do it. Not allowed to move a piece of equipment out of the way until the union guy finishes his lunch break and does it. Unions can be good but unions like this are so bad for everyone around them that it cancels out any good.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
So because you can't move a piece of furniture, you believe it cancels the amount of protections and good from unionization?!
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  That kinda shows you what privilege is and how it conditions the political discussion. If you never had to face a problem (never needed someone to protect you against greedy employers), it is so hard to understand why that it's relevant.
  - ttwinder 6y ago
    It's offensive to see this valid point of view dismissed with such shallow accusations of privilege. The point in bringing up trivial issues like moving monitors is to emphasize the greed and absurdity that ensure that even simple, quick tasks become cash sinks and long term blockers, directly because of common union practices. This is the inefficiency that unions tend to breed, and it is a direct consequence of their purpose: protect members even at the expense of nonmembers and the rest of the corporate collective. No one is complaining that they aren't allowed to move their own monitors. We are explaining that these ubiquitous policies in sum do more harm than good to greater modern society.

mberning 6y ago

I don’t think any of those examples are really misconceptions. You even admit that many people have this experience with “blue collar” unions. Most developers are not foolish enough to think they are immune to these foibles. We have a lot more in common with blue collar workers than big name actors.

nogabebop23 6y ago

There's no oligopoly of tech companies like hollywood studios though. Even the salary-collusion BS was a very small group of companies and illegal without union protection. Also the Rock may pay his union dues because (a) he's required to be a memeber and (b) the cost is immaterial to him. The top performers are usually hampered by unions they'd be fine without; he's not going to need the pension and health insurance the collective bargaining agreement gets him.

chasd00 6y ago

how exactly would a union improve working conditions for engineers at Facebook? Engineers at Facebook are probably the most catered to and sheltered workers in all of capitalism.

ecf 6y ago

Many tech people have had very limited interaction with unions, and usually those interactions are negative. For example, I was not allowed to run ethernet through the paneled ceiling to hard wire our conference rooms for the startup I was at. Why? Well the building had a contract with a unionized cabling company so every cabling job in the building HAD to be done by them. We would have been charged thousands and had to wait weeks for a job I could do myself in 30 minutes.

kelvin0 6y ago

From my personal (limited) research and observations. I am in no way an expert. Unions originally seem to have made a very positive impact on the working conditions of workers. Just think of the horrible situation of steel workers (and others) during the start of the industrial revolution. Workers organized to make a change and improve their lot. Fast forward a few decades: Unions seem to have become self-sustained entities whose incentive have switched from helping workers, to sustaining the union's economic interests. They also sometimes help some workers, but it's not free. There is a very well known case in Quebec, Canada. It's the Gaspesia debacle: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/gaspesia-mill-bailout-is-a-lesson-in-failure-likely-to-go-unheeded/article747046/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comme... "Work on the mill conversion began in the spring of 2002. From the beginning, the project -- established as a limited partnership 50 per cent owned by the Fonds de solidarité with the SGF and Tembec each holding 25-per-cent stakes -- was plagued by delays and mismanagement. The FTQ was accused of blocking workers affiliated with other unions from getting construction jobs on the site. Contractors complained that workers were paid for eight-hour days, but put in only three hours of productive labour." This is only the tip of the Iceberg, and illustrates why there seems a negative perception of unions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eagsalazar2 6y ago

There is no broad support for unions not because of the bogeyman arguments your co-workers were raising but because for most US based software developers there is no acute problem they feel that unions would solve because almost all of us are doing pretty well. On the other hand no single developer really has that much leverage because the importance of even the best individual devs doesn't compare to an individual LeBron and/or there isn't the massive amount of money at stake that depends massively on the work of specific people. Unions for writers, actors, NBA players, etc are frequently representing for extremes of the totally destitute who are easily taken advantage of or groups of the ultra important where the Unions are essentially acting as high powered negotiators for those they represent. All very good reasons for unions, none of which is true for developers in the US right now. I'm not saying there aren't things a union could help with, I'm just saying that for most devs, those things aren't pinching very hard. Also, you have to be realistic about the impact of unions, they are a double edged sword. Police unions aren't a straw man, they are a real example of the worst case scenario for abusive concentration of power and agendas at odds with the public good. The best examples always come with some bureaucratic overhead. So it is valid to consider the cost/benefit of unions. Again, I'm not taking a stance on what is right here, just saying unions are not as obviously a good idea in every case as you might imagine and the hesitance of your co-workers, right or wrong, is at least understandable.

eagsalazar2 6y ago
Oh and to be clear how I feel about the larger question here, I'm not at all defending Facebook. Zuckerberg is the vilest piece of sh*t for allowing this and for profiting off Facebook as tool for misleading so many people. Recent events have really made it clear what a massively damaging thing Facebook's complacency really is.
CodeMage 6y ago
The tech industry in general might not need unions yet, but game dev industry is a clear example of where they're sorely needed.

chrisseaton 6y ago

At the moment I negotiate my work against one entity: my employer. If I had a union I'd have to negotiate my work against two entities: my employer and a union. Why on earth would I want to do that? Seems more complicated and I'm less powerful in the negotiation. Because the union would be 'on my side'? Lol I don't buy it. I think the union would be on the side of their management and whatever political hobby opinions they held, and possibly the majority of the members, but not on my side. No thanks.

bequestry 6y ago

Maybe pro unionists should focus on the possibility that they could negotiate for getting their members better internal tooling/more focus on tech debt. At all companies ive been at, ive seen sooo many managers ignore internal tooling and ignoring tech debt, leading to engineers having to be on call 24/7 for legacy stuff.

diogenescynic 6y ago

You know unions are effective because all the most powerful groups have them—actors, athletes, doctors (AMA) cops, firefighters, and other professional guilds... America just seems against the working class being able to organize in any way.

mmm_grayons 6y ago

> I'll be paid less under a union This is a valid point. Your two examples are guilds not unions; they're inherently geared more towards contractors and individuals due to the nature of the work. While job hopping has become both more prevalent and more frequent among software engineers, it's certainly still mostly an employee-oriented field. It's very true that under unions, high performers specifically are paid a bit less and low performers a bit more. This is both the upside and the downside of collective bargaining and a fundamental characteristic thereof rather than a flaw of a specific union. As someone who's generally been promoted faster and paid more because I worked hard and put in long hours, unions are anathema to me. I'd likely be paid less and a less-productive peer paid more. I can see, however, why such a prospect would appeal to most people. But as an outlier among most employees, I see no reason to entrust my situation to majority rule as that takes it from a negotiation between me and an employer (a person who represents my interests and one who doesn't) to one between someone who represents the average employee and an employer, both of whom probably don't represent my interests.