15 ms·

Unions are just another idea that sounds great on paper, only if you don't consider second and third order effects. They don't serve the workers, they serve the

by dpc_pw 6y ago

Unions are just another idea that sounds great on paper, only if you don't consider second and third order effects. They don't serve the workers, they serve themselves (like pretty much any organization). Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. Given all that I personally think the downsides of unions in tech would be much higher than the upsides. I would rather see more laws universally protecting intellectual workers like e.g. non-enforcability of non-compete clauses and alikes.

throw_m239339 6y ago
> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. In USA that is, things can be very different abroad.
- radu_floricica 6y ago
  Any country where tech workers are mistreated as a rule?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    China. they've got the notorious "9-9-6" hours. "9 AM to 9PM, 6 days a week".
    - criddell 6y ago
      Are there a lot of labor unions in China?
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Not really.[1] [1] https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/trade-union-law-and-collective-bargaining-in-china/ https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/trade-union-law-and-coll...
      - michaelt 6y ago
        The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is the largest trade union in the world, with 302 million members. Of course, some would say taking the ACFTU as representative of unions is like taking the East India Company as representative of multinational corporations...
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        They're also arguably not an actual independent trade union, but rather a tool of the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_Unions#Lack_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_...
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Not only but when industrial unions came to power, industrial workers were the highest demand profession. United artists, AFTRA, WGA, DGA, all formed when their skills were in high demand. There's a natural employer/employee power dynamic that even Adam Smith talks about. If his fanboys only read his books they'd know that.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    This is true, but it doesn't stem from union organisers opportunistically seizing the best moment to negotiate. Rather, some people are always trying to organise collective action, management usually calls their bluff, and the striking employees end up coming back to work or being replaced. When they can't be replaced easily or they have alternatives to coming back to work, management is forced to the negotiating table. There's an alternative narrative where the government steps in and says hey, you have to allow unions. In practice, while some government support is necessary, this doesn't seem to lead to powerful unions in the same way.
sanxiyn 6y ago
> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power > I would rather see more laws universally protecting intellectual workers like e.g. non-enforcability of non-compete clauses and alikes One of this must be incorrect. If tech workers have good negotiating power, they should be able to get rid of non-compete clauses. If they can't, see, that's what union can do (at least try to negotiate) for you.
- kingbirdy 6y ago
  Tech workers are a subset of intellectual workers. Just because tech workers don't need those protections in GP's view doesn't mean other workers wouldn't benefit from them.
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  I agree that negotiating power is not equal and situation is not perfect. Part of the reason is people being unaware, naive etc. to negotiate such a clause away in their contract. But a law like in CA is much better solution for cases like that, than dealing with Unions, IMO.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Unions can be a way for likeminded workers to pool together lobbying efforts. How would such a law right now be proposed and advanced? Certainly not by the lobbying arms of Big Tech.
    - dpc_pw 6y ago
      I don't know who, and I agree that in theory they could. In practice though, I fear, they will be overtaken by parasites, will advance bureaucratic BS, political opinions, protections for people who game the system, start mandating nonsense technological choices, hurt the efficiency, and just drive the well-paying industry into a ground, forcing capital to just move software companies into places that are better for business.
      - 6y ago
abeppu 6y ago
> Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. I am skeptical about this. At public companies, it seems like in general shareholders do an ineffective job at reigning in management. See e.g. all the discussions around executive pay, as well as the proportion of shares that are held through passive funds. Within tech in some cases (e.g. FB) extra means were taken so that shareholders have even less control than is typical. Within private companies, employees with vested options typically have far less visibility into company finances than do the VCs, and certainly don't have a board seat or the ability to vote. I.e. being an employee shareholder at a startup often gives you no ability to see whether management is actually working in your interest, and certainly no special input into corporate governance.
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  (Lack of) Control and overseeing management in public (and private) companies is a whole another issue entirely, and it affects all the shareholders alike. I don't think unions help here - they just make everything more complicated. But the point is - if the company granted me some equity, than I participate in the upside and even if certain decision seems not perfect for me as a employee, and they "just benefit the shareholder", I am too a shareholder, and at least I might get some dollars to wipe away my tears.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Haven't we been seeing a phenomenon where the institutional investors benefit from IPOs before actual equity-receiving employees do? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/an-ipo-could-make-these-workers-wealthy-or-leave-them-with-nothing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/an-ipo-could-make-these-work... https://www.barrons.com/articles/snowflake-showed-that-ipos-are-broken-heres-how-to-fix-them-51601681326 https://www.barrons.com/articles/snowflake-showed-that-ipos-... And that's assuming if the equity ever actually does become worth anything. Or if they even get equity. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/03/30/laid-off-startup-workers-face-billions-in-lost.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/03/30/laid-off...
triceratops 6y ago
> If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. What? If that actually describes you, then yeah a union membership isn't for you. For the rest of us, this doesn't really apply though...
butterfi 6y ago
I think there are a lot of game developers that would disagree with your assessment.
jackcosgrove 6y ago
> Tech workers are in so much demand > Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0 One of these statements has to be false. I think it's the second one. It's true that software has few regulatory or credential barriers. However not everyone is cut out for a career in tech. In fact very few are. This natural moat keeps the supply of workers lower than other industries, making unions less necessary.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power Nonsense. Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with each other to keep tech worker compensation below its market rate[1]. Good luck negotiating a group health plan that an employer buys as a single employee. > Given all that I personally think the downsides of unions in tech would be much higher than the upsides. I would rather go with the facts, and not how you in particular feel about the issue. The facts are that white collar employees that are union members have higher pay[2], better benefits, more time off, and report higher life satisfaction[3] compared to their non-union peers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X16643321 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X16643321
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  How would a tech union help in that case?
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    Stronger representation in a class action lawsuit; negative consequences for corporations in the form of sanctions, walkouts, etc.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    If the union was cross-company, it could have noticed the lack of "poaching" much sooner. Unions could also help in the world of game studios, to stop the deeply harmful practice of "crunch".
    - _kbh_ 6y ago
      Couldn't agree more, imo game studios have all the downsides of a large software company with pretty much none of the benefits, the sooner they unionise and get treated like humans the better.
save_ferris 6y ago
> I would rather see more laws universally protecting intellectual workers like e.g. non-enforcability of non-compete clauses and alikes. How exactly do you see something like this coming to fruition without labor organization? There’s no way federal law like this happens without some sort of coordinated effort to compel congress to pass such a law.
- diggernet 6y ago
  So don't start at the Federal level. Start local. Which is pretty much how the US is intended to work. California made non-competes non-enforceable. No reason your state can't do the same.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    > Start local. Which is pretty much how the US is intended to work. Fundamentally disagree with you right there. Civil rights, marriage equality, and countless other freedoms bestowed on Americans came from Federal action. If Congress never passed the civil rights act, we might still have segregated bathrooms in half of the US today. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with legislating at the Federal level. > California made non-competes non-enforceable. Yeah, back when they ratified their common codes in the 1800’s, it didn’t happen in the modern era. If such legislation were to pass today, you bet labor organizations would be behind it.
mattacular 6y ago
> Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0 I'm sorry but that is not true at all.
goatinaboat 6y ago
Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. Yet doctors and lawyers and pilots have strong unions in all but name. What do you suppose they know that we don’t? Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. I’m sorry but this is just naive. Preferred stock and dilution make shares owned by rank-and-file employees nothing more than a rounding error these days. It was different back in the 90s when all the myths around stock options were formed but those days are long gone.
- fatnoah 6y ago
  This is more likely to be true in the case of options or shares of private companies, but for public companies the value of the equity can at least be determined.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Public vs. private probably doesn't matter all that much. I've had equity compensation from most of my jobs, and I never really felt strongly GP's statement of "What's good for shareholders is also good for [...] tech employees". My company's (public) stock could double and it wouldn't materially affect my lifestyle. For non-public companies I've worked for, the equity usually ended up worth $0. In one company, I was able to sell all my equity at the height of its stock prices, and made maybe enough for 2 months of rent. I think the idea that equity allows employees and companies to share success is kind of overblown.
    - fatnoah 6y ago
      Interesting. Equity comprises about 50% of my compensation, at my current (public company) job, so changes there do have a significant effect on my overall compensation. That said, since it's not entirely predictable, I still treat it as "bonus" money and try to live only on my salary. Agree on non-public companies. I've been part of three, one is still going 10 years after I left and two were acquired. Net value of my equity was $0.
airza 6y ago
The thing that you seem to be missing is that you need labor organization to achieve those things en masse. The current 40 hour workweek we enjoy and the weekends we have off are because of the organized labor movement in the US. If your choices are between working for one of several capital-owned tech conglomerates, or accepting their money for the runway to compete in the current business climate, can you really call that an even playing field? The second and third order effects of labor unions are class consciousness, something that the people on this forum seem to constantly miss.
- username90 6y ago
  You don't need US style unions to achieve any of those, as history shows. Workers should have the right to form political organizations, yes, but forcing your colleagues to join your political organization doesn't make sense.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Nobody is forcing you to work a union job. You're free to apply and work wherever you want.
    - username90 6y ago
      Right, which is why there are basically no unionized software engineering jobs in USA. I'd rather not be forced to change jobs just because you want to join a union. Your love for strict unions means that most people who want a software union isn't allowed to get one since most of their colleagues don't want one.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        I mean, by definition, if someone's workplace voted to unionize, most of their colleagues would want one, because it takes a majority vote in an NLRB election to unionize a workplace.
        6y ago
doggosphere 6y ago
They don't serve the workers, they serve themselves (like pretty much any organization). Unions are owned/compromised of workers. Workers vote on issues that affect them. Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. Absolutely true, but if demand wasn't so high and supply wasn't so short, what happens to worker leverage and treatment? Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. Equity compensation is a result of the pressures of a competitive labour market. If companies could get away with not handing out equity, they would. But since the other guys are paying so well, they are forced to up the ante. Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. An exaggeration. You're not getting hired at the big players without a degree and/or significant experience. Software engineering != entrepreneurship. The majority of software devs would not be able to pay their own bills after 6 months of working on their own projects. Most projects fail. There is a reason all the big sports leagues are unionized with player associations (also highly skill specialized, limited labour supply pool). They are able to negotiate for 50% of league revenue and establish protections. There are downsides; the highest earners are giving up their ability to earn true market wage (ex: a salary cap creates a wage maximum on an individual). But in general I've never heard a pro athlete say that the union has not given them measurable benefit and otherwise higher long term gain.
- skybrian 6y ago
  As you might have noticed, voting is no guarantee that good leaders are elected, nor does it necessarily prevent corruption. "We the people" is a founding myth, and it's our myth, but it's still a political myth similar to the divine right of kings, a way of justifying the rule of the many by the few. The leaders are not the masses, no matter what anyone pretends. (I'm not saying I have a better idea, but let's not be naive about principal-agent problems.)
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    All systems have the potential for corruption. A representational "democracy", compared to other systems, has the least potential for corruption. If unions do in fact give workers more representation/power, than game theory says it is a worthwhile trade off, as we expect average worker gains to be net positive of any corruption losses.
jahaja 6y ago
Yes, the US with their famously good worker benefits. Even the lowest paid worker in Sweden get more vacation and parental leave than you can even dream of in the US (No need to reply with your personal exception). That was achieved through the hard work of the labour movement. How do you explain the following discrepancies if unions are indeed only serving themselves: * The vast differences in labour benefits between Western Europe and the US. * The vast resources US corporations spend on spreading anti-union sentiment and direct union busting (I mean, come one, corporate altruism to help the workers avoid union fees or what?). Unsurprisingly this whole thread is a swamp of comments that passes off unions in truly the worst propaganda caricature there is.
onion2k 6y ago
Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. How do we test this hypothesis? Do we know that tech companies couldn't afford to double the wages of all their staff, or is that an assumption we've made based on high wages relative to other industries? I imagine the likes of Apple could certainly pay their devs a lot more.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  $403k per employee. https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/08/research-reveals-the-companies-and-industries-making-the-most-profit-per-employee.html https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/08/research-rev... Not just their devs, but all of their workers.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    That certainly makes it sound like tens of thousands of developers have failed to negotiate a salary that reflects their actual value to the business they work for.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    Based on that data, most FAANG engineers are already paid more than the profit their employers make per-employee. Yes, a lot of engineers at FAANG make more than $400k total comp. People seem to have a hard time believing that, but it's true. And according to that chart, only two companies actually make that much profit per employee.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Should total comp really be used in this comparison, rather than actual salary?
      - twblalock 6y ago
        Why would only looking at salary be relevant?
leto_ii 6y ago
> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. > Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. > Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. Points 1 and 3 apply, perhaps, to Silicon Valley, but not as much in the rest of the world. I currently work in the Netherlands - there are plenty of jobs and the pay can be good, but at the end of the day you're just another worker. The disparity in negotiating power is still enormous. Point 2 is mostly not that relevant (outside of SV). Even if you get some equity, it will be peanuts. I worked at a company that had a very successful IPO. We all got a few stock options, enough to make a few tens of thousands of euros if you sold them at the right time. The actual shareholders (the ones with decision power) made from tens of millions to billions. The disparity is enormous.

by dpc_pw 6y ago

throw_m239339 6y ago

> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. In USA that is, things can be very different abroad.

radu_floricica 6y ago
Any country where tech workers are mistreated as a rule?
- bhupy 6y ago
  China. they've got the notorious "9-9-6" hours. "9 AM to 9PM, 6 days a week".
  - criddell 6y ago
    Are there a lot of labor unions in China?
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Not really.[1] [1] https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/trade-union-law-and-collective-bargaining-in-china/ https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/trade-union-law-and-coll...
    - michaelt 6y ago
      The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is the largest trade union in the world, with 302 million members. Of course, some would say taking the ACFTU as representative of unions is like taking the East India Company as representative of multinational corporations...
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        They're also arguably not an actual independent trade union, but rather a tool of the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_Unions#Lack_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_...
kristopolous 6y ago
Not only but when industrial unions came to power, industrial workers were the highest demand profession. United artists, AFTRA, WGA, DGA, all formed when their skills were in high demand. There's a natural employer/employee power dynamic that even Adam Smith talks about. If his fanboys only read his books they'd know that.
- dmurray 6y ago
  This is true, but it doesn't stem from union organisers opportunistically seizing the best moment to negotiate. Rather, some people are always trying to organise collective action, management usually calls their bluff, and the striking employees end up coming back to work or being replaced. When they can't be replaced easily or they have alternatives to coming back to work, management is forced to the negotiating table. There's an alternative narrative where the government steps in and says hey, you have to allow unions. In practice, while some government support is necessary, this doesn't seem to lead to powerful unions in the same way.

sanxiyn 6y ago

> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power > I would rather see more laws universally protecting intellectual workers like e.g. non-enforcability of non-compete clauses and alikes One of this must be incorrect. If tech workers have good negotiating power, they should be able to get rid of non-compete clauses. If they can't, see, that's what union can do (at least try to negotiate) for you.

kingbirdy 6y ago
Tech workers are a subset of intellectual workers. Just because tech workers don't need those protections in GP's view doesn't mean other workers wouldn't benefit from them.
dpc_pw 6y ago
I agree that negotiating power is not equal and situation is not perfect. Part of the reason is people being unaware, naive etc. to negotiate such a clause away in their contract. But a law like in CA is much better solution for cases like that, than dealing with Unions, IMO.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Unions can be a way for likeminded workers to pool together lobbying efforts. How would such a law right now be proposed and advanced? Certainly not by the lobbying arms of Big Tech.
  - dpc_pw 6y ago
    I don't know who, and I agree that in theory they could. In practice though, I fear, they will be overtaken by parasites, will advance bureaucratic BS, political opinions, protections for people who game the system, start mandating nonsense technological choices, hurt the efficiency, and just drive the well-paying industry into a ground, forcing capital to just move software companies into places that are better for business.
    - 6y ago

abeppu 6y ago

> Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. I am skeptical about this. At public companies, it seems like in general shareholders do an ineffective job at reigning in management. See e.g. all the discussions around executive pay, as well as the proportion of shares that are held through passive funds. Within tech in some cases (e.g. FB) extra means were taken so that shareholders have even less control than is typical. Within private companies, employees with vested options typically have far less visibility into company finances than do the VCs, and certainly don't have a board seat or the ability to vote. I.e. being an employee shareholder at a startup often gives you no ability to see whether management is actually working in your interest, and certainly no special input into corporate governance.

dpc_pw 6y ago
(Lack of) Control and overseeing management in public (and private) companies is a whole another issue entirely, and it affects all the shareholders alike. I don't think unions help here - they just make everything more complicated. But the point is - if the company granted me some equity, than I participate in the upside and even if certain decision seems not perfect for me as a employee, and they "just benefit the shareholder", I am too a shareholder, and at least I might get some dollars to wipe away my tears.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Haven't we been seeing a phenomenon where the institutional investors benefit from IPOs before actual equity-receiving employees do? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/an-ipo-could-make-these-workers-wealthy-or-leave-them-with-nothing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/an-ipo-could-make-these-work... https://www.barrons.com/articles/snowflake-showed-that-ipos-are-broken-heres-how-to-fix-them-51601681326 https://www.barrons.com/articles/snowflake-showed-that-ipos-... And that's assuming if the equity ever actually does become worth anything. Or if they even get equity. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/03/30/laid-off-startup-workers-face-billions-in-lost.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/03/30/laid-off...

triceratops 6y ago

> If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. What? If that actually describes you, then yeah a union membership isn't for you. For the rest of us, this doesn't really apply though...

butterfi 6y ago

I think there are a lot of game developers that would disagree with your assessment.

jackcosgrove 6y ago

> Tech workers are in so much demand > Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0 One of these statements has to be false. I think it's the second one. It's true that software has few regulatory or credential barriers. However not everyone is cut out for a career in tech. In fact very few are. This natural moat keeps the supply of workers lower than other industries, making unions less necessary.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power Nonsense. Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with each other to keep tech worker compensation below its market rate[1]. Good luck negotiating a group health plan that an employer buys as a single employee. > Given all that I personally think the downsides of unions in tech would be much higher than the upsides. I would rather go with the facts, and not how you in particular feel about the issue. The facts are that white collar employees that are union members have higher pay[2], better benefits, more time off, and report higher life satisfaction[3] compared to their non-union peers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X16643321 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X16643321

oh_sigh 6y ago
How would a tech union help in that case?
- doggosphere 6y ago
  Stronger representation in a class action lawsuit; negative consequences for corporations in the form of sanctions, walkouts, etc.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  If the union was cross-company, it could have noticed the lack of "poaching" much sooner. Unions could also help in the world of game studios, to stop the deeply harmful practice of "crunch".
  - _kbh_ 6y ago
    Couldn't agree more, imo game studios have all the downsides of a large software company with pretty much none of the benefits, the sooner they unionise and get treated like humans the better.

save_ferris 6y ago

> I would rather see more laws universally protecting intellectual workers like e.g. non-enforcability of non-compete clauses and alikes. How exactly do you see something like this coming to fruition without labor organization? There’s no way federal law like this happens without some sort of coordinated effort to compel congress to pass such a law.

diggernet 6y ago
So don't start at the Federal level. Start local. Which is pretty much how the US is intended to work. California made non-competes non-enforceable. No reason your state can't do the same.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > Start local. Which is pretty much how the US is intended to work. Fundamentally disagree with you right there. Civil rights, marriage equality, and countless other freedoms bestowed on Americans came from Federal action. If Congress never passed the civil rights act, we might still have segregated bathrooms in half of the US today. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with legislating at the Federal level. > California made non-competes non-enforceable. Yeah, back when they ratified their common codes in the 1800’s, it didn’t happen in the modern era. If such legislation were to pass today, you bet labor organizations would be behind it.

mattacular 6y ago

> Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0 I'm sorry but that is not true at all.

goatinaboat 6y ago

Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. Yet doctors and lawyers and pilots have strong unions in all but name. What do you suppose they know that we don’t? Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. I’m sorry but this is just naive. Preferred stock and dilution make shares owned by rank-and-file employees nothing more than a rounding error these days. It was different back in the 90s when all the myths around stock options were formed but those days are long gone.

fatnoah 6y ago
This is more likely to be true in the case of options or shares of private companies, but for public companies the value of the equity can at least be determined.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Public vs. private probably doesn't matter all that much. I've had equity compensation from most of my jobs, and I never really felt strongly GP's statement of "What's good for shareholders is also good for [...] tech employees". My company's (public) stock could double and it wouldn't materially affect my lifestyle. For non-public companies I've worked for, the equity usually ended up worth $0. In one company, I was able to sell all my equity at the height of its stock prices, and made maybe enough for 2 months of rent. I think the idea that equity allows employees and companies to share success is kind of overblown.
  - fatnoah 6y ago
    Interesting. Equity comprises about 50% of my compensation, at my current (public company) job, so changes there do have a significant effect on my overall compensation. That said, since it's not entirely predictable, I still treat it as "bonus" money and try to live only on my salary. Agree on non-public companies. I've been part of three, one is still going 10 years after I left and two were acquired. Net value of my equity was $0.

airza 6y ago

The thing that you seem to be missing is that you need labor organization to achieve those things en masse. The current 40 hour workweek we enjoy and the weekends we have off are because of the organized labor movement in the US. If your choices are between working for one of several capital-owned tech conglomerates, or accepting their money for the runway to compete in the current business climate, can you really call that an even playing field? The second and third order effects of labor unions are class consciousness, something that the people on this forum seem to constantly miss.

username90 6y ago
You don't need US style unions to achieve any of those, as history shows. Workers should have the right to form political organizations, yes, but forcing your colleagues to join your political organization doesn't make sense.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to work a union job. You're free to apply and work wherever you want.
  - username90 6y ago
    Right, which is why there are basically no unionized software engineering jobs in USA. I'd rather not be forced to change jobs just because you want to join a union. Your love for strict unions means that most people who want a software union isn't allowed to get one since most of their colleagues don't want one.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      I mean, by definition, if someone's workplace voted to unionize, most of their colleagues would want one, because it takes a majority vote in an NLRB election to unionize a workplace.
      - 6y ago

doggosphere 6y ago

They don't serve the workers, they serve themselves (like pretty much any organization). Unions are owned/compromised of workers. Workers vote on issues that affect them. Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. Absolutely true, but if demand wasn't so high and supply wasn't so short, what happens to worker leverage and treatment? Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. Equity compensation is a result of the pressures of a competitive labour market. If companies could get away with not handing out equity, they would. But since the other guys are paying so well, they are forced to up the ante. Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. An exaggeration. You're not getting hired at the big players without a degree and/or significant experience. Software engineering != entrepreneurship. The majority of software devs would not be able to pay their own bills after 6 months of working on their own projects. Most projects fail. There is a reason all the big sports leagues are unionized with player associations (also highly skill specialized, limited labour supply pool). They are able to negotiate for 50% of league revenue and establish protections. There are downsides; the highest earners are giving up their ability to earn true market wage (ex: a salary cap creates a wage maximum on an individual). But in general I've never heard a pro athlete say that the union has not given them measurable benefit and otherwise higher long term gain.

skybrian 6y ago
As you might have noticed, voting is no guarantee that good leaders are elected, nor does it necessarily prevent corruption. "We the people" is a founding myth, and it's our myth, but it's still a political myth similar to the divine right of kings, a way of justifying the rule of the many by the few. The leaders are not the masses, no matter what anyone pretends. (I'm not saying I have a better idea, but let's not be naive about principal-agent problems.)
- doggosphere 6y ago
  All systems have the potential for corruption. A representational "democracy", compared to other systems, has the least potential for corruption. If unions do in fact give workers more representation/power, than game theory says it is a worthwhile trade off, as we expect average worker gains to be net positive of any corruption losses.

jahaja 6y ago

Yes, the US with their famously good worker benefits. Even the lowest paid worker in Sweden get more vacation and parental leave than you can even dream of in the US (No need to reply with your personal exception). That was achieved through the hard work of the labour movement. How do you explain the following discrepancies if unions are indeed only serving themselves: * The vast differences in labour benefits between Western Europe and the US. * The vast resources US corporations spend on spreading anti-union sentiment and direct union busting (I mean, come one, corporate altruism to help the workers avoid union fees or what?). Unsurprisingly this whole thread is a swamp of comments that passes off unions in truly the worst propaganda caricature there is.

onion2k 6y ago

Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. How do we test this hypothesis? Do we know that tech companies couldn't afford to double the wages of all their staff, or is that an assumption we've made based on high wages relative to other industries? I imagine the likes of Apple could certainly pay their devs a lot more.

Apocryphon 6y ago
$403k per employee. https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/08/research-reveals-the-companies-and-industries-making-the-most-profit-per-employee.html https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/08/research-rev... Not just their devs, but all of their workers.
- onion2k 6y ago
  That certainly makes it sound like tens of thousands of developers have failed to negotiate a salary that reflects their actual value to the business they work for.
- twblalock 6y ago
  Based on that data, most FAANG engineers are already paid more than the profit their employers make per-employee. Yes, a lot of engineers at FAANG make more than $400k total comp. People seem to have a hard time believing that, but it's true. And according to that chart, only two companies actually make that much profit per employee.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Should total comp really be used in this comparison, rather than actual salary?
    - twblalock 6y ago
      Why would only looking at salary be relevant?

leto_ii 6y ago

> Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries. > Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees. > Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup. Points 1 and 3 apply, perhaps, to Silicon Valley, but not as much in the rest of the world. I currently work in the Netherlands - there are plenty of jobs and the pay can be good, but at the end of the day you're just another worker. The disparity in negotiating power is still enormous. Point 2 is mostly not that relevant (outside of SV). Even if you get some equity, it will be peanuts. I worked at a company that had a very successful IPO. We all got a few stock options, enough to make a few tens of thousands of euros if you sold them at the right time. The actual shareholders (the ones with decision power) made from tens of millions to billions. The disparity is enormous.