4 ms·

Regardless of whether or not IT professionals should be worried about their salaries, labor power isn't just about compensation. Unions could negotiate for bet

Regardless of whether or not IT professionals should be worried about their salaries, labor power isn't just about compensation. Unions could negotiate for better parental leave (which is still atrocious throughout the US, even in relatively cushy jobs). Unions could empower tech workers to actually push back on unethical policies and projects, as opposed to right now where they get to make a statement and then nothing changes. Organization is about changing a power balance; it's not just about money.

jjcon 6y ago
>Organization is about changing a power balance; it's not just about money. Maybe I fundamentally misunderstand unions having only been in one for a short amount of time but I didn't feel any more empowered by having a union. It was a bunch of union fat cats arguing with corporate fat cats and all in all it just made the work more insufferable.
- brundolf 6y ago
  I've heard widely varying things about different individual unions. But I think this is true of any power structure: whenever power is acquired, it can be abused by the few - be they politicians or CEOs or union leaders - or it can be held onto by the many and used for the general improvement of circumstances. There's always the risk of corruption. But speaking very broadly, the higher the number of different powerful parties competing with each other, the better. In literal terms: I'd tend to think having union fat cats arguing with corporate fat cats is better than having only corporate fat cats, who are free to do whatever they please.
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  Union workers have better pay, better benefits, more job security, etc. Many unions are shitty, but even a job with a shitty union is better than a job with no union
oh_sigh 6y ago
Since this article is about a union for Googlers, let's look at google specifically: > Unions could negotiate for better parental leave They get 14 weeks parental leave + some amount for medical leave for people who give birth [0]. > Unions could empower tech workers to actually push back on unethical policies and projects Googlers pushed back on Dragonfly[1] and got it canceled. And they pushed back on Maven[2] and got management to agree to not renew any contracts associated with it. What exactly would change for Googlers who joined a union? [0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/tech/google-family-leave-policy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/tech/google-family-leave-poli... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)#Termination_of_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)#Term... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentagon-project-maven.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentago...
- claudeganon 6y ago
  The ability to maintain that negotiation power and pressure on a reliable basis, as opposed to ad-hoc and reactively as problems arise. One could also ask why people form companies to solve problems when they can just work as individual contractors and arrive at the same conclusion.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  They could do all that again in the future without having to walk out and risk their jobs. You shouldn’t need to put your job on line just to make your employer act ethically. With a union maybe Google wouldn’t have thought paying the aggressor of sexual assault $90mil was a good idea. God knows why anyone thinks paying someone $90mil is good way to punish sexual assault.
dalbasal 6y ago
>Organization is about changing a power balance; it's not just about money. True. Not just... but money is a big factor. A lot of the interest in organizing big tech is related to profitability. Theres a lot to bargain for.
austhrow743 6y ago
Parental leave is part of compensation. It's just extra cash but with strings attached. Things like parental leave are exactly why some people don't like collective bargaining. It means you get stuck being compensated with something you're not going to use instead of cash.
- dayjobpork 6y ago
  To be clear, you are against other workers benefiting from something if you yourself don't benefit?
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    Absolutely not. I'm against giving up my ability to negotiate for myself to someone who is going to negotiate for compensation that I can't use at the expense of compensation I can. Also, weird take. In a scenario where compensation has no lifestyle strings attached to it, both the childless person and the child having person can use that money. Pushing for heavy parental leave is the "fuck you, getting mine" option.
    - etherealG 6y ago
      It's only that way if you think of money and time as equivalent, which I assume from your tone you do. For many parents, time with their child during those early months is invaluable, and no money compensation can compare, so it's not really a viable option for them to "get theirs" while you don't "get yours". I think collective bargaining could solve this better by asking for an option to either have the cash or the time... but getting only cash is also saying to parents "fuck you, getting mine", just with the added "and you get it too, even if you don't want it". Overall, I think grouping together to have a more powerful negotiating position is better for the group as a whole... It's a classic Nash Equilibrium problem, and obvious to many people that grouping together even if you don't want the exact same things is still better. I'm not sure why people who advocate for staying "alone" in your negotiation think that the outcome will be better by leaving the employer in the state of having more power in the negotiation by you being alone. Can you explain if you see it as better for any reason other than that you prefer to "have yours" even if "yours" is more for you at the cost of less for us all?

jjcon 6y ago

>Organization is about changing a power balance; it's not just about money. Maybe I fundamentally misunderstand unions having only been in one for a short amount of time but I didn't feel any more empowered by having a union. It was a bunch of union fat cats arguing with corporate fat cats and all in all it just made the work more insufferable.

brundolf 6y ago
I've heard widely varying things about different individual unions. But I think this is true of any power structure: whenever power is acquired, it can be abused by the few - be they politicians or CEOs or union leaders - or it can be held onto by the many and used for the general improvement of circumstances. There's always the risk of corruption. But speaking very broadly, the higher the number of different powerful parties competing with each other, the better. In literal terms: I'd tend to think having union fat cats arguing with corporate fat cats is better than having only corporate fat cats, who are free to do whatever they please.
AshWolfy 6y ago
Union workers have better pay, better benefits, more job security, etc. Many unions are shitty, but even a job with a shitty union is better than a job with no union

oh_sigh 6y ago

Since this article is about a union for Googlers, let's look at google specifically: > Unions could negotiate for better parental leave They get 14 weeks parental leave + some amount for medical leave for people who give birth [0]. > Unions could empower tech workers to actually push back on unethical policies and projects Googlers pushed back on Dragonfly[1] and got it canceled. And they pushed back on Maven[2] and got management to agree to not renew any contracts associated with it. What exactly would change for Googlers who joined a union? [0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/tech/google-family-leave-policy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/tech/google-family-leave-poli... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)#Termination_of_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)#Term... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentagon-project-maven.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentago...

claudeganon 6y ago
The ability to maintain that negotiation power and pressure on a reliable basis, as opposed to ad-hoc and reactively as problems arise. One could also ask why people form companies to solve problems when they can just work as individual contractors and arrive at the same conclusion.
avianlyric 6y ago
They could do all that again in the future without having to walk out and risk their jobs. You shouldn’t need to put your job on line just to make your employer act ethically. With a union maybe Google wouldn’t have thought paying the aggressor of sexual assault $90mil was a good idea. God knows why anyone thinks paying someone $90mil is good way to punish sexual assault.

dalbasal 6y ago

>Organization is about changing a power balance; it's not just about money. True. Not just... but money is a big factor. A lot of the interest in organizing big tech is related to profitability. Theres a lot to bargain for.

austhrow743 6y ago

Parental leave is part of compensation. It's just extra cash but with strings attached. Things like parental leave are exactly why some people don't like collective bargaining. It means you get stuck being compensated with something you're not going to use instead of cash.

dayjobpork 6y ago
To be clear, you are against other workers benefiting from something if you yourself don't benefit?
- austhrow743 6y ago
  Absolutely not. I'm against giving up my ability to negotiate for myself to someone who is going to negotiate for compensation that I can't use at the expense of compensation I can. Also, weird take. In a scenario where compensation has no lifestyle strings attached to it, both the childless person and the child having person can use that money. Pushing for heavy parental leave is the "fuck you, getting mine" option.
  - etherealG 6y ago
    It's only that way if you think of money and time as equivalent, which I assume from your tone you do. For many parents, time with their child during those early months is invaluable, and no money compensation can compare, so it's not really a viable option for them to "get theirs" while you don't "get yours". I think collective bargaining could solve this better by asking for an option to either have the cash or the time... but getting only cash is also saying to parents "fuck you, getting mine", just with the added "and you get it too, even if you don't want it". Overall, I think grouping together to have a more powerful negotiating position is better for the group as a whole... It's a classic Nash Equilibrium problem, and obvious to many people that grouping together even if you don't want the exact same things is still better. I'm not sure why people who advocate for staying "alone" in your negotiation think that the outcome will be better by leaving the employer in the state of having more power in the negotiation by you being alone. Can you explain if you see it as better for any reason other than that you prefer to "have yours" even if "yours" is more for you at the cost of less for us all?