Yeah, I think 1% is standard. I think our dues were 1.5%, but I can’t find my old contract right this second. We got a guaranteed 3% annual raise as part of the

Yeah, I think 1% is standard. I think our dues were 1.5%, but I can’t find my old contract right this second. We got a guaranteed 3% annual raise as part of the contract (in addition to any other raises or promotions), so for us, even in a pure cost perspective, the union was a net win, irrespective of all the other benefits. Unfortunately, and I say this as a big fan and supporter of unions, I don’t see this drive being successful. Compensation and job security are some of the mains reasons people unionize. Companies like Google already offer cost-of-living raises annually, in addition to stock and bonus compensation. The challenge for most tech companies attempting to unionize — and by this, I mean staff including engineers, not simply the employees who don’t reap spoils, like janitors, bus drivers, receptionists, cafeteria staff, etc. — is that the reason to unionize is largely not going to be about pay. Because realistically, I have doubts in a CBA (which this is not, but let’s assume there was a scenario with one) being more effective at negotiating salary levels than the current system that exists. This isn’t true for all tech companies; most employees at a game studio, for example, could almost certainly benefit from a CBA. Still, the challenge for an all-encompassing union like this is that for most employees, a union won’t effect compensation (and when it will, it’ll impact the bottom wrung — which is important, but makes it harder to get mass buy-in from the rank and file), it won’t effect perks, it won't effect medical care, parental leave, insurance. All of these things tend to be best-in-class, at least in the United States. So instead, you’re talking about fighting for a union for equally important, but much more difficult to quantify, areas like a voice in what types of contract bids or programs the company takes, hiring policies, sexual harassment policies, etc. And it’s specifically that difficulty that has led the CWA to organize this as a minority union. And that’s exactly why although I applaud the efforts to do this, I doubt very much it will be effective at all. To me, a better approach would have been to have a more organized approach focused on specific types of employees, especially vendors/contractors. This “anyone can join but we don't have a CBA and aren’t recognized by the NLRB” thing strikes me as much more akin to trying to form an employee-focused internal lobbying group, rather than an actual union.