5 ms·

I’m skeptical because I don’t necessarily trust the people who would be at the top of a union to align with my preferences better than status quo. Some of the o

I’m skeptical because I don’t necessarily trust the people who would be at the top of a union to align with my preferences better than status quo. Some of the orthodox opinions in the community are not mine. But it would go something like this: Despite tech workers’ financial power, management gets away with many widely unpopular working conditions. Think of the ubiquity of open offices, or of offices in general. Or sprints, or story points, or JIRA. Or the prioritization of new feature work over reliability and refactoring. Or the infamous crunch time near a deadline. Or the unfairness and perverse incentives in a promotion process. Coworkers making more than you because they joined at a lower stock price or had better counteroffers. Theoretically, workers could get more control over these conditions. There are also many things programmers are asked to build, which at least the loudest among us find reprehensible. This includes anything to do with advertising, personal data, aggressive sales practices, dark patterns, etc. Programmers could reduce the prevalence of these things by collectively refusing to work on them. Even informal rumblings made some headway on this kind of thing at Google. Finally there is a more general leftist solidarity angle where programmers could “make the world a better place” by using their own indispensability to leverage their employers into better pay and conditions for others. Kitchen staff, cleaning crew, even gig workers contracted through the platforms they work on. Tech workers have a better chance of getting this sort of thing done by contract than by legislation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cyanydeez 5y ago
>I’m skeptical because I don’t necessarily trust the people who would be at the top of a union why would they be any worse than whose ever in charge of your employment. every country has proven that no matter the the system, without an engaged populace, it can be crippled with corruption.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kamkazemoose 5y ago
  In a union, the leadership is negotiating for you. So the person in charge of your employment that the union is replacing is you, not management. They could negotiate things like more PTO, better conditions, or a larger bonus instead of a straight base pay. But as the employee you might want straight up higher base pay. Or maybe the union gets a promotion process that values seniority more than performance. It might save you from a political process or having to play the game, but can hurt other people. The idea is that unions help the collective and will get a generally better deal then you might get on your own. But again the isn't going to get everything from management and they have to decide what to prioritize. So if your priorities are different than union leadership your wishes might get left behind to help more other people.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    I can’t really imagine a union negotiating in the interests of privileged, mid six figure, 1%er software engineers. Even if it is made of us. That’s a little bit cravenly capitalistic for the kind of people who would be running a union in San Francisco. Rather, I think it would say that we, the members, are the powerful, and we have an obligation to use our collective power and wealth to advance broader left causes. I don’t really want to get into it with my coworkers over exactly what our issue profile is, nor accept what I think the loudest voices will say. I prefer to choose my political organizations separately from my job. Now if it’s truly going to just self-interestedly fight for our already well served interests, sure.
nunez 5y ago
> Despite tech workers’ financial power, management gets away with many widely unpopular working conditions. Think of the ubiquity of open offices, or of offices in general. Or sprints, or story points, or JIRA. Or the prioritization of new feature work over reliability and refactoring. Or the infamous crunch time near a deadline. Or the unfairness and perverse incentives in a promotion process. Coworkers making more than you because they joined at a lower stock price or had better counteroffers. Theoretically, workers could get more control over these conditions. I don’t think any of these things are bad? To the point of open offices: this is highly preferential. I personally prefer them over high-density cubicles for the peons and actual dedicated offices for management. (I’ve seen some places create offices for teams, but that’s not the norm.) I’d rather see further maturity of hybrid/WFH workflows. About Jira: At the end of the day, most of us write software to accomplish a business need. That need is usually tied to a date and funded with money. As long as both of those things are true, estimation in any form will be necessary. While I’ve seen story points and scrum ceremonies get horribly mangled and abused, at their core, I think they are a significant improvement over man-hours, Gantt charts, and status meetings. About new employees making more than old ones: That’s just market dynamics. Management will always try to pay as little as they can get away with. Unless you always overpay for general contracting, auto repair, or any other services, you probably do as well. Market rate will always increase with demand, so most companies will always pay more for new people and ensure that your compensation increases minimally. Good companies who care about not losing talent will ensure their people are getting paid market (because losing people over money is stupid if you can afford to keep them). I’d rather have my value determined by the market than it be determined by union members “representing me.”

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cyanydeez 5y ago

>I’m skeptical because I don’t necessarily trust the people who would be at the top of a union why would they be any worse than whose ever in charge of your employment. every country has proven that no matter the the system, without an engaged populace, it can be crippled with corruption.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kamkazemoose 5y ago
In a union, the leadership is negotiating for you. So the person in charge of your employment that the union is replacing is you, not management. They could negotiate things like more PTO, better conditions, or a larger bonus instead of a straight base pay. But as the employee you might want straight up higher base pay. Or maybe the union gets a promotion process that values seniority more than performance. It might save you from a political process or having to play the game, but can hurt other people. The idea is that unions help the collective and will get a generally better deal then you might get on your own. But again the isn't going to get everything from management and they have to decide what to prioritize. So if your priorities are different than union leadership your wishes might get left behind to help more other people.
- closeparen 5y ago
  I can’t really imagine a union negotiating in the interests of privileged, mid six figure, 1%er software engineers. Even if it is made of us. That’s a little bit cravenly capitalistic for the kind of people who would be running a union in San Francisco. Rather, I think it would say that we, the members, are the powerful, and we have an obligation to use our collective power and wealth to advance broader left causes. I don’t really want to get into it with my coworkers over exactly what our issue profile is, nor accept what I think the loudest voices will say. I prefer to choose my political organizations separately from my job. Now if it’s truly going to just self-interestedly fight for our already well served interests, sure.

nunez 5y ago

> Despite tech workers’ financial power, management gets away with many widely unpopular working conditions. Think of the ubiquity of open offices, or of offices in general. Or sprints, or story points, or JIRA. Or the prioritization of new feature work over reliability and refactoring. Or the infamous crunch time near a deadline. Or the unfairness and perverse incentives in a promotion process. Coworkers making more than you because they joined at a lower stock price or had better counteroffers. Theoretically, workers could get more control over these conditions. I don’t think any of these things are bad? To the point of open offices: this is highly preferential. I personally prefer them over high-density cubicles for the peons and actual dedicated offices for management. (I’ve seen some places create offices for teams, but that’s not the norm.) I’d rather see further maturity of hybrid/WFH workflows. About Jira: At the end of the day, most of us write software to accomplish a business need. That need is usually tied to a date and funded with money. As long as both of those things are true, estimation in any form will be necessary. While I’ve seen story points and scrum ceremonies get horribly mangled and abused, at their core, I think they are a significant improvement over man-hours, Gantt charts, and status meetings. About new employees making more than old ones: That’s just market dynamics. Management will always try to pay as little as they can get away with. Unless you always overpay for general contracting, auto repair, or any other services, you probably do as well. Market rate will always increase with demand, so most companies will always pay more for new people and ensure that your compensation increases minimally. Good companies who care about not losing talent will ensure their people are getting paid market (because losing people over money is stupid if you can afford to keep them). I’d rather have my value determined by the market than it be determined by union members “representing me.”