5 ms·

Nope. I'd much rather unionize for better wages, better conditions (that includes this topic), collective bargaining, and to wrench some of the power back to th

by sli 5y ago

Nope. I'd much rather unionize for better wages, better conditions (that includes this topic), collective bargaining, and to wrench some of the power back to the people doing the actual work. Not every software developer is making six figures working for FAANG, some of them have to put up with some awful conditions, and the whole "just get another job, it's not that difficult" attitude is a bubble that a lot of HN lives in. In short, I want democracy to extend to the workplace. The line we've drawn is artificial and one-sided.

melony 5y ago
It is people like you that drive high earners away from unions. Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. If you cannot get enough high income workers to buy-in, then your plan is dead on arrival. Bernie will be proud. Not everyone cares about the social justice issue du jour, most people just want more money. Ultimately, any union plan must show clear benefits and right now if you are earning more than 6 figures, unions are nothing but a waste of time and money. You have yet to demonstrate that an upper class union can go beyond crabs in a bucket gatekeeping.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. It's just not particularly valuable.
derekp7 5y ago
The problem people have with unions is that many of them elevate the lower performers by pushing down the higher performers. The higher performers have leverage already without a union. Of course this only works when there are more positions open that benefit from high performers than there is supply of high performing workers. Many tech workers believe this will be the case for some time to come. What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Many unions do exactly that. Every movie star in the US is represented by SAG-AFTRA, which is the same union that represents B-list infomercial actors. The union helps the stars negotiate multi-million dollar contracts, and the same union ensures actors you've never heard of are compensated and treated fairly. Same thing with professional athletes and their unions. White collar unions usually negotiate a floor that individuals can up-negotiate from. Not only can you negotiate for better compensation, unions will happily represent you and help you get what you're asking for.
  - syshum 5y ago
    "many". No. Very few (in the USA) in fact act in that way. And a union for white collar workers would most certainly not. A union for white collar workers would be closer to UAW or AFLCIO and would most certainly have fixed compensation packages
    - js8 5y ago
      You understand unions are democratic, right? You can vote out the leaders if you disagree how they manage it. Now of course, if you are in the minority, and still feel slighted (and under-appreciated), there is always an option to start your own business with like-minded people.
      - syshum 5y ago
        I do understand that. And it is one of the reason I do not support them. I am an individual, I support individualism not Majoritarianism Direct democracy normally end badly because simple Majoritarianism is bad This is way in most democratic nations the will of the majority is balanced by other means or controls.
        js8 5y ago
        OK.. You might as well be a solipsist. Why do we even have the discussion, then? If you don't want to participate in society, just don't. It's not clear to me why I would support you being an individualist (and adopt any of your political positions), when (according to your philosophy) I get nothing back in turn.
echelon 5y ago
Unions aren't democracy, though. They're seniority. If you start at a company, it'll be harder to rise through the ranks. And if you start a company, you'll be forced to go through union processes to remove bad fits. Our industry and compensation as they exist today don't need the baggage. If Europe and emerging markets put price pressure on our jobs, then maybe we can reevaluate. As it stands, we don't even need pensions when we can FIRE in under a decade on existing comp arrangements.
- paxys 5y ago
  There isn't one single type of union with one set of rules. Do Hollywood actors get paid by seniority?
  - echelon 5y ago
    Just when I was going to chime in that IATSE had seniority rules [1], I found that SAG-AFTRA does too! [1] https://iatse99.org/job-referral-rules/ https://iatse99.org/job-referral-rules/ [2] https://www.opeiu537.org/Portals/local537/cbas/.SAG-AFTRA%20CBAW.pdf?ver=2020-02-18-174201-823 https://www.opeiu537.org/Portals/local537/cbas/.SAG-AFTRA%20... You can't escape it.
throwawaysea 5y ago
You’re leaving out the part where those who come to control the union also import their personal politics/agendas, bully others into silence, and abuse their position far more than company management. Look at any major union like the NEA - the leaders and their acolytes are weaponizing the power intended for collective bargaining to push ideological agendas and propagandize children at schools. Meanwhile they barely do their actual job and resist all accountability. So why is the authoritarian control of unions preferable to that of company management that just advances the company’s financials and leaves the rest out of it? Regarding developers - you seem to be ignoring that most software developers outside of FAANG are just not very good at their job. They have to put up with conditions in part because of their low value and replaceability, but certainly no one is forcing them into one industry over another. Therefore they must see the compensation as a fair trade if they are choosing to remain in the industry. Given the lower quality of work, I also wonder why you think they’re doing the “actual work” and not their management or other job functions at the company.

by sli 5y ago

melony 5y ago

It is people like you that drive high earners away from unions. Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. If you cannot get enough high income workers to buy-in, then your plan is dead on arrival. Bernie will be proud. Not everyone cares about the social justice issue du jour, most people just want more money. Ultimately, any union plan must show clear benefits and right now if you are earning more than 6 figures, unions are nothing but a waste of time and money. You have yet to demonstrate that an upper class union can go beyond crabs in a bucket gatekeeping.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. It's just not particularly valuable.

derekp7 5y ago

The problem people have with unions is that many of them elevate the lower performers by pushing down the higher performers. The higher performers have leverage already without a union. Of course this only works when there are more positions open that benefit from high performers than there is supply of high performing workers. Many tech workers believe this will be the case for some time to come. What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.

heavyset_go 5y ago
Many unions do exactly that. Every movie star in the US is represented by SAG-AFTRA, which is the same union that represents B-list infomercial actors. The union helps the stars negotiate multi-million dollar contracts, and the same union ensures actors you've never heard of are compensated and treated fairly. Same thing with professional athletes and their unions. White collar unions usually negotiate a floor that individuals can up-negotiate from. Not only can you negotiate for better compensation, unions will happily represent you and help you get what you're asking for.
- syshum 5y ago
  "many". No. Very few (in the USA) in fact act in that way. And a union for white collar workers would most certainly not. A union for white collar workers would be closer to UAW or AFLCIO and would most certainly have fixed compensation packages
  - js8 5y ago
    You understand unions are democratic, right? You can vote out the leaders if you disagree how they manage it. Now of course, if you are in the minority, and still feel slighted (and under-appreciated), there is always an option to start your own business with like-minded people.
    - syshum 5y ago
      I do understand that. And it is one of the reason I do not support them. I am an individual, I support individualism not Majoritarianism Direct democracy normally end badly because simple Majoritarianism is bad This is way in most democratic nations the will of the majority is balanced by other means or controls.
      - js8 5y ago
        OK.. You might as well be a solipsist. Why do we even have the discussion, then? If you don't want to participate in society, just don't. It's not clear to me why I would support you being an individualist (and adopt any of your political positions), when (according to your philosophy) I get nothing back in turn.

echelon 5y ago

Unions aren't democracy, though. They're seniority. If you start at a company, it'll be harder to rise through the ranks. And if you start a company, you'll be forced to go through union processes to remove bad fits. Our industry and compensation as they exist today don't need the baggage. If Europe and emerging markets put price pressure on our jobs, then maybe we can reevaluate. As it stands, we don't even need pensions when we can FIRE in under a decade on existing comp arrangements.

paxys 5y ago
There isn't one single type of union with one set of rules. Do Hollywood actors get paid by seniority?
- echelon 5y ago
  Just when I was going to chime in that IATSE had seniority rules [1], I found that SAG-AFTRA does too! [1] https://iatse99.org/job-referral-rules/ https://iatse99.org/job-referral-rules/ [2] https://www.opeiu537.org/Portals/local537/cbas/.SAG-AFTRA%20CBAW.pdf?ver=2020-02-18-174201-823 https://www.opeiu537.org/Portals/local537/cbas/.SAG-AFTRA%20... You can't escape it.

throwawaysea 5y ago

You’re leaving out the part where those who come to control the union also import their personal politics/agendas, bully others into silence, and abuse their position far more than company management. Look at any major union like the NEA - the leaders and their acolytes are weaponizing the power intended for collective bargaining to push ideological agendas and propagandize children at schools. Meanwhile they barely do their actual job and resist all accountability. So why is the authoritarian control of unions preferable to that of company management that just advances the company’s financials and leaves the rest out of it? Regarding developers - you seem to be ignoring that most software developers outside of FAANG are just not very good at their job. They have to put up with conditions in part because of their low value and replaceability, but certainly no one is forcing them into one industry over another. Therefore they must see the compensation as a fair trade if they are choosing to remain in the industry. Given the lower quality of work, I also wonder why you think they’re doing the “actual work” and not their management or other job functions at the company.