5 ms·

With regard to the lazy worker, honestly, who cares? You still get paid. The company isn't going under. No doubt like most situations of abuse, this is a minori

With regard to the lazy worker, honestly, who cares? You still get paid. The company isn't going under. No doubt like most situations of abuse, this is a minority case because in general people like being productive.

flavius29663 5y ago
Then Google should just hire 100,000 devs this year, why not? They're not going to go under, who cares that they won't be able to contribute to the success of the company?
- brightstep 5y ago
  Sure, what do I care? I care about people not corporations. There are competitors salivating to scoop up any devs who are out of a job if Google goes under.
- CiPHPerCoder 5y ago
  > Then Google should just hire 100,000 devs this year, why not? Hold up that's actually a good idea. It would help a lot of entry level devs bulk up their resume and learn hands on skills. This would lead to an influx of sorely needed new talent to the entire tech industry and enable a lot more innovation than was possible before, if only due to HR red tape.
  - hkt 5y ago
    That'd be a sort of corporate keynesianism. It is both neat and scary to think that a few companies could meaningfully stimulate their entire sector over a period of years through their hiring policies.
colejohnson66 5y ago
The issue many have is the union dues. If the union doesn't help me, but still take 5% (or whatever) of my paycheck, I'd be pretty peeved off. It's the same issue many people have with raising taxes: politicians tout all the benefits it'll allow, but then costs go up and no visible product results.
- brightstep 5y ago
  that's a different thing than a less-productive worker not being fired
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  5% does seem excessive. I worked at a unionized tech company, and I paid 0.5% as union due.
  - arbitrage 5y ago
    that's b/c the figure of 5% is made up bullshit.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      It's not. I worked at a grocery store years ago, and my $300-$350 weekly paychecks had a $15-$20 union due line (I don't remember the exact amount). Sure, some unions can have lower amounts, but single digit dues do exist. Don't get me wrong. I'm for unions, but when people don't see an improvement, it'll leave a sour taste in their mouths.
streblo 5y ago
I'd care if I were an investor in such a company.
- brightstep 5y ago
  unions are about workers, not investors
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    In tech almost all workers are heavily invested in their companies.
    - geofft 5y ago
      Which is an anti-labor-power strategy. If you consider the case of publicly-traded employers (there's a different argument for pre-exit startups that comes out to a similar conclusion): they could give you your compensation entirely in cash, because shares are pretty liquid. And you could buy stock in your own employer. But very few people think that's a good idea, because now you have correlated risk across your own actual job (both continued employment and things like the ability of the company to give large bonuses/raises) and your investments. So the company effectively forces you to buy some of their stock and not sell it for some period of time. You know exactly how much you're forced to buy because, again, the company is publicly traded and you know what that's worth; you just get it in illiquid form. So, by giving you part of your compensation in this funny form instead of in normal cash, they get you to feel internally conflicted about policies that improve your cash compensation (and other intangible benefits) at the expense of a theoretical drop in your funny-cash compensation. That doesn't benefit you (even if you were the sort of person who wanted to invest in your own employer, you're still free to do that on your own if you want, so forcing you to do it is at best equivalent to giving you the option), but it does massively benefit the people who own way more shares in the company than you ever will.
      - hkt 5y ago
        This is one of the best summaries I've seen of the power dynamics at play with employee share schemes. Kudos. What has always bothered me is that whenever I've been paid partly in shares, it has been non-voting shares or options (or both). Still no representation either way. If government was done with no representation we'd be within our rights to revolt - it gas always struck me as odd that even employee shareholders are denied that same representation.
lordnacho 5y ago
Isn't it a fairly common thing to not appreciate it when other people get the same reward for no contribution? It's like when you're a kid and you win some sweets, and your parents decide you have to share them with your little brother. There may be a desire to do so, but does he get half your sweets?
- arbitrage 5y ago
  It sounds like your problem is with the person giving out the sweets, not with the person who also got rewarded.
  - sidibe 5y ago
    Isn't the point of the argument that unions make the person give out the sweets that way?
- advael 5y ago
  Yes, I would describe that as a pretty common human failing. Human societies are collaborative by nature, and you are likely blind to the situations in which you are "carried" by others, despite being hyper-attuned to situations in which you feel you are "carrying" disproportionate weight. People's lives not being ruined every time they're not useful is a feature, not a bug, of membership in most functioning human groups, and balking at this desirable property when it benefits others is indeed something I associate with children
- nirvdrum 5y ago
  I've never been a union member, but I've certainly worked with several people I would call "dead weight." Sometimes they've even earned more than me whether through better negotiation or better at office politics. I don't see this as something that only arises when unions are introduced.

flavius29663 5y ago

Then Google should just hire 100,000 devs this year, why not? They're not going to go under, who cares that they won't be able to contribute to the success of the company?

brightstep 5y ago
Sure, what do I care? I care about people not corporations. There are competitors salivating to scoop up any devs who are out of a job if Google goes under.
CiPHPerCoder 5y ago
> Then Google should just hire 100,000 devs this year, why not? Hold up that's actually a good idea. It would help a lot of entry level devs bulk up their resume and learn hands on skills. This would lead to an influx of sorely needed new talent to the entire tech industry and enable a lot more innovation than was possible before, if only due to HR red tape.
- hkt 5y ago
  That'd be a sort of corporate keynesianism. It is both neat and scary to think that a few companies could meaningfully stimulate their entire sector over a period of years through their hiring policies.

colejohnson66 5y ago

The issue many have is the union dues. If the union doesn't help me, but still take 5% (or whatever) of my paycheck, I'd be pretty peeved off. It's the same issue many people have with raising taxes: politicians tout all the benefits it'll allow, but then costs go up and no visible product results.

brightstep 5y ago
that's a different thing than a less-productive worker not being fired
sanxiyn 5y ago
5% does seem excessive. I worked at a unionized tech company, and I paid 0.5% as union due.
- arbitrage 5y ago
  that's b/c the figure of 5% is made up bullshit.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    It's not. I worked at a grocery store years ago, and my $300-$350 weekly paychecks had a $15-$20 union due line (I don't remember the exact amount). Sure, some unions can have lower amounts, but single digit dues do exist. Don't get me wrong. I'm for unions, but when people don't see an improvement, it'll leave a sour taste in their mouths.

streblo 5y ago

I'd care if I were an investor in such a company.

brightstep 5y ago
unions are about workers, not investors
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  In tech almost all workers are heavily invested in their companies.
  - geofft 5y ago
    Which is an anti-labor-power strategy. If you consider the case of publicly-traded employers (there's a different argument for pre-exit startups that comes out to a similar conclusion): they could give you your compensation entirely in cash, because shares are pretty liquid. And you could buy stock in your own employer. But very few people think that's a good idea, because now you have correlated risk across your own actual job (both continued employment and things like the ability of the company to give large bonuses/raises) and your investments. So the company effectively forces you to buy some of their stock and not sell it for some period of time. You know exactly how much you're forced to buy because, again, the company is publicly traded and you know what that's worth; you just get it in illiquid form. So, by giving you part of your compensation in this funny form instead of in normal cash, they get you to feel internally conflicted about policies that improve your cash compensation (and other intangible benefits) at the expense of a theoretical drop in your funny-cash compensation. That doesn't benefit you (even if you were the sort of person who wanted to invest in your own employer, you're still free to do that on your own if you want, so forcing you to do it is at best equivalent to giving you the option), but it does massively benefit the people who own way more shares in the company than you ever will.
    - hkt 5y ago
      This is one of the best summaries I've seen of the power dynamics at play with employee share schemes. Kudos. What has always bothered me is that whenever I've been paid partly in shares, it has been non-voting shares or options (or both). Still no representation either way. If government was done with no representation we'd be within our rights to revolt - it gas always struck me as odd that even employee shareholders are denied that same representation.

lordnacho 5y ago

Isn't it a fairly common thing to not appreciate it when other people get the same reward for no contribution? It's like when you're a kid and you win some sweets, and your parents decide you have to share them with your little brother. There may be a desire to do so, but does he get half your sweets?

arbitrage 5y ago
It sounds like your problem is with the person giving out the sweets, not with the person who also got rewarded.
- sidibe 5y ago
  Isn't the point of the argument that unions make the person give out the sweets that way?
advael 5y ago
Yes, I would describe that as a pretty common human failing. Human societies are collaborative by nature, and you are likely blind to the situations in which you are "carried" by others, despite being hyper-attuned to situations in which you feel you are "carrying" disproportionate weight. People's lives not being ruined every time they're not useful is a feature, not a bug, of membership in most functioning human groups, and balking at this desirable property when it benefits others is indeed something I associate with children
nirvdrum 5y ago
I've never been a union member, but I've certainly worked with several people I would call "dead weight." Sometimes they've even earned more than me whether through better negotiation or better at office politics. I don't see this as something that only arises when unions are introduced.