10 ms·

> We deserve to have input into how we work best and if that means walking away from companies run by egomaniacs that need to see butts in seats, then so be it.

> We deserve to have input into how we work best and if that means walking away from companies run by egomaniacs that need to see butts in seats, then so be it. The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is to organize your coworkers. You have much more bargaining power about your work conditions as an organized union. The history of unionization stems primarily from workers demanding safe working environments.

closeparen 4y ago
I would love a union to protect me from nasty working conditions, like remote meetings.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  They are much better than in person meetings. I can make lunch and fold laundry.
GoodJokes 4y ago
Unions are for poor people. This person can be much more self righteous by quitting for another 6 figure paycheck. Very little risk.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Nonsense, the screen actors and writers guilds are formal unions and their members include all of the top Hollywood stars that pull down 7 figure+ paychecks from films.
- astrange 4y ago
  Besides SAG-AFTRA, lawyers and doctors also have unions and it's essentially the only reason they're highly respected, since they've psyched everyone into thinking they're rare and valuable by making themselves rare.
- p1esk 4y ago
  For this person this is a 7 figure paycheck.
williamsmj 4y ago
I agree with everything you say, but Goodfellow was a manager. Managers can’t join unions in the United States.
- jjj123 4y ago
  What do you mean by that? My manager at my last job was in a union. There was, however, a separate union for managers and one for ICs.
  - williamsmj 4y ago
    The NLRA says "Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, but no employer subject to this Act [subchapter] shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining." ...which effectively states that if a supervisor joins a union it's a no-op. The employer is not required to acknowledge their membership. In practice, unions specifically exclude managers for a bunch of obvious reasons related to their ability to bargain effectively on behalf of their members. Your manager likely joined a union-ish entity open to supervisors. IIUC such entities are not protected by the NLRA and as such have few of the legal powers and protections that make a union a union. They’re basically affinity groups.
    - reaperducer 4y ago
      His experience is no unique. Back in high school, my first job was at a supermarket. The union shopsteward was the assistant manager.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      This means that manager unions do not gain the traditional protections from the law that other unions do. But - if a manager union and employer come to some agreement despite this fact, it has legal weight and the union can sue if the employer breaks the contract (and vice versa). Managers, at least at the higher level like being discussed here, arguably do not need as many protections in order to be able to collectively bargain: Apple is likely to be much more concerned (and thus much more willing to negotiate) about 20 "Director of X" employees leaving than 20 engineers.
caenorst 4y ago
Or just to do what he did. Ian Goodfellow and probably all his team will have no problem finding another job in the condition they want. Apple don't have any monopole on AI jobs.
mgraczyk 4y ago
Until you want something different from those who wield power in the union. At least I can quit my job and work for a different company. In heavily unionized industries, you can't escape.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  [Citation needed]
tomohawk 4y ago
Having seen how several family members fared in union jobs (several different unions), I swore I'd never belong to a union or work any job that required me to be part of one. They all had such an adversarial relationship with work. It's always us against them mentality. They could never see anyone in management as a human. I can't imagine living like that. As far as I can tell, the unions didn't ever solve any of their biggest gripes, took money out of their paychecks for lots of non-work related political activities, and didn't come through when they really needed to on things like pensions or healthcare.
- annexrichmond 4y ago
  I have the same feeling having seen family members in unions. My mother is a really hard worker, and plays by the rules, and that means nothing in her union while her colleagues abuse sick policies, push more work into her and so on. All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. From what I understand is this is done because it's the fairest way. Unions, like anything, can be corrupted. It would be funny if the union rep's nephew always got promotions over other people. This is an attempt to prevent that. In other words, it's the least-worst way of doing it. >My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers. Possibly. In my experience, it's usually in the form of a $5 Starbucks gift card every year. It really depends on the position and the company. I've seen a lot of hard ass workers get treated like shit.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden? personally, i think i would prefer a co-ownership (coop) scheme than union, since that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers... idk just a thought
prirun 4y ago
> You have much more bargaining power about your work conditions as an organized union. You also give away your power as an individual to those running the union.
- lozenge 4y ago
  Your biggest power, the option of resigning to work somewhere else, is still with you. You just get backup from the union for when you don't want to exercise that power.
  - skeeter2020 4y ago
    Well, since the original question before we got distracted was about flexibility in how you work, you definitely give that up as part of a union. Your collective agreement will spell out how, when and where you work, how much you get paid and also compel you do to things in support of the union, even if you don't agree with them. Those are all pretty big individual powers.
    - incone123 4y ago
      Since we're on the topic of remote, why do you think the union agreement would not state location of work being 'member's preference' rather than a specific location?
- in_cahoots 4y ago
  What power do you have as an individual in a company? Other than quitting, your leverage is extremely limited.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    The problem with this question is there are people, like me, for whom the answer is "a lot". I have repeatedly gotten my employer to do things for me that they would not have done on their own. They need me more than I need them, and we both know it. This is also by the way the main dissenting opinion in the recent Amazon union vote. There were several people who were interviewed by the economist as voting no, who said that they'd never had a bad interaction with HR and had gotten everything that they asked for. This is not the one-sided issue that pro-union activists act like it is, and that level of ignorance is what is holding them back.
Aeolun 4y ago
You have much more bargaining power, yes. But you’ll also be bargaining as part of a group that includes Joe Useless, who sits in the next cubicle over and ostensibly fulfills the same role as you. The company may be happy to give you a 10% raise, but they’d rather lower JU’s salary by 10%, so they won’t budge on your demands for an increase, since it’d also apply to him.
- fivre 4y ago
  The company doesn't want to give anyone a raise. They are not happy to give anyone a raise. Companies do not willingly increase their costs, full stop. You could maybe make an argument that companies may increase wages for high performers for retention reasons, because needing to replace valuable employees is a large, if somewhat intangible cost, but that's pretty iffy. Companies are made up of and managed by humans, who are notoriously short-sighted and willing to discount potential risks when there are financial incentives to do so. 50% of the time Joe Useless makes more than you do already, because they joined later and market rate for the position shifted upward. You'll still need to fight tooth and nail, alone, individually, to reach parity, even if you're a top performer. Your manager isn't usually going to say "hmm, we're paying Joe Useless 1.2X, while we're paying Sally Superlative 1.0X--we really should pay Sally 2.0X! Your manager will be overruled by the CFO if they do suggest this anyway. Large wage increases based on expertise happen because you're able to better sell yourself to _another_ company when changing jobs. Ultimately, I'd prefer a system where Joe Useless and I fight for equal wage increases collectively, because the balance of power is such that we're more likely to get them than each of us going it alone. Joe Useless is gonna be there anyway unless the company decides they're so useless as to fire them. So long as Joe Useless is there in the same role as I am, I don't care if they get equal pay, especially not if they're helping in the fight for increases in our equal pay.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    > They are not happy to give anyone a raise. Companies do not willingly increase their costs, full stop. Sounds like you haven't worked for many good companies.
  - 4y ago
ben_w 4y ago
I now try to convince anyone who cold-calls me to join a trade union. The employer can’t be all that good if they’re ignoring the do-not-call registry. And I think it slightly increases the chances of bad actors ceasing cold-calling.
- ddingus 4y ago
  I love this. I used to try and get them to quit. Help them score other work, etc...

closeparen 4y ago

I would love a union to protect me from nasty working conditions, like remote meetings.

hiptobecubic 4y ago
They are much better than in person meetings. I can make lunch and fold laundry.

GoodJokes 4y ago

Unions are for poor people. This person can be much more self righteous by quitting for another 6 figure paycheck. Very little risk.

qbasic_forever 4y ago
Nonsense, the screen actors and writers guilds are formal unions and their members include all of the top Hollywood stars that pull down 7 figure+ paychecks from films.
astrange 4y ago
Besides SAG-AFTRA, lawyers and doctors also have unions and it's essentially the only reason they're highly respected, since they've psyched everyone into thinking they're rare and valuable by making themselves rare.
p1esk 4y ago
For this person this is a 7 figure paycheck.

williamsmj 4y ago

I agree with everything you say, but Goodfellow was a manager. Managers can’t join unions in the United States.

jjj123 4y ago
What do you mean by that? My manager at my last job was in a union. There was, however, a separate union for managers and one for ICs.
- williamsmj 4y ago
  The NLRA says "Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, but no employer subject to this Act [subchapter] shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining." ...which effectively states that if a supervisor joins a union it's a no-op. The employer is not required to acknowledge their membership. In practice, unions specifically exclude managers for a bunch of obvious reasons related to their ability to bargain effectively on behalf of their members. Your manager likely joined a union-ish entity open to supervisors. IIUC such entities are not protected by the NLRA and as such have few of the legal powers and protections that make a union a union. They’re basically affinity groups.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    His experience is no unique. Back in high school, my first job was at a supermarket. The union shopsteward was the assistant manager.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    This means that manager unions do not gain the traditional protections from the law that other unions do. But - if a manager union and employer come to some agreement despite this fact, it has legal weight and the union can sue if the employer breaks the contract (and vice versa). Managers, at least at the higher level like being discussed here, arguably do not need as many protections in order to be able to collectively bargain: Apple is likely to be much more concerned (and thus much more willing to negotiate) about 20 "Director of X" employees leaving than 20 engineers.

caenorst 4y ago

Or just to do what he did. Ian Goodfellow and probably all his team will have no problem finding another job in the condition they want. Apple don't have any monopole on AI jobs.

mgraczyk 4y ago

Until you want something different from those who wield power in the union. At least I can quit my job and work for a different company. In heavily unionized industries, you can't escape.

hiptobecubic 4y ago
[Citation needed]

tomohawk 4y ago

Having seen how several family members fared in union jobs (several different unions), I swore I'd never belong to a union or work any job that required me to be part of one. They all had such an adversarial relationship with work. It's always us against them mentality. They could never see anyone in management as a human. I can't imagine living like that. As far as I can tell, the unions didn't ever solve any of their biggest gripes, took money out of their paychecks for lots of non-work related political activities, and didn't come through when they really needed to on things like pensions or healthcare.

annexrichmond 4y ago
I have the same feeling having seen family members in unions. My mother is a really hard worker, and plays by the rules, and that means nothing in her union while her colleagues abuse sick policies, push more work into her and so on. All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. From what I understand is this is done because it's the fairest way. Unions, like anything, can be corrupted. It would be funny if the union rep's nephew always got promotions over other people. This is an attempt to prevent that. In other words, it's the least-worst way of doing it. >My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers. Possibly. In my experience, it's usually in the form of a $5 Starbucks gift card every year. It really depends on the position and the company. I've seen a lot of hard ass workers get treated like shit.
andrekandre 4y ago
is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden? personally, i think i would prefer a co-ownership (coop) scheme than union, since that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers... idk just a thought

prirun 4y ago

> You have much more bargaining power about your work conditions as an organized union. You also give away your power as an individual to those running the union.

lozenge 4y ago
Your biggest power, the option of resigning to work somewhere else, is still with you. You just get backup from the union for when you don't want to exercise that power.
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  Well, since the original question before we got distracted was about flexibility in how you work, you definitely give that up as part of a union. Your collective agreement will spell out how, when and where you work, how much you get paid and also compel you do to things in support of the union, even if you don't agree with them. Those are all pretty big individual powers.
  - incone123 4y ago
    Since we're on the topic of remote, why do you think the union agreement would not state location of work being 'member's preference' rather than a specific location?
in_cahoots 4y ago
What power do you have as an individual in a company? Other than quitting, your leverage is extremely limited.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  The problem with this question is there are people, like me, for whom the answer is "a lot". I have repeatedly gotten my employer to do things for me that they would not have done on their own. They need me more than I need them, and we both know it. This is also by the way the main dissenting opinion in the recent Amazon union vote. There were several people who were interviewed by the economist as voting no, who said that they'd never had a bad interaction with HR and had gotten everything that they asked for. This is not the one-sided issue that pro-union activists act like it is, and that level of ignorance is what is holding them back.

Aeolun 4y ago

You have much more bargaining power, yes. But you’ll also be bargaining as part of a group that includes Joe Useless, who sits in the next cubicle over and ostensibly fulfills the same role as you. The company may be happy to give you a 10% raise, but they’d rather lower JU’s salary by 10%, so they won’t budge on your demands for an increase, since it’d also apply to him.

fivre 4y ago
The company doesn't want to give anyone a raise. They are not happy to give anyone a raise. Companies do not willingly increase their costs, full stop. You could maybe make an argument that companies may increase wages for high performers for retention reasons, because needing to replace valuable employees is a large, if somewhat intangible cost, but that's pretty iffy. Companies are made up of and managed by humans, who are notoriously short-sighted and willing to discount potential risks when there are financial incentives to do so. 50% of the time Joe Useless makes more than you do already, because they joined later and market rate for the position shifted upward. You'll still need to fight tooth and nail, alone, individually, to reach parity, even if you're a top performer. Your manager isn't usually going to say "hmm, we're paying Joe Useless 1.2X, while we're paying Sally Superlative 1.0X--we really should pay Sally 2.0X! Your manager will be overruled by the CFO if they do suggest this anyway. Large wage increases based on expertise happen because you're able to better sell yourself to _another_ company when changing jobs. Ultimately, I'd prefer a system where Joe Useless and I fight for equal wage increases collectively, because the balance of power is such that we're more likely to get them than each of us going it alone. Joe Useless is gonna be there anyway unless the company decides they're so useless as to fire them. So long as Joe Useless is there in the same role as I am, I don't care if they get equal pay, especially not if they're helping in the fight for increases in our equal pay.
- Handytinge 4y ago
  > They are not happy to give anyone a raise. Companies do not willingly increase their costs, full stop. Sounds like you haven't worked for many good companies.
- 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

I now try to convince anyone who cold-calls me to join a trade union. The employer can’t be all that good if they’re ignoring the do-not-call registry. And I think it slightly increases the chances of bad actors ceasing cold-calling.

ddingus 4y ago
I love this. I used to try and get them to quit. Help them score other work, etc...