7 ms·

In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are

In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are a cancer to the org.

Apocryphon 4y ago
That employee had been at the company for a dozen years, it's in the very title of the article.
danpalmer 4y ago
I agree that union organisation work is not _work_, it's not what people are paid to do, and it should therefore be done on personal time. However, employers are in a position of significant power over their employees, and unions represent a way to balance that power. I think this is a broadly positive thing that I think employees should be in favour of, and that I think the best employers would also be in favour of.
- roguecoder 4y ago
  IANAL, but my understanding is that it is illegal to treat unionizing differently than other social activities. If a company wants to ban unionizing on company time, they have to ban all non-work related socializing. If people are allowed to talk about movies & video games, they are also allowed to talk about unions.
- draw_down 4y ago
mikkergp 4y ago
One way conceptualize many companies is that they're just the id of senior execs measuring their genitalia against one other, why shouldn't workers get to participate?
- xyzzy4747 4y ago
  The workers can make their own company if the terms of their employment don’t make them happy.
  - roguecoder 4y ago
    Or they can organize, as is their legal right, and renegotiate those terms together. Even if you aren't unionized, it is your right to get together with your coworkers & advocate for better working conditions.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Your belief system isn’t congruent with US labor law. Why leave when you can make your existing job better? Your other comment indicates they should have to amass 51% of company shares. Ridiculous. Their ability to organize and vote to do so comes from their labor rights, and is precisely why they don’t require capital (per labor law) to have a say. Businesses can be built without capital. They cannot be built without labor. https://www.laborlab.us/the_right_to_unionize https://www.laborlab.us/the_right_to_unionize
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    Again they could, but they would not be following the example set by leadership.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Seems like a waste of effort and manpower if you have an otherwise perfectly salvageable business and product that is being hamstrung by management. Think of the customers.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
You are free to not work at unionized orgs, and also vote no when a vote is scheduled to unionize. Unionization is how employees get a seat at the table and a say in the business they contribute their labor to, labor without which the business could not exist. Comp and benefits are only a component why organizing is important, in my opinion.
- nightski 4y ago
  Honestly I've had plenty of influence at the various workplaces I've been a part of. If a company is so dysfunctional it doesn't even take what employees are saying into account then I'm not convinced a union would help. Do you have concrete examples of unions succeeding in software?
  - elil17 4y ago
    Why does it have to be software-specific? It's a new-ish field and American unions have been pretty disadvantaged over the last few decades due to an increasingly conservative judiciary and some nasty anti-union lawyers. But you can't just ignore that unions got us weekends, OSHA, and 8 hour days. Now there is enough wealth in society to support three day weekends, and people are ready to fight to distribute that wealth fairly. Why shouldn't they?
    - nightski 4y ago
      Because as far as I know traditionally unions have existed in jobs where humans are basically robots (manufacturing, etc...). These jobs can be dangerous and also each worker is very easily replaceable giving the employer a huge upper hand. This is not the case in software at all. Skill levels can vary dramatically and the more experience you have with your company often the more valuable and harder to replace you become. Software developers are expensive, especially bad hires. This puts them in an advantageous position. In sum we are - In demand, scarce, hard (or at least expensive) to replace (skill & domain knowledge vary considerably). The exact opposite of what a union fixes.
slively 4y ago
To say this person joined and then tried to subvert is a pretty dishonest reading of this story. They worked on something for 12 years and I’m sure there were many others similarly invested. To spend such a significant portion of your life on something and have basically no input on how it’s run, directed, etc… is not a good system. In my opinion the people forming the union had much more invested in this company than the people that just invested money. I’d say the handful of people that insist on complete control for having invested money are a cancer to the org and society at large.
- xyzzy4747 4y ago
  On the contrary I think it’s a good system. If they want to control the company they can buy 51% of the shares. Those shares are valuable for a reason.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    If management doesn't want to negotiate with a majority of workers, they are free to pick a different career path and leave it to other professional managers.
  - slively 4y ago
    If the solution to a problem is have lots of money, it’s a solution for only a tiny portion of people, and not generally applicable.
    - xyzzy4747 4y ago
      Anyone can make their own company and their own shares and it’s practically free other than registration costs. The people with the shares get to set all the rules. That’s generally how it works. Otherwise the shares would be worthless.
      - slively 4y ago
        You are sidestepping a massive amount of factors that allows somebody to create their own business. Even then, a company grows on the backs of its employees, and there quickly comes a time when a single person should not have complete control because it’s not just theirs anymore. I own shares in public companies and have basically zero say in how they operate and those shares are worth quite a bit. At this point it’s clear these arguments are flippant and not serious. I hope one day you can have a perspective on these issues that is not so shallow. They are important and you also should have a say in your workplace. Our voices matter.
whimsicalism 4y ago
In my opinion, if you are starting a company in the US, you're supposed to follow labor law. Founders who create a company and then try to ignore the rules they signed up for are a cancer to society.
elil17 4y ago
God forbid someone would want have a symmetric bargaining relationship between a single workforce and a single employer.
numlock86 4y ago
> In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are a cancer to the org. We are doing the "Tell me you haven't read the article without telling me you haven't read the article." kind of posts on HN now?

In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are a cancer to the org.

Apocryphon 4y ago

That employee had been at the company for a dozen years, it's in the very title of the article.

danpalmer 4y ago

I agree that union organisation work is not _work_, it's not what people are paid to do, and it should therefore be done on personal time. However, employers are in a position of significant power over their employees, and unions represent a way to balance that power. I think this is a broadly positive thing that I think employees should be in favour of, and that I think the best employers would also be in favour of.

roguecoder 4y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that it is illegal to treat unionizing differently than other social activities. If a company wants to ban unionizing on company time, they have to ban all non-work related socializing. If people are allowed to talk about movies & video games, they are also allowed to talk about unions.
draw_down 4y ago

mikkergp 4y ago

One way conceptualize many companies is that they're just the id of senior execs measuring their genitalia against one other, why shouldn't workers get to participate?

xyzzy4747 4y ago
The workers can make their own company if the terms of their employment don’t make them happy.
- roguecoder 4y ago
  Or they can organize, as is their legal right, and renegotiate those terms together. Even if you aren't unionized, it is your right to get together with your coworkers & advocate for better working conditions.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Your belief system isn’t congruent with US labor law. Why leave when you can make your existing job better? Your other comment indicates they should have to amass 51% of company shares. Ridiculous. Their ability to organize and vote to do so comes from their labor rights, and is precisely why they don’t require capital (per labor law) to have a say. Businesses can be built without capital. They cannot be built without labor. https://www.laborlab.us/the_right_to_unionize https://www.laborlab.us/the_right_to_unionize
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Again they could, but they would not be following the example set by leadership.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Seems like a waste of effort and manpower if you have an otherwise perfectly salvageable business and product that is being hamstrung by management. Think of the customers.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

You are free to not work at unionized orgs, and also vote no when a vote is scheduled to unionize. Unionization is how employees get a seat at the table and a say in the business they contribute their labor to, labor without which the business could not exist. Comp and benefits are only a component why organizing is important, in my opinion.

nightski 4y ago
Honestly I've had plenty of influence at the various workplaces I've been a part of. If a company is so dysfunctional it doesn't even take what employees are saying into account then I'm not convinced a union would help. Do you have concrete examples of unions succeeding in software?
- elil17 4y ago
  Why does it have to be software-specific? It's a new-ish field and American unions have been pretty disadvantaged over the last few decades due to an increasingly conservative judiciary and some nasty anti-union lawyers. But you can't just ignore that unions got us weekends, OSHA, and 8 hour days. Now there is enough wealth in society to support three day weekends, and people are ready to fight to distribute that wealth fairly. Why shouldn't they?
  - nightski 4y ago
    Because as far as I know traditionally unions have existed in jobs where humans are basically robots (manufacturing, etc...). These jobs can be dangerous and also each worker is very easily replaceable giving the employer a huge upper hand. This is not the case in software at all. Skill levels can vary dramatically and the more experience you have with your company often the more valuable and harder to replace you become. Software developers are expensive, especially bad hires. This puts them in an advantageous position. In sum we are - In demand, scarce, hard (or at least expensive) to replace (skill & domain knowledge vary considerably). The exact opposite of what a union fixes.

slively 4y ago

To say this person joined and then tried to subvert is a pretty dishonest reading of this story. They worked on something for 12 years and I’m sure there were many others similarly invested. To spend such a significant portion of your life on something and have basically no input on how it’s run, directed, etc… is not a good system. In my opinion the people forming the union had much more invested in this company than the people that just invested money. I’d say the handful of people that insist on complete control for having invested money are a cancer to the org and society at large.

xyzzy4747 4y ago
On the contrary I think it’s a good system. If they want to control the company they can buy 51% of the shares. Those shares are valuable for a reason.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  If management doesn't want to negotiate with a majority of workers, they are free to pick a different career path and leave it to other professional managers.
- slively 4y ago
  If the solution to a problem is have lots of money, it’s a solution for only a tiny portion of people, and not generally applicable.
  - xyzzy4747 4y ago
    Anyone can make their own company and their own shares and it’s practically free other than registration costs. The people with the shares get to set all the rules. That’s generally how it works. Otherwise the shares would be worthless.
    - slively 4y ago
      You are sidestepping a massive amount of factors that allows somebody to create their own business. Even then, a company grows on the backs of its employees, and there quickly comes a time when a single person should not have complete control because it’s not just theirs anymore. I own shares in public companies and have basically zero say in how they operate and those shares are worth quite a bit. At this point it’s clear these arguments are flippant and not serious. I hope one day you can have a perspective on these issues that is not so shallow. They are important and you also should have a say in your workplace. Our voices matter.

whimsicalism 4y ago

In my opinion, if you are starting a company in the US, you're supposed to follow labor law. Founders who create a company and then try to ignore the rules they signed up for are a cancer to society.

elil17 4y ago

God forbid someone would want have a symmetric bargaining relationship between a single workforce and a single employer.

numlock86 4y ago

> In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are a cancer to the org. We are doing the "Tell me you haven't read the article without telling me you haven't read the article." kind of posts on HN now?