3 ms·

I'm a coder, and now in a union. I'm happy about this. No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address.

by tibbon 4y ago

I'm a coder, and now in a union. I'm happy about this. No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address. I'm also not just concerned about myself and my own compensation, I greatly care about my team overall. Sure, I can muscle my way up through performance reviews and such but not everyone has the same background or privilege I do. I'm happy to have a union to represent everyone, and not be happy with a few people having a lot of leverage. Caring about others... who would have thought?

unknownaccount 4y ago
Sorry but Im not a charity worker. Its great that you are priveleged enough that you are in a position where you can be, but I cant afford to accept working harder to make up for less competent/lazier workers.
- kbenson 4y ago
  > less competent/lazier workers That's an extremely naive view of the people a union is intended to protect. Even a minimal amount of research, or even some simple pondering of the situations your fellow employees might find themselves in that benefit from a stronger work contract would lead to many other cases where a union has benefit. That's not to say a union is right for every company or job, but to think it only benefits those you outlined is just plain silly when any thought it put into it. If you really need some help in figuring out a beneficial case, consider what purpose insurance often serves, and also consider power imbalances when you have a bunch of individuals against one large unified opponent (when any negotiation can be considered adversarial under these conditions).
  - ericb 4y ago
    > less competent/lazier workers Not the op, but that isn't naive. Did a short stint in a union shop. The day had more breaks than it did work in it. Me and the other new guy started cranking on our task list, and were told by our manager to "slow down or you'll work yourself out of a job."
    - kbenson 4y ago
      It's not naive to think that may be the case for some or that it happens. It's very naive to think that's the only reason for or result of unionizing, and it was presented as the only ting that matters enough to be mentioned.
- bwestergard 4y ago
  Do you know how much income the investors/managers in your firm are taking home? How does it compare to your income? Are they factoring in your time and stress when making big strategic decisions? I've had coworkers that didn't pull their weight in non-union shops that were able to skate by because they were buddies with a manager who played political games well. My union (CWA) is pushing at multiple workplaces to have a more objective review and hiring process. But the occasional struggling or unprepared coworker has affected me way less than instances of poor management.
bwestergard 4y ago
> No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address. I'm also a union coder now. I agree. The work we do is inherently collaborative. Any issue that affects one of my coworkers at this company or anyone doing similar work will eventually affect me. Without a union, employers force us all into a race to the bottom to internalize costs that they should bear a greater share of (e.g. crunch time due to failure to plan).
billions 4y ago
"No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address." so you choose to prioritize your desires over customer needs? what if end users preferred to keep their cash instead of pay for your code refactor of a feature nobody uses?
- lovich 4y ago
  Does that not apply to management? What if the end users preferred a cheaper product rather than paying out exec bonuses? What if end users preferred a well made product rather than cutting corners to keep costs down?
  - billions 4y ago
    The higher up the hierarchy, the more accountable they are to the customer. If management doesn't increase sales by providing an offering at a competitive price, sales will slump and someone will get fired. This is the opposite of union shops where the manager to employee ratio is much higher because nobody gets fired for being a burden on the customer's wallet.
    - lovich 4y ago
      I think we might come from very different worlds if people higher up the chain are more accountable for customer disgruntlement in your experience. That being said, I could see your point of view if you were in an org where that was true
      - billions 4y ago
        By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO job. The CEO is picked by the shareholders to maximize shareholder value. The top boss is extremely well vetted to make sure they make good decisions to protect shareholders' money. The CEO's #1 job is to hire & fire managers that let him keep his job by increasing sales. And so on down the chain. How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for customer disgruntlement"? They have less skin in the game than people up the hierarchy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by tibbon 4y ago

unknownaccount 4y ago

Sorry but Im not a charity worker. Its great that you are priveleged enough that you are in a position where you can be, but I cant afford to accept working harder to make up for less competent/lazier workers.

kbenson 4y ago
> less competent/lazier workers That's an extremely naive view of the people a union is intended to protect. Even a minimal amount of research, or even some simple pondering of the situations your fellow employees might find themselves in that benefit from a stronger work contract would lead to many other cases where a union has benefit. That's not to say a union is right for every company or job, but to think it only benefits those you outlined is just plain silly when any thought it put into it. If you really need some help in figuring out a beneficial case, consider what purpose insurance often serves, and also consider power imbalances when you have a bunch of individuals against one large unified opponent (when any negotiation can be considered adversarial under these conditions).
- ericb 4y ago
  > less competent/lazier workers Not the op, but that isn't naive. Did a short stint in a union shop. The day had more breaks than it did work in it. Me and the other new guy started cranking on our task list, and were told by our manager to "slow down or you'll work yourself out of a job."
  - kbenson 4y ago
    It's not naive to think that may be the case for some or that it happens. It's very naive to think that's the only reason for or result of unionizing, and it was presented as the only ting that matters enough to be mentioned.
bwestergard 4y ago
Do you know how much income the investors/managers in your firm are taking home? How does it compare to your income? Are they factoring in your time and stress when making big strategic decisions? I've had coworkers that didn't pull their weight in non-union shops that were able to skate by because they were buddies with a manager who played political games well. My union (CWA) is pushing at multiple workplaces to have a more objective review and hiring process. But the occasional struggling or unprepared coworker has affected me way less than instances of poor management.

bwestergard 4y ago

> No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address. I'm also a union coder now. I agree. The work we do is inherently collaborative. Any issue that affects one of my coworkers at this company or anyone doing similar work will eventually affect me. Without a union, employers force us all into a race to the bottom to internalize costs that they should bear a greater share of (e.g. crunch time due to failure to plan).

billions 4y ago

"No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address." so you choose to prioritize your desires over customer needs? what if end users preferred to keep their cash instead of pay for your code refactor of a feature nobody uses?

lovich 4y ago
Does that not apply to management? What if the end users preferred a cheaper product rather than paying out exec bonuses? What if end users preferred a well made product rather than cutting corners to keep costs down?
- billions 4y ago
  The higher up the hierarchy, the more accountable they are to the customer. If management doesn't increase sales by providing an offering at a competitive price, sales will slump and someone will get fired. This is the opposite of union shops where the manager to employee ratio is much higher because nobody gets fired for being a burden on the customer's wallet.
  - lovich 4y ago
    I think we might come from very different worlds if people higher up the chain are more accountable for customer disgruntlement in your experience. That being said, I could see your point of view if you were in an org where that was true
    - billions 4y ago
      By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO job. The CEO is picked by the shareholders to maximize shareholder value. The top boss is extremely well vetted to make sure they make good decisions to protect shareholders' money. The CEO's #1 job is to hire & fire managers that let him keep his job by increasing sales. And so on down the chain. How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for customer disgruntlement"? They have less skin in the game than people up the hierarchy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]