4 ms·

> It would help to list some of the perceived benefits of unionizing. It helps to look at other highly-skilled workers that are unionized, and pro athletes are

> It would help to list some of the perceived benefits of unionizing. It helps to look at other highly-skilled workers that are unionized, and pro athletes are a particularly interesting as a case-study for modern organized labor. They get profit-sharing and guaranteed raises built into their contracts. No need to wade through the BS of exercising shares that may or may not be worth something down the road. There are obviously many differences between the revenue that pro athletes generate and earn compared to tech workers, but if anything, I believe that it shows that tech workers leave a lot on the table by not unionizing. Additionally, organized labor would give more power to workers in termination situations. Right now, lots of people are being laid off because companies raised headcount irresponsibly and are now dealing with it by trimming their staffs. A unionized workplace is in a much better position to demand more favorable separation terms (guaranteed insurance, severance, etc.) in order to disincentivize employers from irresponsibly hiring and firing. If we're gonna be sacrificed in a market downturn, we should always be taken care of.

_3u10 4y ago
Given the P/E ratio for tech shares are generally better than profit sharing, especially in R&D heavy industries. The companies that go under don’t tend to have a lot of profit.
philwelch 4y ago
Pro athletes are orders of magnitude away from tech workers in terms of how valuable and irreplaceable they are. There are fewer than 500 NBA players and fewer than 1700 NFL players on current rosters, and few of them can be usefully replaced by anyone not currently in the league. Also, tech is a fairly open marketplace. John Carmack can start his own company and has done so multiple times, but LeBron James can’t start or even buy his own NBA franchise if he wants to play. So while professional sports owners are an obvious, fixed counterparty to the players in a collective bargaining sense, the top tech workers can be and often are the owners and management of tech companies.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers all of professional organizations that effectively function as unions. And the SAG includes many workers beyond the marquee film stars.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    Yes, let’s talk about the doctors, then. Thanks to the AMA (the de facto US doctors union), there is a deliberate and structural shortage of doctors in order to deliberately prop up the pay for US doctors. It’s also virtually impossible for any practicing physician outside the US—even in other developed countries—to immigrate to the US and continue practicing medicine. This has obvious negative consequences for the availability, affordability, and cost of health care in the United States.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The AMA's actions were undesirable, but that just goes to show the power it wielded on behalf of its members, and the occupation it represented. Imagine if the IEEE/ACM could lobby for SWEs as effectively, but in a socially desirable way. Also, perhaps in the present or future, the AMA could use its own power to undo the mistakes it made in the past: https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/ https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope...
      - philwelch 4y ago
        Yes, if we had a powerful union that exerted power in the specific ways that you agreed with, I’m sure you’d be happy with it. In fact, why stop there, we could just make you dictator! Or at least someone who exclusively did things you agreed with, if you didn’t want the extra work. Failing that, we have a bit of a fork. Either we have a union that acts in the interests of its members (which the AMA has done!) or we have a union with some serious principal/agent issues that follows some other agenda, and the odds aren’t very good that you or I would always agree with that agenda.

_3u10 4y ago

Given the P/E ratio for tech shares are generally better than profit sharing, especially in R&D heavy industries. The companies that go under don’t tend to have a lot of profit.

philwelch 4y ago

Pro athletes are orders of magnitude away from tech workers in terms of how valuable and irreplaceable they are. There are fewer than 500 NBA players and fewer than 1700 NFL players on current rosters, and few of them can be usefully replaced by anyone not currently in the league. Also, tech is a fairly open marketplace. John Carmack can start his own company and has done so multiple times, but LeBron James can’t start or even buy his own NBA franchise if he wants to play. So while professional sports owners are an obvious, fixed counterparty to the players in a collective bargaining sense, the top tech workers can be and often are the owners and management of tech companies.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers all of professional organizations that effectively function as unions. And the SAG includes many workers beyond the marquee film stars.
- philwelch 4y ago
  Yes, let’s talk about the doctors, then. Thanks to the AMA (the de facto US doctors union), there is a deliberate and structural shortage of doctors in order to deliberately prop up the pay for US doctors. It’s also virtually impossible for any practicing physician outside the US—even in other developed countries—to immigrate to the US and continue practicing medicine. This has obvious negative consequences for the availability, affordability, and cost of health care in the United States.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The AMA's actions were undesirable, but that just goes to show the power it wielded on behalf of its members, and the occupation it represented. Imagine if the IEEE/ACM could lobby for SWEs as effectively, but in a socially desirable way. Also, perhaps in the present or future, the AMA could use its own power to undo the mistakes it made in the past: https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/ https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope...
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Yes, if we had a powerful union that exerted power in the specific ways that you agreed with, I’m sure you’d be happy with it. In fact, why stop there, we could just make you dictator! Or at least someone who exclusively did things you agreed with, if you didn’t want the extra work. Failing that, we have a bit of a fork. Either we have a union that acts in the interests of its members (which the AMA has done!) or we have a union with some serious principal/agent issues that follows some other agenda, and the odds aren’t very good that you or I would always agree with that agenda.