7 ms·

I have friends in this industry, and it's outrageous what they have to endure. As a software engineer, it's impossible to understand. There are literally 100 p

I have friends in this industry, and it's outrageous what they have to endure. As a software engineer, it's impossible to understand. There are literally 100 people gunning for your role at any time. You're infinitely replaceable, so they can treat you however they want. These folks are living in NYC on a wage that's barely liveable in Omaha. Not to mention a culture of abuse and overwork that eats people alive. I'm glad the strike is holding strong.

tomcam 4y ago
They are in a bad situation, but isn’t the problem exactly what you said? Too many people vying for these jobs? What incentive do publishers have to pay better, especially as their own market declines? Not trying to denigrate the strikers at all.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The strike is attempting to lower the supply of labor, in order to force the buyer to pay more. However, for a seller to be able to negotiate a higher price from the buyer, the buyer has to be able to pay. And HarperCollins’ business is not exactly raking it in. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-m... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-inco...
- britch 4y ago
  Presumably the employer wants/needs a staff. If they didn't they'd have gone contractor-only a long time ago. The immediate incentive is that the staff they want/need isn't doing the thing. A strike is not a protest. It's a negotiating tactic when you have much else leverage than your ability to work. Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Larger organized labor might be able to hold Harpers to account for working around the strike -- like if contractors were organized, if scabbing made it hard to get hired elsewhere. But that's not where labor is at currently.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    > Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Seems inevitable to me. The publishers will sell their NYC real estate for a one-time bonanza, strip down to a skeleton crew of employees, and contract out most work. Quality will dip far below that of the last 100 years, and few will care. It was a golden age of publishing but I don’t think it’s remotely sustainable.
dcow 4y ago
> There are literally 100 people gunning for your role at any time. Doesn't this fact make a strike rather ineffective? If the labor is a hot commodity then what pressure does striking put on the company outside of some publicity?
- alxlaz 4y ago
  Working conditions are awful enough that companies can afford a high turnover rate, but can't efficiently fill too many positions at once. If people quit two or three at a time, management just redistributes work around, with extra pressure to deliver. However, if everyone leaves at once (or goes on strike), there's nobody to redistribute the work to. Even if you could hire replacements on the spot (which you usually can't anyway), you can't just say okay, you're hired, now start working. New hires need company- and department-specific training, they need to coordinate with other people (who would also be fresh hires) and so on. Modern companies don't run solely on management directions, they also run on an enormous body of practical knowledge and experience which bridges management intention with practical action. Without this, nothing works. "Infinitely replacement" is a comfortable management myth -- it works only as long as it happens gradually. You can "infinitely replace" each part of a sailing boat, but if you try to infinitely replace all of it at once, everyone just falls into the ocean because at some point in the replacement effort there's no bloody boat. Same here. A 50-people company can afford to replace virtually everyone over the course of one year, as long as it's four fresh hires/month for 12 months. Fifty fresh hire in a single month while also keeping the shop open, on the other hand, is a no-go.
  - dcow 4y ago
    And yet, this strike has been ongoing since November. Is it really a myth?
    - alxlaz 4y ago
      Yes. Not literally everyone is on strike literally all the time -- shifts still get covered, in part because the people who are actually on strike actually want the company they're with to grow, and still want to work there, otherwise they'd quit, rather than go on strike.
jvmfjvfjvf 4y ago
If they are infinitely replaceable, why do they deserve to be protected with higher wages?
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Devil's advocate or do you genuinely believe this? It's not so much about being protected with higher wages, it's about being paid a living wage. If capitalism tells people their job is not worthwhile, it has failed. This is especially applicable for creative work.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Capitalism pays market rate not a living wage.
    - basscomm 4y ago
      Is it acceptable to drive the market rate to below a living wage?
      - dcow 4y ago
        If it isn’t then raise minimum wage and make immigrants pay taxes. I do believe if you work an honest full time job you should be able to live outside of poverty. Does that include a 5k/mo apartment and Starbucks every day?
        alxlaz 4y ago
        Strikes are, historically, one of the means through which governments pretty much everywhere (including the US) was pressured to introduce, and then adjust, minimum wage. (inb4 smug citation needed see, for example, the Lawrence textile strike, and the ensuing consequence in S. Doc. No. 870, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 9 (1912), reprinted in Serial Set Vol. No. 6170, or really just search for "strike" and "minimum wage" in your favourite library of actual history books) The invisible hand of the market is, sadly, unable to write bills or increase pay, and since management can't see it -- unsurprising, given that it's invisible, it's right in the name -- they sometimes need to have it spelled it out for them.
gadders 4y ago
>>There are literally 100 people gunning for your role at any time. You're infinitely replaceable, so they can treat you however they want. This is why tech companies etc are always lobbying for more H1B visas and immigration. Supply and demand applies to labour as much as anything else.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  Pundits and academics claim the H1B is America's secret weapon, and while it is true that we get some exceptional individuals as a result of brain drain from other nations, in my experience most H1B's are simply a means for a corporation to get cheaper 'office labor' and nothing about these positions are uniquely suited to some skill-set that can't be found domestically.
  - gadders 4y ago
    Yeah. I mean by all means hire the 190 IQ geniuses, but you don't need it for rank and file devs knocking out CRUD apps or ad tech.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Graeber calls out publishing (including periodicals) as an industry in which it's nearly impossible to make it, long-term, unless you come from money, precisely because you have to be able to endure years on end of pay too low to live on (on top of college!) before you can get into a position that pays real money. Plus having a degree and network from an expensive private liberal arts school helps a ton with your odds of climbing the ladder. It's one of his examples, in Bullshit Jobs, of how desirable (artistic or pro-social) jobs that also pay a meaningful wage tend to be staffed mostly by the rich—so many people want to be in those fields (see also: non-profits) that wages at the bottom of the pyramid aren't high enough to support someone without other money helping them out, either from family money or a high-earning partner.

tomcam 4y ago

They are in a bad situation, but isn’t the problem exactly what you said? Too many people vying for these jobs? What incentive do publishers have to pay better, especially as their own market declines? Not trying to denigrate the strikers at all.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
The strike is attempting to lower the supply of labor, in order to force the buyer to pay more. However, for a seller to be able to negotiate a higher price from the buyer, the buyer has to be able to pay. And HarperCollins’ business is not exactly raking it in. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-m... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-inco...
britch 4y ago
Presumably the employer wants/needs a staff. If they didn't they'd have gone contractor-only a long time ago. The immediate incentive is that the staff they want/need isn't doing the thing. A strike is not a protest. It's a negotiating tactic when you have much else leverage than your ability to work. Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Larger organized labor might be able to hold Harpers to account for working around the strike -- like if contractors were organized, if scabbing made it hard to get hired elsewhere. But that's not where labor is at currently.
- tomcam 4y ago
  > Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Seems inevitable to me. The publishers will sell their NYC real estate for a one-time bonanza, strip down to a skeleton crew of employees, and contract out most work. Quality will dip far below that of the last 100 years, and few will care. It was a golden age of publishing but I don’t think it’s remotely sustainable.

dcow 4y ago

> There are literally 100 people gunning for your role at any time. Doesn't this fact make a strike rather ineffective? If the labor is a hot commodity then what pressure does striking put on the company outside of some publicity?

alxlaz 4y ago
Working conditions are awful enough that companies can afford a high turnover rate, but can't efficiently fill too many positions at once. If people quit two or three at a time, management just redistributes work around, with extra pressure to deliver. However, if everyone leaves at once (or goes on strike), there's nobody to redistribute the work to. Even if you could hire replacements on the spot (which you usually can't anyway), you can't just say okay, you're hired, now start working. New hires need company- and department-specific training, they need to coordinate with other people (who would also be fresh hires) and so on. Modern companies don't run solely on management directions, they also run on an enormous body of practical knowledge and experience which bridges management intention with practical action. Without this, nothing works. "Infinitely replacement" is a comfortable management myth -- it works only as long as it happens gradually. You can "infinitely replace" each part of a sailing boat, but if you try to infinitely replace all of it at once, everyone just falls into the ocean because at some point in the replacement effort there's no bloody boat. Same here. A 50-people company can afford to replace virtually everyone over the course of one year, as long as it's four fresh hires/month for 12 months. Fifty fresh hire in a single month while also keeping the shop open, on the other hand, is a no-go.
- dcow 4y ago
  And yet, this strike has been ongoing since November. Is it really a myth?
  - alxlaz 4y ago
    Yes. Not literally everyone is on strike literally all the time -- shifts still get covered, in part because the people who are actually on strike actually want the company they're with to grow, and still want to work there, otherwise they'd quit, rather than go on strike.

jvmfjvfjvf 4y ago

If they are infinitely replaceable, why do they deserve to be protected with higher wages?

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Devil's advocate or do you genuinely believe this? It's not so much about being protected with higher wages, it's about being paid a living wage. If capitalism tells people their job is not worthwhile, it has failed. This is especially applicable for creative work.
- dcow 4y ago
  Capitalism pays market rate not a living wage.
  - basscomm 4y ago
    Is it acceptable to drive the market rate to below a living wage?
    - dcow 4y ago
      If it isn’t then raise minimum wage and make immigrants pay taxes. I do believe if you work an honest full time job you should be able to live outside of poverty. Does that include a 5k/mo apartment and Starbucks every day?
      - alxlaz 4y ago
        Strikes are, historically, one of the means through which governments pretty much everywhere (including the US) was pressured to introduce, and then adjust, minimum wage. (inb4 smug citation needed see, for example, the Lawrence textile strike, and the ensuing consequence in S. Doc. No. 870, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 9 (1912), reprinted in Serial Set Vol. No. 6170, or really just search for "strike" and "minimum wage" in your favourite library of actual history books) The invisible hand of the market is, sadly, unable to write bills or increase pay, and since management can't see it -- unsurprising, given that it's invisible, it's right in the name -- they sometimes need to have it spelled it out for them.

gadders 4y ago

>>There are literally 100 people gunning for your role at any time. You're infinitely replaceable, so they can treat you however they want. This is why tech companies etc are always lobbying for more H1B visas and immigration. Supply and demand applies to labour as much as anything else.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
Pundits and academics claim the H1B is America's secret weapon, and while it is true that we get some exceptional individuals as a result of brain drain from other nations, in my experience most H1B's are simply a means for a corporation to get cheaper 'office labor' and nothing about these positions are uniquely suited to some skill-set that can't be found domestically.
- gadders 4y ago
  Yeah. I mean by all means hire the 190 IQ geniuses, but you don't need it for rank and file devs knocking out CRUD apps or ad tech.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Graeber calls out publishing (including periodicals) as an industry in which it's nearly impossible to make it, long-term, unless you come from money, precisely because you have to be able to endure years on end of pay too low to live on (on top of college!) before you can get into a position that pays real money. Plus having a degree and network from an expensive private liberal arts school helps a ton with your odds of climbing the ladder. It's one of his examples, in Bullshit Jobs, of how desirable (artistic or pro-social) jobs that also pay a meaningful wage tend to be staffed mostly by the rich—so many people want to be in those fields (see also: non-profits) that wages at the bottom of the pyramid aren't high enough to support someone without other money helping them out, either from family money or a high-earning partner.