7 ms·

Can anyone involved describe, perhaps more frankly than the linked site, what drove this? I think of unions as typically being a response to some kind of abusi

Can anyone involved describe, perhaps more frankly than the linked site, what drove this? I think of unions as typically being a response to some kind of abusive behavior from management, and am wondering what it is in this case. Most of the specifics described seem like stuff that is common in tech companies already (eg good pay and benefits) or stuff that sounds hard to enforce (eg input into company direction).

gen220 4y ago
I'm not involved, but they were recently sold to Epic Games, which, I imagine, represents a fairly large shift in character of management. It might be a defensive move to protect the worker culture that evolved before then.
- waboremo 4y ago
  IMO this stems from the massive layoffs across the field which align more closely with timing here than the acquisition and change of management. Not that either are exclusive reasons.
aaomidi 4y ago
Unions are not necessarily a response to bad management. Often they can be because the workers want to force the good management to stay good. It’s far more effective to unionize when things are going well rather than when things are going bad.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Unions are simply a rent-seeking mechanism to extract more wealth from the shareholders by restricting their contract rights. Detroit was the wealthiest city in the US in 1950, with the highest per capita GDP in the country. Over the course of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the UAW union took over, with membership eventually peaking in 1978. What followed was industrial collapse, and eventually, Detroit becoming a ghost town. Unions are not good for labor at large, just the labor that is on the winning side of the zero sum rent extraction scheme.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Won’t anyone think of the *checks notes*… poor shareholders?
    - jhugo 4y ago
      With increasing retail ownership of US company shares, why on earth wouldn't we think of the poor shareholders?
      - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
        Is this fair? Retail ownership may now make up a greater population but for the lower 50% of Americans, stock ownership has been declining. And for all but the top 10% of Americans, the amount of stock owned (as a fraction of all stock in circulation or even inflation adjusted value held) has been declining. So in a very real sense, the stock market has an increasingly negligible direct impact on the lives of a significant chunk (if not a majority) of Americans (however it still may have an indirect effect via exposure from their employers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effect_of_stock_market_gains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
        jhugo 4y ago
        Rolling back protections, or implicitly suggesting that shareholders don't deserve much protection (by virtue of them being wealthy), serves to reinforce this though. If owning shares is made more risky, only those who can afford to take more risks will be able to capture the benefit.
        CuriousCosmic 4y ago
        I think the context of the GP that > Unions are simply a rent-seeking mechanism to extract more wealth from the shareholders by restricting their contract rights. and the choice between that money going to the workers creating that value vs the shareholders matters. If ownership of stocks is concentrating and fewer working class Americans are owning stocks, then shifting wealth distribution from the shareholder towards the worker should generally be regarded as good for the working class. And regardless, maybe if more of the money went directly to the workers, they'd me more willing to put money into the market than they currently are. Wages have stagnated, cost of living has continued to rise, and corporate profits have soared. It's really not a surprise why working class Americans don't invest in the market, they just don't have the money to "waste" or "risk" on it.
iworshipfaangs2 4y ago
But good pay and benefits can be taken at any time in a right-to-work state. And the pay is not consistent or transparent to quote adjectives from that section.
- thylacine222 4y ago
  I think you mean at-will employment, right-to-work usually refers to bans on union security agreements.
  - aport 4y ago
    I live in a right to work state and they are using it correctly.
    - thylacine222 4y ago
      No, they aren't. Just look at Wikipedia, it's a common enough misconception that the page for right-to-work directs people to at-will employment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
      - realworldperson 4y ago
        [dead]
  - iworshipfaangs2 4y ago
    Yep, I was wrong. At-will is what I wanted to say.
deltree7 4y ago
It's the current wave of entitled generation, who want more than what the market reality can actually pay them. They were cuddled by free interest rates, above average pay first and then during the pandemic by the government. The companies also went along with prioritizing mental well-being, self-care, full-pay-for-no-work culture. The tech workers are under the false assumption that they have the upper hand, in the midst of higher interest rates, competition between companies (reducing profit margins), AI (boosting non-english, non-western workforce skills higher bringing them near par to average western knowledge workers). Companies will accelerate firing and blocking these groups going forward.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  The “current wave of entitled generation”? Union membership in the US is at a historic low. If you equate unionization with entitlement (I don’t) then this is the least entitled generation almost a century.
  - scaramanga 4y ago
    Comment of the century.
- chasing 4y ago
  It’s this disgusting attitude from management that unions form to counter.
- CircleSpokes 4y ago
  Forming a union isn't entitled. Nothing is wrong with forming and joining a union. Your post is frankly ridiculous.
  - gorwell 4y ago
    Forcing an existing organization to bend to your will is textbook entitlement. You can start a new software company and run it the way you want as opposed to parasitizing an existing one. This isn't the 1800s where you have to go build an entire factory. This is software.
robotburrito 4y ago
Why not form them before the bad stuff starts happening so you are ready for it?

gen220 4y ago

I'm not involved, but they were recently sold to Epic Games, which, I imagine, represents a fairly large shift in character of management. It might be a defensive move to protect the worker culture that evolved before then.

waboremo 4y ago
IMO this stems from the massive layoffs across the field which align more closely with timing here than the acquisition and change of management. Not that either are exclusive reasons.

aaomidi 4y ago

Unions are not necessarily a response to bad management. Often they can be because the workers want to force the good management to stay good. It’s far more effective to unionize when things are going well rather than when things are going bad.

ETH_start 4y ago
Unions are simply a rent-seeking mechanism to extract more wealth from the shareholders by restricting their contract rights. Detroit was the wealthiest city in the US in 1950, with the highest per capita GDP in the country. Over the course of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the UAW union took over, with membership eventually peaking in 1978. What followed was industrial collapse, and eventually, Detroit becoming a ghost town. Unions are not good for labor at large, just the labor that is on the winning side of the zero sum rent extraction scheme.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Won’t anyone think of the *checks notes*… poor shareholders?
  - jhugo 4y ago
    With increasing retail ownership of US company shares, why on earth wouldn't we think of the poor shareholders?
    - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
      Is this fair? Retail ownership may now make up a greater population but for the lower 50% of Americans, stock ownership has been declining. And for all but the top 10% of Americans, the amount of stock owned (as a fraction of all stock in circulation or even inflation adjusted value held) has been declining. So in a very real sense, the stock market has an increasingly negligible direct impact on the lives of a significant chunk (if not a majority) of Americans (however it still may have an indirect effect via exposure from their employers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effect_of_stock_market_gains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
      - jhugo 4y ago
        Rolling back protections, or implicitly suggesting that shareholders don't deserve much protection (by virtue of them being wealthy), serves to reinforce this though. If owning shares is made more risky, only those who can afford to take more risks will be able to capture the benefit.
        CuriousCosmic 4y ago
        I think the context of the GP that > Unions are simply a rent-seeking mechanism to extract more wealth from the shareholders by restricting their contract rights. and the choice between that money going to the workers creating that value vs the shareholders matters. If ownership of stocks is concentrating and fewer working class Americans are owning stocks, then shifting wealth distribution from the shareholder towards the worker should generally be regarded as good for the working class. And regardless, maybe if more of the money went directly to the workers, they'd me more willing to put money into the market than they currently are. Wages have stagnated, cost of living has continued to rise, and corporate profits have soared. It's really not a surprise why working class Americans don't invest in the market, they just don't have the money to "waste" or "risk" on it.

iworshipfaangs2 4y ago

But good pay and benefits can be taken at any time in a right-to-work state. And the pay is not consistent or transparent to quote adjectives from that section.

thylacine222 4y ago
I think you mean at-will employment, right-to-work usually refers to bans on union security agreements.
- aport 4y ago
  I live in a right to work state and they are using it correctly.
  - thylacine222 4y ago
    No, they aren't. Just look at Wikipedia, it's a common enough misconception that the page for right-to-work directs people to at-will employment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
    - realworldperson 4y ago
      [dead]
- iworshipfaangs2 4y ago
  Yep, I was wrong. At-will is what I wanted to say.

deltree7 4y ago

It's the current wave of entitled generation, who want more than what the market reality can actually pay them. They were cuddled by free interest rates, above average pay first and then during the pandemic by the government. The companies also went along with prioritizing mental well-being, self-care, full-pay-for-no-work culture. The tech workers are under the false assumption that they have the upper hand, in the midst of higher interest rates, competition between companies (reducing profit margins), AI (boosting non-english, non-western workforce skills higher bringing them near par to average western knowledge workers). Companies will accelerate firing and blocking these groups going forward.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
The “current wave of entitled generation”? Union membership in the US is at a historic low. If you equate unionization with entitlement (I don’t) then this is the least entitled generation almost a century.
- scaramanga 4y ago
  Comment of the century.
chasing 4y ago
It’s this disgusting attitude from management that unions form to counter.
CircleSpokes 4y ago
Forming a union isn't entitled. Nothing is wrong with forming and joining a union. Your post is frankly ridiculous.
- gorwell 4y ago
  Forcing an existing organization to bend to your will is textbook entitlement. You can start a new software company and run it the way you want as opposed to parasitizing an existing one. This isn't the 1800s where you have to go build an entire factory. This is software.

robotburrito 4y ago

Why not form them before the bad stuff starts happening so you are ready for it?