4 ms·

Because the employees are shareholders? If the profits are going to shareholders then employees are directly benefiting

rcme 3y ago
That's really irrelevant. Even if compensation was entirely in cash, they'd likely still be shareholders through index fund investing, e.g. most 401k options would invest in the company. Does that mean employees working at an S&P 500 company should never unionize because technically they're shareholders? Employees at Google are made shareholders because its cheaper for the company than paying cash. Employees form an absolutely tiny minority. The point of unionizing is to increase the leverage of the workers at a company. Workers would benefit much more from unionization than they would from holding the stock at a company without a union.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  > Workers would benefit much more from unionization than they would from holding the stock at a company without a union. Maybe this would work if the employees have some sort of monopoly like the people who work at the ports. However, with knowledge workers there’s a threshold when it’s simply cheaper to move states or even countries. Employees who are well compensated also do not have an incentive to form a union. You’re still wrong. What’s your next proposal? Investment bankers should unionize?
  - rcme 3y ago
    Investment bankers job is to deploy capital. How would unionizing help them? Will unionizing increase the amount of capital? No, so no sane person would suggest that. Software engineers are primarily manufacturers. They make products. The barrier to entry is extremely low for this line of work. I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. Your only leverage is to band together with others doing your work and demand your fair share from the business’ owners.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      > The barrier to entry is extremely low for this line of work. I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. This is so laughably insane when it comes to Google-caliber software engineers.
      - rcme 3y ago
        The thesis of my argument is hiring that caliber of engineer provides little marginal value over a lesser engineer. The evidence is that Google has struggled to release successful products despite their supposed advantage in engineering quality.
    - chaostheory 3y ago
      This is just really backwards > I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. This is my point, and you’ve just bolstered it. If knowledge workers ”band together”, the company will just hire elsewhere. Your arguments are terrible
      - rcme 3y ago
        It’s very difficult to just up and move a company. When the employees are unionized, the company is not able to leverage the knowledge of some workers to facilitate the transition. If the reason not to unionize is that the company will just move, how much job security do you have without the union? As soon as it’s cheaper to do your job elsewhere, your job will be gone. At least with a union, you have a hope of protecting your livelihood.
        chaostheory 3y ago
        > It’s very difficult to just up and move a company. This makes sense for factories, but it’s a weak argument for knowledge workers. There’s a lot less physical infrastructure and we’ve literally just proven that remote work is effective for entire organizations within the last 3 years. > As soon as it’s cheaper to do your job elsewhere, your job will be gone Did you not read my previous comments? The second a union is created is the same second it’s cheaper to move elsewhere for knowledge workers. You’ve even validated this argument with your “engineers from other places are good enough” line You haven’t thought this through given your terrible logic, and your comments make it seem like you still haven't graduated and started work yet.

rcme 3y ago

That's really irrelevant. Even if compensation was entirely in cash, they'd likely still be shareholders through index fund investing, e.g. most 401k options would invest in the company. Does that mean employees working at an S&P 500 company should never unionize because technically they're shareholders? Employees at Google are made shareholders because its cheaper for the company than paying cash. Employees form an absolutely tiny minority. The point of unionizing is to increase the leverage of the workers at a company. Workers would benefit much more from unionization than they would from holding the stock at a company without a union.

chaostheory 3y ago
> Workers would benefit much more from unionization than they would from holding the stock at a company without a union. Maybe this would work if the employees have some sort of monopoly like the people who work at the ports. However, with knowledge workers there’s a threshold when it’s simply cheaper to move states or even countries. Employees who are well compensated also do not have an incentive to form a union. You’re still wrong. What’s your next proposal? Investment bankers should unionize?
- rcme 3y ago
  Investment bankers job is to deploy capital. How would unionizing help them? Will unionizing increase the amount of capital? No, so no sane person would suggest that. Software engineers are primarily manufacturers. They make products. The barrier to entry is extremely low for this line of work. I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. Your only leverage is to band together with others doing your work and demand your fair share from the business’ owners.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > The barrier to entry is extremely low for this line of work. I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. This is so laughably insane when it comes to Google-caliber software engineers.
    - rcme 3y ago
      The thesis of my argument is hiring that caliber of engineer provides little marginal value over a lesser engineer. The evidence is that Google has struggled to release successful products despite their supposed advantage in engineering quality.
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    This is just really backwards > I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. This is my point, and you’ve just bolstered it. If knowledge workers ”band together”, the company will just hire elsewhere. Your arguments are terrible
    - rcme 3y ago
      It’s very difficult to just up and move a company. When the employees are unionized, the company is not able to leverage the knowledge of some workers to facilitate the transition. If the reason not to unionize is that the company will just move, how much job security do you have without the union? As soon as it’s cheaper to do your job elsewhere, your job will be gone. At least with a union, you have a hope of protecting your livelihood.
      - chaostheory 3y ago
        > It’s very difficult to just up and move a company. This makes sense for factories, but it’s a weak argument for knowledge workers. There’s a lot less physical infrastructure and we’ve literally just proven that remote work is effective for entire organizations within the last 3 years. > As soon as it’s cheaper to do your job elsewhere, your job will be gone Did you not read my previous comments? The second a union is created is the same second it’s cheaper to move elsewhere for knowledge workers. You’ve even validated this argument with your “engineers from other places are good enough” line You haven’t thought this through given your terrible logic, and your comments make it seem like you still haven't graduated and started work yet.