4 ms·

Software engineers often have a strange attitude, thinking they don't need unions, when pro athletes who make $millions per year all have unions. There's a myth

by lapcat 3y ago

Software engineers often have a strange attitude, thinking they don't need unions, when pro athletes who make $millions per year all have unions. There's a myth that with unions, everyone will make the same compensation, but that's not even remotely true in pro sports. The reason to have a union is that no matter how much money you make, the owners of the business have more money and power. Collective bargaining is a counterweight to the power of ownership. And it's not just about money, it's about working conditions. For example, labor unions could fight back against back-to-the-office demands, whereas without a union, employees are forced to individually consent or lose their job.

toldyouso2022 3y ago
A union turns into a guild fast. I don't want programming to be monopoly of people with a degree, slave to the cartel's rule, programming is a human right and it must remain absolutely free! A programmers union is too dangerous in this world, especially in these times
- tomlockwood 3y ago
  What evidence is there that unions turn into guilds? There were more guilds in preindustrial times and modern unions haven't become guilds.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  I view unions like i view government. It's possible, sometimes likely, that a government becomes a horrid entity for control over people. However. Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people. Some for-profit company or individual has no ethical obligation to treat workers correctly, fairly, etc. So if we remove unions and government, what power do individual people have? To that idea then, people need a gov/union to have a voice - but govs and unions also need to be built with an extreme attention to oversight. Which we usually fail to implement correctly. Nevertheless it's the only tool we have - to give individuals power by distributing agreement. So to me the question isn't for or against gov/union, but rather how we can build them to scale and last. Especially in the face of pressure to corrupt. Happy to hear opinions on where this is wrong, though.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    > Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people I never heard of this definition for unions! Unions definitely aren't for or by "the people", that would mean everyone. Unions are - by definition - a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. Unless you're a communist, in which case you think managers, company founders, shopkeepers, farmers etc aren't really people.
    - unshavedyak 3y ago
      Not sure i follow. > a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. So is _any_ group but "all". "For the people" doesn't literally mean "all people". Government would also not be "for the people" by your definition, given that we have no (real) global government. If we get together and form a union, ie our joint effort towards a common goal, have we not formed an entity for the people (us), by the people (us)? Your argument seems odd. "But it's not for everyone" is.. well, yea - nothing is. Literally. What can you say that is "everyone"?
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  > programming is a human right and it must remain absolutely free! Weird statement. No one is trying to stop you from programming. They are talking about credentials to be employed professionally.
  - toldyouso2022 3y ago
    Nobody is forced to buy work from someone, but with a State sanctioned cartel you are forced to buy from the cartel instead than from whomever you want. The weird statement is yours when you say they don't stop me from programming. They do!
stale2002 3y ago
Well us software engineers can look at some of the ways that unions are run, and decide for ourselves if we like those "benefits". For example, seniority requirements and enforced degree or qualification requirements don't sound like something I would want, nor would the many other software engineers like myself who didn't go through the "proper" path of getting a CS degree.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Degrees are not a requirement for unions, and most unions try and foster apprenticeship models. Additionally, seniority benefits/protections would be huge for our industry as there is a lot of rampant ageism and young, naive workaholics.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > and most unions try and foster apprenticeship models This is exactly the problem I am talking about. This is a barrier to entry. Instead of being allowed to just apply for a job, and accepting it, you have to "do you time" in a low paid apprenticeship, due to contract requirements that are setup or lobbied for by these unions or guilds. This puts up a barrier to entry to new people wanting to join, because union members want to reduce competition. I am not just talking about degree requirements. Instead, I am talking about any barrier to entry. Unions have a very real and logical reason to put up barriers to entry. It reduces the supply of labor and increases prices for existing members, at the expense of people trying to break into the industry.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      There's a lot of stuff you will learn in an apprenticeship that a lot of folks in our industry miss or skip, like soft skills, teamwork, risk/reward, effort/value, etc. I personally think everyone should be required to spend a year or two in tech support hell, or understand why a senior person thinks and researches before they start writing code, for instance. You say barriers to entry, I say putting in the time to ensure you're someone I want to work with in the future.
jrockway 3y ago
I think most software engineers are a little uncomfortable with the whole arrangement of employment to begin with, and any backlash against unions is the backlash from having to face this somewhat subservient reality. The origin story of getting a computer, some library books, and spending 10,000 hours alone with your computer seems pretty common. With that mental model, why would you want someone who isn't a software engineer interfering with your career? You built it yourself, and you don't need any help. I think that's where the attitude comes from, and it's probably something worth talking yourself out of. (Nobody is discounting their hard work, but the more BS other people deal with, the more time you can spend alone with your text editor.) The other thing that people probably worry about are protecting the net negative members on the team. Those that make more work for the team, derail meetings, block things from being submitted, etc. Nobody wants to hear "well our contract doesn't allow us to fire them". Like all engineering, there isn't a solution with no downsides. I think unions deserve serious consideration. Our working conditions are not perfect (know any software engineers with wrist problems, back problems, or sleep apnea?). Our benefits are not perfect (love being forced to take a mandatory vacation every year paid out of my personal vacation balance). And, we have pretty much zero sway among the government. (Do you think that if attorneys were paid in illiquid shares that every time you received them, you'd have to send a hand-signed letter to the IRS?) There is certainly something to be gained; software prints money, and the people that make it deserve their fair share. Even on HN, commenters are shocked by the FAANG salaries, but you know lots of people are making way more money. Someone just paid $7M for the two story house behind my apartment. I'm guessing they're not a couple of software engineers. Why is that? Is it because we self-sabotage? Is there not that much money in software after all? Someone should look into all of this, but as long as we see ourselves as individuals and not a group, we will be easy to ignore. (Uh oh, now I sound like a communist.)
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Our working conditions are not perfect (know any software engineers with wrist problems, back problems, or sleep apnea?). Our benefits are not perfect (love being forced to take a mandatory vacation every year paid out of my personal vacation balance). Are these not things you would expect to be able to negotiate on your own? Who are you working for that would rather lose you as an employee than provide you with an ergonomic keyboard? > And, we have pretty much zero sway among the government. (Do you think that if attorneys were paid in illiquid shares that every time you received them, you'd have to send a hand-signed letter to the IRS?) This is the most significant thing that unions actually do, but it seems weird to bring them in for the things they're "supposed to do" (negotiating with employers), when you don't really want that (they protect bad team members), because what you really want is something else. And in that role a union doesn't really fit here, because you have interests shared with people who wouldn't be in it. Even if you have the same legislative goals as every other software developer, what sense does it make to unionize your own tiny startup or small business, or some entity which is already majority-owned by the employees? Maybe what software developers need is not a union, but a PAC?
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>employees are forced to individually consent or lose their job. that's the thing, software workers are used to just walking away, because their skills are versatile and demand is high. A national level athlete can also simply retire on a few year's funds (or hell, sell themselves as an influencer. You don't think a youtube channel alone of LeBron wouldn't generate a 6k income from weekly "advice"?), but they tend to have a competitive drive to stay in the game, literally. You don't grind your entire childhood's physique away because you're gambling on the chance you retire at 30 (even if that is the most likely thing to happen due to injuries). To be frank, the vibe I get from the internet seems to be that a lot of SWE's are indeed minmaxing to get out of the workforce ASAP.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > that's the thing, software workers are used to just walking away, because their skills are versatile and demand is high. But walking away voluntarily is different from having to walk away because your employer gives you an ultimatum. Especially when you're facing a market that has been hit by mass layoffs by many tech companies, and especially if you're looking specifically for a WFH job when many companies are demanding return to the office, precisely reason you'd be walking away in the first place.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >But walking away voluntarily is different from having to walk away because your employer gives you an ultimatum. Is there a real difference between walking away due to an ultimatum and walking away due to the prospect of better pay or work conditions? Especially in the case where you started pre-pandemic and technically WFH was never indefinitely promised? Either way, you are voluntarily choosing to seek a better job with better work conditions. The only difference is that you may not be able to be as covert in the ultimatum situation.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > the prospect of better pay or work conditions > to seek a better job with better work conditions > The only difference is that you may not be able to be as covert in the ultimatum situation. The words you use here are interesting: "the prospect", "to seek". The only difference is that you may not be able to find a better job with better work conditions if you're operating under the gun of unemployment and in a significantly worse job market. When you leave voluntarily, it's because you've already found a new job. You're operating from a position of strength and proactivity, not weakness and reactivity. > technically WFH was never indefinitely promised It some cases it was indefinitely promised, and then employers broke the promise.

by lapcat 3y ago

toldyouso2022 3y ago

A union turns into a guild fast. I don't want programming to be monopoly of people with a degree, slave to the cartel's rule, programming is a human right and it must remain absolutely free! A programmers union is too dangerous in this world, especially in these times

tomlockwood 3y ago
What evidence is there that unions turn into guilds? There were more guilds in preindustrial times and modern unions haven't become guilds.
unshavedyak 3y ago
I view unions like i view government. It's possible, sometimes likely, that a government becomes a horrid entity for control over people. However. Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people. Some for-profit company or individual has no ethical obligation to treat workers correctly, fairly, etc. So if we remove unions and government, what power do individual people have? To that idea then, people need a gov/union to have a voice - but govs and unions also need to be built with an extreme attention to oversight. Which we usually fail to implement correctly. Nevertheless it's the only tool we have - to give individuals power by distributing agreement. So to me the question isn't for or against gov/union, but rather how we can build them to scale and last. Especially in the face of pressure to corrupt. Happy to hear opinions on where this is wrong, though.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people I never heard of this definition for unions! Unions definitely aren't for or by "the people", that would mean everyone. Unions are - by definition - a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. Unless you're a communist, in which case you think managers, company founders, shopkeepers, farmers etc aren't really people.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    Not sure i follow. > a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. So is _any_ group but "all". "For the people" doesn't literally mean "all people". Government would also not be "for the people" by your definition, given that we have no (real) global government. If we get together and form a union, ie our joint effort towards a common goal, have we not formed an entity for the people (us), by the people (us)? Your argument seems odd. "But it's not for everyone" is.. well, yea - nothing is. Literally. What can you say that is "everyone"?
lotsoweiners 3y ago
> programming is a human right and it must remain absolutely free! Weird statement. No one is trying to stop you from programming. They are talking about credentials to be employed professionally.
- toldyouso2022 3y ago
  Nobody is forced to buy work from someone, but with a State sanctioned cartel you are forced to buy from the cartel instead than from whomever you want. The weird statement is yours when you say they don't stop me from programming. They do!

stale2002 3y ago

Well us software engineers can look at some of the ways that unions are run, and decide for ourselves if we like those "benefits". For example, seniority requirements and enforced degree or qualification requirements don't sound like something I would want, nor would the many other software engineers like myself who didn't go through the "proper" path of getting a CS degree.

candiddevmike 3y ago
Degrees are not a requirement for unions, and most unions try and foster apprenticeship models. Additionally, seniority benefits/protections would be huge for our industry as there is a lot of rampant ageism and young, naive workaholics.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > and most unions try and foster apprenticeship models This is exactly the problem I am talking about. This is a barrier to entry. Instead of being allowed to just apply for a job, and accepting it, you have to "do you time" in a low paid apprenticeship, due to contract requirements that are setup or lobbied for by these unions or guilds. This puts up a barrier to entry to new people wanting to join, because union members want to reduce competition. I am not just talking about degree requirements. Instead, I am talking about any barrier to entry. Unions have a very real and logical reason to put up barriers to entry. It reduces the supply of labor and increases prices for existing members, at the expense of people trying to break into the industry.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    There's a lot of stuff you will learn in an apprenticeship that a lot of folks in our industry miss or skip, like soft skills, teamwork, risk/reward, effort/value, etc. I personally think everyone should be required to spend a year or two in tech support hell, or understand why a senior person thinks and researches before they start writing code, for instance. You say barriers to entry, I say putting in the time to ensure you're someone I want to work with in the future.

jrockway 3y ago

I think most software engineers are a little uncomfortable with the whole arrangement of employment to begin with, and any backlash against unions is the backlash from having to face this somewhat subservient reality. The origin story of getting a computer, some library books, and spending 10,000 hours alone with your computer seems pretty common. With that mental model, why would you want someone who isn't a software engineer interfering with your career? You built it yourself, and you don't need any help. I think that's where the attitude comes from, and it's probably something worth talking yourself out of. (Nobody is discounting their hard work, but the more BS other people deal with, the more time you can spend alone with your text editor.) The other thing that people probably worry about are protecting the net negative members on the team. Those that make more work for the team, derail meetings, block things from being submitted, etc. Nobody wants to hear "well our contract doesn't allow us to fire them". Like all engineering, there isn't a solution with no downsides. I think unions deserve serious consideration. Our working conditions are not perfect (know any software engineers with wrist problems, back problems, or sleep apnea?). Our benefits are not perfect (love being forced to take a mandatory vacation every year paid out of my personal vacation balance). And, we have pretty much zero sway among the government. (Do you think that if attorneys were paid in illiquid shares that every time you received them, you'd have to send a hand-signed letter to the IRS?) There is certainly something to be gained; software prints money, and the people that make it deserve their fair share. Even on HN, commenters are shocked by the FAANG salaries, but you know lots of people are making way more money. Someone just paid $7M for the two story house behind my apartment. I'm guessing they're not a couple of software engineers. Why is that? Is it because we self-sabotage? Is there not that much money in software after all? Someone should look into all of this, but as long as we see ourselves as individuals and not a group, we will be easy to ignore. (Uh oh, now I sound like a communist.)

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Our working conditions are not perfect (know any software engineers with wrist problems, back problems, or sleep apnea?). Our benefits are not perfect (love being forced to take a mandatory vacation every year paid out of my personal vacation balance). Are these not things you would expect to be able to negotiate on your own? Who are you working for that would rather lose you as an employee than provide you with an ergonomic keyboard? > And, we have pretty much zero sway among the government. (Do you think that if attorneys were paid in illiquid shares that every time you received them, you'd have to send a hand-signed letter to the IRS?) This is the most significant thing that unions actually do, but it seems weird to bring them in for the things they're "supposed to do" (negotiating with employers), when you don't really want that (they protect bad team members), because what you really want is something else. And in that role a union doesn't really fit here, because you have interests shared with people who wouldn't be in it. Even if you have the same legislative goals as every other software developer, what sense does it make to unionize your own tiny startup or small business, or some entity which is already majority-owned by the employees? Maybe what software developers need is not a union, but a PAC?

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>employees are forced to individually consent or lose their job. that's the thing, software workers are used to just walking away, because their skills are versatile and demand is high. A national level athlete can also simply retire on a few year's funds (or hell, sell themselves as an influencer. You don't think a youtube channel alone of LeBron wouldn't generate a 6k income from weekly "advice"?), but they tend to have a competitive drive to stay in the game, literally. You don't grind your entire childhood's physique away because you're gambling on the chance you retire at 30 (even if that is the most likely thing to happen due to injuries). To be frank, the vibe I get from the internet seems to be that a lot of SWE's are indeed minmaxing to get out of the workforce ASAP.

lapcat 3y ago
> that's the thing, software workers are used to just walking away, because their skills are versatile and demand is high. But walking away voluntarily is different from having to walk away because your employer gives you an ultimatum. Especially when you're facing a market that has been hit by mass layoffs by many tech companies, and especially if you're looking specifically for a WFH job when many companies are demanding return to the office, precisely reason you'd be walking away in the first place.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >But walking away voluntarily is different from having to walk away because your employer gives you an ultimatum. Is there a real difference between walking away due to an ultimatum and walking away due to the prospect of better pay or work conditions? Especially in the case where you started pre-pandemic and technically WFH was never indefinitely promised? Either way, you are voluntarily choosing to seek a better job with better work conditions. The only difference is that you may not be able to be as covert in the ultimatum situation.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > the prospect of better pay or work conditions > to seek a better job with better work conditions > The only difference is that you may not be able to be as covert in the ultimatum situation. The words you use here are interesting: "the prospect", "to seek". The only difference is that you may not be able to find a better job with better work conditions if you're operating under the gun of unemployment and in a significantly worse job market. When you leave voluntarily, it's because you've already found a new job. You're operating from a position of strength and proactivity, not weakness and reactivity. > technically WFH was never indefinitely promised It some cases it was indefinitely promised, and then employers broke the promise.