6 ms·

A unionisation of tech workers is long overdue, we can't expect fair working conditions consistently by leaving the single randomer citizen to fight alone again

A unionisation of tech workers is long overdue, we can't expect fair working conditions consistently by leaving the single randomer citizen to fight alone against multi billion companies and various interests

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>fair working conditions Ironic, considering that tech workers have by far the best working conditions of the working class.
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  Why is it ironic? What does you comment aim to achieve? It's a statement of a fact, are you implying that should we aim for shittier conditions for tech workers? Really sometimes I wish people would activate braincells before writing
  - beardyw 3y ago
    Ironic is not the same as wrong.
- guntherhermann 3y ago
  I don't consider 'tech workers', working class. We're higher paid, our jobs do not destroy our bodies, in my mind it's a purely middle class career. I agree with your actual point though, we are pampered.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    Of course tech workers are working class. You either give your labour for a living or you invest capital in businesses, and almost every tech worker is doing the former. > our jobs do not destroy our bodies I've got news for you there.
    - thathndude 3y ago
      this is a valid definition of “working class,” (I.e. non-owners), but it’s not how the phrase is typically used. This phrase would include any non-owner professional like lawyers or doctors or even upper management. On top of that many tech workers don’t fit even your definition because equity is often an important part of comp. That’s not the case for lawyers or doctors or management in other industries. Using standard and customary vernacular, tech workers are not “working class.”
      - Izkata 3y ago
        Yeah, this group is called professional class, not working class.
    - guntherhermann 3y ago
      By the definition you give then people who claim benefits and do not work are not "working class". It is delusional to think our jobs are on the same level as someone who grafts all day with their hands and does back breaking work for minimum wage.
      - rwmj 3y ago
        Not everyone who is working class is on minimum wage. Train drivers or boiler engineers or site foremen? All paid very well, in the UK as much or even more than tech workers.
        guntherhermann 3y ago
        I come from a working class background so I'm very aware of all of this. However my family (extended+) have all had poorly paying jobs, coal miners, nurses, pallet makers, warehouse, electricians, labourers, bakers. I'm the first to go to uni and do an easy job that pays well. It is physically easy and it is very different from the other jobs I've listed. Our jobs aren't working class. Edit: by the by, boiler engineers are not paid well. A self-employed plumber with a gas cert can earn a good wage, but your average british gas tradie isn't bringing home half of what I earn
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    They mean working class in the capitalist sense rather than social class sense.
    - efaref 3y ago
      The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the "middle class" was a fiction invented by the capital class to divide the working class in two and pit them against each other. If you or someone in your family has to work so that you can survive, you are working class.
      - generic92034 3y ago
        I am not sure putting people working from pay check to pay check or having to work two jobs to survive in the same category as people getting middle six-figures TC would be helpful for analyzing the social strata.
      - pbmonster 3y ago
        > the "middle class" was a fiction invented by the capital class to divide the working class Totally agree. > If you or someone in your family has to work so that you can survive, you are working class. It's not so easy. A dentist owning his own doctor's practice - the means of production, quickly worth several million dollars - does pretty clearly belong to the (petit) bourgeoise. His interest are often clearly opposed to that of the staff he employs. Every dollar saved on salaries, every day of vacation denied means more money in his pocket. Yet he has to work every day. The real difference are the means of production.
      - interpenetrate 3y ago
        You don't want to be divided from the miners who extract the minerals and the factory workers who assemble the crappy tech that we design? I do. It's absolutely squalid over there.
        Timon3 3y ago
        I sure don't! I want them to have it as good as I do, and I want to use my influence to make it so. This can only work if we are one group.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    Being well paid doesn't change the fact that I am providing labor for a salary. The very definition of "working class".
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Working class as in "people who work"? Since tech workers are comfortably in the middle class when it comes to income level. Anyway, for most people, compensation and income level are really good, which is why unionization isn't as much a thing for tech workers. This is also because there's a lot of disparity, with some earning $35K / year and others $350K / year for basically the same job; unionization and successful agreements would mean the $35K / year would go up, but the $350K / year would go down by a lot and wouldn't want to cooperate. And that's just salary, then there's stocks, stock options, bonuses, perks, etc to consider. I'm not saying tech workers shouldn't unionize, all I'm saying is that the incentives are low. Because if you don't want to work under the conditons that e.g. Meta offers, you can vote with your feet and work somewhere else, pretty much anywhere and anything you want.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    > Working class as in "people who work"? Well yes, those that need to work. As opposed to those whose day to day spending come from capital investments.
    - cracrecry 3y ago
      I know a lot of investors like Warren Buffet. I bet they work harder than you do. People usually believe investors are those scammers that advertise in Internet along rented Villas and Lamborghinis talking about how to live without working and so on. They usually do not spend too much, as they are into the habit of saving way more than what they make. Those that waste their money are not the investors themselves, but their families, like the trophy wife or the spoiled children.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        A lot of people on here denigrate executives, management, money people generally. Maube they add value commensurate with what they're paid. Some almost certainly do. Others probably don't. However, I bet that the vast majority of software developers would hate the job and the lifestyle, perks or not--which among other things generally involves a ton of tightly-scheduled travel.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
HenriTEL 3y ago
I think one of the reasons there's not much unionization in tech is that the market balances itself. When your skills are in such high demand, the market has no borders and investors queue to fund startups, working conditions naturally goes up. But it goes both ways. When a given company decides to cut costs or change some working policy you can't blame them, especially when they still pay way above the local median and provide astonishing perks. Also you don't need unionization to have your conditions written in your contract. Certain professions deserve better working conditions, I don't think SWE is one of them,

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>fair working conditions Ironic, considering that tech workers have by far the best working conditions of the working class.

lnxg33k1 3y ago
Why is it ironic? What does you comment aim to achieve? It's a statement of a fact, are you implying that should we aim for shittier conditions for tech workers? Really sometimes I wish people would activate braincells before writing
- beardyw 3y ago
  Ironic is not the same as wrong.
guntherhermann 3y ago
I don't consider 'tech workers', working class. We're higher paid, our jobs do not destroy our bodies, in my mind it's a purely middle class career. I agree with your actual point though, we are pampered.
- rwmj 3y ago
  Of course tech workers are working class. You either give your labour for a living or you invest capital in businesses, and almost every tech worker is doing the former. > our jobs do not destroy our bodies I've got news for you there.
  - thathndude 3y ago
    this is a valid definition of “working class,” (I.e. non-owners), but it’s not how the phrase is typically used. This phrase would include any non-owner professional like lawyers or doctors or even upper management. On top of that many tech workers don’t fit even your definition because equity is often an important part of comp. That’s not the case for lawyers or doctors or management in other industries. Using standard and customary vernacular, tech workers are not “working class.”
    - Izkata 3y ago
      Yeah, this group is called professional class, not working class.
  - guntherhermann 3y ago
    By the definition you give then people who claim benefits and do not work are not "working class". It is delusional to think our jobs are on the same level as someone who grafts all day with their hands and does back breaking work for minimum wage.
    - rwmj 3y ago
      Not everyone who is working class is on minimum wage. Train drivers or boiler engineers or site foremen? All paid very well, in the UK as much or even more than tech workers.
      - guntherhermann 3y ago
        I come from a working class background so I'm very aware of all of this. However my family (extended+) have all had poorly paying jobs, coal miners, nurses, pallet makers, warehouse, electricians, labourers, bakers. I'm the first to go to uni and do an easy job that pays well. It is physically easy and it is very different from the other jobs I've listed. Our jobs aren't working class. Edit: by the by, boiler engineers are not paid well. A self-employed plumber with a gas cert can earn a good wage, but your average british gas tradie isn't bringing home half of what I earn
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  They mean working class in the capitalist sense rather than social class sense.
  - efaref 3y ago
    The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the "middle class" was a fiction invented by the capital class to divide the working class in two and pit them against each other. If you or someone in your family has to work so that you can survive, you are working class.
    - generic92034 3y ago
      I am not sure putting people working from pay check to pay check or having to work two jobs to survive in the same category as people getting middle six-figures TC would be helpful for analyzing the social strata.
    - pbmonster 3y ago
      > the "middle class" was a fiction invented by the capital class to divide the working class Totally agree. > If you or someone in your family has to work so that you can survive, you are working class. It's not so easy. A dentist owning his own doctor's practice - the means of production, quickly worth several million dollars - does pretty clearly belong to the (petit) bourgeoise. His interest are often clearly opposed to that of the staff he employs. Every dollar saved on salaries, every day of vacation denied means more money in his pocket. Yet he has to work every day. The real difference are the means of production.
    - interpenetrate 3y ago
      You don't want to be divided from the miners who extract the minerals and the factory workers who assemble the crappy tech that we design? I do. It's absolutely squalid over there.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        I sure don't! I want them to have it as good as I do, and I want to use my influence to make it so. This can only work if we are one group.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  Being well paid doesn't change the fact that I am providing labor for a salary. The very definition of "working class".
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Working class as in "people who work"? Since tech workers are comfortably in the middle class when it comes to income level. Anyway, for most people, compensation and income level are really good, which is why unionization isn't as much a thing for tech workers. This is also because there's a lot of disparity, with some earning $35K / year and others $350K / year for basically the same job; unionization and successful agreements would mean the $35K / year would go up, but the $350K / year would go down by a lot and wouldn't want to cooperate. And that's just salary, then there's stocks, stock options, bonuses, perks, etc to consider. I'm not saying tech workers shouldn't unionize, all I'm saying is that the incentives are low. Because if you don't want to work under the conditons that e.g. Meta offers, you can vote with your feet and work somewhere else, pretty much anywhere and anything you want.
- ta1243 3y ago
  > Working class as in "people who work"? Well yes, those that need to work. As opposed to those whose day to day spending come from capital investments.
  - cracrecry 3y ago
    I know a lot of investors like Warren Buffet. I bet they work harder than you do. People usually believe investors are those scammers that advertise in Internet along rented Villas and Lamborghinis talking about how to live without working and so on. They usually do not spend too much, as they are into the habit of saving way more than what they make. Those that waste their money are not the investors themselves, but their families, like the trophy wife or the spoiled children.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      A lot of people on here denigrate executives, management, money people generally. Maube they add value commensurate with what they're paid. Some almost certainly do. Others probably don't. However, I bet that the vast majority of software developers would hate the job and the lifestyle, perks or not--which among other things generally involves a ton of tightly-scheduled travel.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

HenriTEL 3y ago

I think one of the reasons there's not much unionization in tech is that the market balances itself. When your skills are in such high demand, the market has no borders and investors queue to fund startups, working conditions naturally goes up. But it goes both ways. When a given company decides to cut costs or change some working policy you can't blame them, especially when they still pay way above the local median and provide astonishing perks. Also you don't need unionization to have your conditions written in your contract. Certain professions deserve better working conditions, I don't think SWE is one of them,