10 ms·

I find it so weird to read these stories on how Americans cope with unionizing. In the Netherlands where I live it is very common and normal to be member of a u

I find it so weird to read these stories on how Americans cope with unionizing. In the Netherlands where I live it is very common and normal to be member of a union. Most branches have a union, IT sector is a "free sector" and does not have a union. My wife works as a teacher and she is member of a union.

the_other 3y ago
In the UK, many IT roles can join the Communication Workers Union[0] [0]: https://www.cwu.org/ https://www.cwu.org/
- rwmj 3y ago
  Or Prospect https://prospect.org.uk/ https://prospect.org.uk/, a non-aligned (they don't give money to political parties) union of "scientists, engineers, tech experts and in other specialist roles".
- varispeed 3y ago
  Thanks to updated IR35 employers can bypass unions altogether. As IT deemed employees don't get any employment rights.
  - youngtaff 3y ago
    Umbrella companies are going to be in for a rude awakening sooner or later As someone who's outside IR35 I can't see the point in being inside rather than just taking a full time role with a company, sure there's some flexibility but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my view
    - varispeed 3y ago
      There's a common misunderstanding regarding umbrella companies and their relation to IR35 legislation. Contrary to some beliefs, umbrella companies aren't subject to IR35. This regulation is designed for individuals who offer their services through an intermediary which they either manage or hold a financial stake in. However, when you're employed through an umbrella company or a large consultancy, you're considered an employee of that entity, thus IR35 doesn't apply in this context. Therefore, there's no impending "rude awakening" for umbrella companies concerning IR35. The challenge in regulating umbrella companies lies in the similarity of their business structures to those of large consultancies. They operate nearly identically, and differentiating between the two would require an additional, layer of regulation that could potentially face legal objections. IR35 itself is more about preventing professionals from departing large consultancies, establishing direct client engagements, and consequently, fostering competition. Ultimately, many small enterprises begin with the business owners personally providing services until they expand sufficiently to employ additional staff. However, IR35 essentially nips that in the bud and ensures the talent stays in the employment pool, corporations can exploit.
      - youngtaff 3y ago
        Apart from agreeing the IR35 applies to people who sell their services through a PSC I have a very different take on to that… IR35 is about making up the loss in revenue of employers National Insurance, as PSC shareholders can avoid NI by paying themselves mainly in dividends rather than a salary. The dividend tax makes up for the lack of employees NI on dividends but there’s no employers equivalent. Large companies use umbrella’s because they don’t want to take on the burden of employing contractors but depending on how the relationship is setup is the umbrella becomes the contractor’s employers (assuming engaged direct rather than through their PSC) and that means the contractor has a whole set of employment rights — sick, holiday, pension that the umbrella is now responsible for
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    What's the issue if it only applies to contractors? I'm very pro-union btw but my understanding is that IR35 doesn't apply to FTEs, so no need for full union rights - at least in the case of short-term contractors (who choose money and flexibility over security). Agency temps (on equivalent or lower pay than FTEs) are a different matter and may need protection. Long term contractors are disguised FTEs so their choice again, probably not normally an issue. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the law or the point?
    - varispeed 3y ago
      The IR35 has been changed so that now client / deemed employer can decides if employment rights can be afforded. Whether to hire someone as an employee, on FTE or in-scope IR35 is a business decision. If businesses wanted everyone could be hired as a "contractor" without employment rights from tomorrow. It's not like workers have a choice now, apart from looking for a job elsewhere.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  More specifically, the UTAW branch https://utaw.tech https://utaw.tech There's also IWGB Game Workers for relevant workers https://www.gameworkers.co.uk/ https://www.gameworkers.co.uk/
nemo44x 3y ago
IT doesn’t traditionally gafe unions in the USA. Teachers are unionized here and are one of the most powerful political forces. They are also a likely reason why so many people here don’t like unions.
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  > Teachers are unionized here and are one of the most powerful political forces. This does not seem compatible with all the stories I've heard about underpaid teachers having to buy material for their students out of their own pocket. I'm sure it somehow ends up both being true in a twisted way, but it still sounds strange.
  - username332211 3y ago
    If you think about it, American teachers are the most obvious example of why unionization doesn't necessarily improve anything at all. An average class of 24 costs just short of $700k per year to the citizens of New York City and the cost is rising rapidly every year. Meanwhile, teachers are supposed to be underpaid, overworked and exploited. I guess teachers are supposed to take solace in the fact they are very powerful.
    - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
      No, it shows how little real power they have, and how dire the situation would be in the absence of a union.
      - AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
        [dead]
    - vanderZwan 3y ago
      That is an absurd conclusion to draw without looking at the details of what the various organizations and institutions actually structurally do in practice. It's not like the whole system is a magical black box that just does what it does and there is no way of knowing what is going on.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
IT here is also a priviledged sector, in that it's in most cases an employee's market - few people in IT have their job or the wages at risk, layoffs are rare, etc. There are some unions for IT personnel, but they aren't very popular or well-known. There's also the mandatory employee representation (called the Ondernemingsraad in Dutch); every company over 50 employees is required to have one of those. But again, this is rare in IT companies. In part because a few companies I've worked for, IT providers / consultancies, use the 'cell division' tactic (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celfilosofie https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celfilosofie), where a company is divided up into smaller cells of at most 50 people, either by geographic location or specialism, each operating as their own company (on paper). On the surface this is clever because it means the colleagues will be able to know everyone, or a department is specialized, or a company's finances is more secure. But underneath, it means no cell will ever become large enough to require employee representation. On the surface there is no need because everyone is paid and treated well, but at the same time, another one of these was sold to investors and has shifted course, buying up companies across europe now. I think employees would like to have a say in that, but that's not good for the owners / shareholders.
- eru 3y ago
  Employees can always go and work for someone else or form a cooperative?
- jsiepkes 3y ago
  In practice the OR (Ondernemingsraad) is also going to give you limited protection during lay-offs. What happens during lay-off is they just present the OR with multiple plans. Plans which include more people laid off but leaving departments where the OR members are in out of it versus plans which effect less people but which included departments which included the OR members themselves. Good chance people will choose self preservation over the greater good. I've seen it happen at companies.
- darkwater 3y ago
  Good analysis. My view on these topics is: always cover your (collective) ass as much as possible, with papers and laws holding your back. Because NOW the company/managers can be really smart and in good faith people, but in the future they might change their mind or being replaced.
katzenversteher 3y ago
Same in Germany but e.g. I work in a company that does mechanical engineering, so I can join the IG Metall. If I'd work for the public I could join Verdi etc. However, I believe there is also no specific Union for "pure" IT.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  IG Metall does cover IT, at least on my case for the last decades being in Germany.
pjmlp 3y ago
In Germany IG Metal is one of the unions where IT is represented.
- paradoja 3y ago
  Also Verdi https://tech.verdi.de/ https://tech.verdi.de/ .
nabla9 3y ago
American unions are not like European unions. In Europe sectoral unions and sectoral bargaining is the norm. In the US federal law does not allow that. Each firm must unionize individually. In the US unions and enterprices play zero sum game against each other. If the firm unionizes, the firm loses relative to non-unionized competition. Example: the current UAW (United Auto Workers) dispute in the US. If UAW wins, unionized enterprises lose to Tesla.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > In the US federal law does not allow that If I understand correctly, this isn't true. There are laws that make this effectively true, but that's not quite the same thing. For example, secondary boycotts are banned. This limits the rights of workers and unions to freely associate and mobilize for their interests. That little doozy was rationalized by the excuse of protecting the economy (read: the status quo). Ianal, and idk if this is a distinction without a difference; but it seems worth pointing out.
  - nabla9 3y ago
    I may be wrong, but I think it's the other way around. The law allows only company-level unionization, but there are ways to get effective sectoral bargaining agreements sometimes. In Europe, we have laws that encourage it. For example, Finland has generally applicable collective agreements. If a large representative majority of workers achieve agreement with enterprise representatives in an industry sector, the agreement can become generally applicable. Every employer must observe at least the minimum provisions of a wide national collective agreement once it's considered representative in the relevant sector. (Finland does not have laws about minimum wage. There is very little need for them because generally applicable agreements set the minimums.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Draiken 3y ago
  Wouldn't Tesla be supporting UAW if that was 100% accurate? AFAIR Tesla follows the typical US corporation stance of "kill it with fire" against unions. A sick version of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
weberer 3y ago
>IT sector is a "free sector" and does not have a union. My wife works as a teacher and she is member of a union. It sounds exactly like America then.
fallingfrog 3y ago
Yeah American companies go scorched earth against any union activity. The Starbucks in my city unionized and they immediately shut it down and fired everyone. And look how long the writers strike went on- how much money did that cost them versus the cost of just negotiating a little Honestly I feel like it just must be egotistical powerful men who don’t want to lose control over those they see as beneath them, to the point that they’re willing to do the wrong thing from a business point of view.
InTheArena 3y ago
Unions in America are much more militant and much less cooperative, much more likely to go to zero-sum negotiations than in Europe. They also are far far far more corrupt than unions in Europe.
- throwboatyface 3y ago
  This is just saying "union bad" in more words. The recent WGA strike and Teamsters strike at UPS both got terrific results for workers. The UAW and SAG-AFTRA are also very effectively striking right now.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > This is just saying "union bad" in more words. That's not "just" what is being said. Unions are generally good in the US, but the tactics have aligned across industries. Notably, the teacher's unions, police unions, and often utility unions are horribly corrupt.
    - saltminer 3y ago
      I believe the union-busting tactics of the 20th century are a big reason for the corruption of many unions: the ones that could stand up best to union busting were the ones management and politicians were physically afraid of meaningfully challenging. That said, I live in North Carolina, where public sector unions are illegal (no state, county, or local agency is allowed to engage in collective bargaining with its employees). Sure, there are things like the NCAE, but in practice they're all completely powerless - aside from creating proposals which the NCGOP will subsequently ignore in favor of diverting more public funds to under-performing for-profit charter schools under the guise of "school choice," the only thing the NCAE really provides to teachers are benefits that the state doesn't. To quote a comment I wrote last January (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885392): > There's also another factor at play: in many states, the power of unions is quite weak. E.g. public-sector employees in NC cannot collectively bargain, which is why they're able to get away with paying teachers horrendous wages. Want to strike? Go on ahead, pay your sub for the day (or your contract will not be renewed) and go down to Raleigh, where the legislature will recess and most of them will literally just go home and ignore all the people with picket signs.

the_other 3y ago

In the UK, many IT roles can join the Communication Workers Union[0] [0]: https://www.cwu.org/ https://www.cwu.org/

rwmj 3y ago
Or Prospect https://prospect.org.uk/ https://prospect.org.uk/, a non-aligned (they don't give money to political parties) union of "scientists, engineers, tech experts and in other specialist roles".
varispeed 3y ago
Thanks to updated IR35 employers can bypass unions altogether. As IT deemed employees don't get any employment rights.
- youngtaff 3y ago
  Umbrella companies are going to be in for a rude awakening sooner or later As someone who's outside IR35 I can't see the point in being inside rather than just taking a full time role with a company, sure there's some flexibility but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my view
  - varispeed 3y ago
    There's a common misunderstanding regarding umbrella companies and their relation to IR35 legislation. Contrary to some beliefs, umbrella companies aren't subject to IR35. This regulation is designed for individuals who offer their services through an intermediary which they either manage or hold a financial stake in. However, when you're employed through an umbrella company or a large consultancy, you're considered an employee of that entity, thus IR35 doesn't apply in this context. Therefore, there's no impending "rude awakening" for umbrella companies concerning IR35. The challenge in regulating umbrella companies lies in the similarity of their business structures to those of large consultancies. They operate nearly identically, and differentiating between the two would require an additional, layer of regulation that could potentially face legal objections. IR35 itself is more about preventing professionals from departing large consultancies, establishing direct client engagements, and consequently, fostering competition. Ultimately, many small enterprises begin with the business owners personally providing services until they expand sufficiently to employ additional staff. However, IR35 essentially nips that in the bud and ensures the talent stays in the employment pool, corporations can exploit.
    - youngtaff 3y ago
      Apart from agreeing the IR35 applies to people who sell their services through a PSC I have a very different take on to that… IR35 is about making up the loss in revenue of employers National Insurance, as PSC shareholders can avoid NI by paying themselves mainly in dividends rather than a salary. The dividend tax makes up for the lack of employees NI on dividends but there’s no employers equivalent. Large companies use umbrella’s because they don’t want to take on the burden of employing contractors but depending on how the relationship is setup is the umbrella becomes the contractor’s employers (assuming engaged direct rather than through their PSC) and that means the contractor has a whole set of employment rights — sick, holiday, pension that the umbrella is now responsible for
- mellosouls 3y ago
  What's the issue if it only applies to contractors? I'm very pro-union btw but my understanding is that IR35 doesn't apply to FTEs, so no need for full union rights - at least in the case of short-term contractors (who choose money and flexibility over security). Agency temps (on equivalent or lower pay than FTEs) are a different matter and may need protection. Long term contractors are disguised FTEs so their choice again, probably not normally an issue. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the law or the point?
  - varispeed 3y ago
    The IR35 has been changed so that now client / deemed employer can decides if employment rights can be afforded. Whether to hire someone as an employee, on FTE or in-scope IR35 is a business decision. If businesses wanted everyone could be hired as a "contractor" without employment rights from tomorrow. It's not like workers have a choice now, apart from looking for a job elsewhere.
dontlaugh 3y ago
More specifically, the UTAW branch https://utaw.tech https://utaw.tech There's also IWGB Game Workers for relevant workers https://www.gameworkers.co.uk/ https://www.gameworkers.co.uk/

nemo44x 3y ago

IT doesn’t traditionally gafe unions in the USA. Teachers are unionized here and are one of the most powerful political forces. They are also a likely reason why so many people here don’t like unions.

vanderZwan 3y ago
> Teachers are unionized here and are one of the most powerful political forces. This does not seem compatible with all the stories I've heard about underpaid teachers having to buy material for their students out of their own pocket. I'm sure it somehow ends up both being true in a twisted way, but it still sounds strange.
- username332211 3y ago
  If you think about it, American teachers are the most obvious example of why unionization doesn't necessarily improve anything at all. An average class of 24 costs just short of $700k per year to the citizens of New York City and the cost is rising rapidly every year. Meanwhile, teachers are supposed to be underpaid, overworked and exploited. I guess teachers are supposed to take solace in the fact they are very powerful.
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    No, it shows how little real power they have, and how dire the situation would be in the absence of a union.
    - AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
      [dead]
  - vanderZwan 3y ago
    That is an absurd conclusion to draw without looking at the details of what the various organizations and institutions actually structurally do in practice. It's not like the whole system is a magical black box that just does what it does and there is no way of knowing what is going on.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

IT here is also a priviledged sector, in that it's in most cases an employee's market - few people in IT have their job or the wages at risk, layoffs are rare, etc. There are some unions for IT personnel, but they aren't very popular or well-known. There's also the mandatory employee representation (called the Ondernemingsraad in Dutch); every company over 50 employees is required to have one of those. But again, this is rare in IT companies. In part because a few companies I've worked for, IT providers / consultancies, use the 'cell division' tactic (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celfilosofie https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celfilosofie), where a company is divided up into smaller cells of at most 50 people, either by geographic location or specialism, each operating as their own company (on paper). On the surface this is clever because it means the colleagues will be able to know everyone, or a department is specialized, or a company's finances is more secure. But underneath, it means no cell will ever become large enough to require employee representation. On the surface there is no need because everyone is paid and treated well, but at the same time, another one of these was sold to investors and has shifted course, buying up companies across europe now. I think employees would like to have a say in that, but that's not good for the owners / shareholders.

eru 3y ago
Employees can always go and work for someone else or form a cooperative?
jsiepkes 3y ago
In practice the OR (Ondernemingsraad) is also going to give you limited protection during lay-offs. What happens during lay-off is they just present the OR with multiple plans. Plans which include more people laid off but leaving departments where the OR members are in out of it versus plans which effect less people but which included departments which included the OR members themselves. Good chance people will choose self preservation over the greater good. I've seen it happen at companies.
darkwater 3y ago
Good analysis. My view on these topics is: always cover your (collective) ass as much as possible, with papers and laws holding your back. Because NOW the company/managers can be really smart and in good faith people, but in the future they might change their mind or being replaced.

katzenversteher 3y ago

Same in Germany but e.g. I work in a company that does mechanical engineering, so I can join the IG Metall. If I'd work for the public I could join Verdi etc. However, I believe there is also no specific Union for "pure" IT.

pjmlp 3y ago
IG Metall does cover IT, at least on my case for the last decades being in Germany.

pjmlp 3y ago

In Germany IG Metal is one of the unions where IT is represented.

paradoja 3y ago
Also Verdi https://tech.verdi.de/ https://tech.verdi.de/ .

nabla9 3y ago

American unions are not like European unions. In Europe sectoral unions and sectoral bargaining is the norm. In the US federal law does not allow that. Each firm must unionize individually. In the US unions and enterprices play zero sum game against each other. If the firm unionizes, the firm loses relative to non-unionized competition. Example: the current UAW (United Auto Workers) dispute in the US. If UAW wins, unionized enterprises lose to Tesla.

mandmandam 3y ago
> In the US federal law does not allow that If I understand correctly, this isn't true. There are laws that make this effectively true, but that's not quite the same thing. For example, secondary boycotts are banned. This limits the rights of workers and unions to freely associate and mobilize for their interests. That little doozy was rationalized by the excuse of protecting the economy (read: the status quo). Ianal, and idk if this is a distinction without a difference; but it seems worth pointing out.
- nabla9 3y ago
  I may be wrong, but I think it's the other way around. The law allows only company-level unionization, but there are ways to get effective sectoral bargaining agreements sometimes. In Europe, we have laws that encourage it. For example, Finland has generally applicable collective agreements. If a large representative majority of workers achieve agreement with enterprise representatives in an industry sector, the agreement can become generally applicable. Every employer must observe at least the minimum provisions of a wide national collective agreement once it's considered representative in the relevant sector. (Finland does not have laws about minimum wage. There is very little need for them because generally applicable agreements set the minimums.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Draiken 3y ago
Wouldn't Tesla be supporting UAW if that was 100% accurate? AFAIR Tesla follows the typical US corporation stance of "kill it with fire" against unions. A sick version of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

weberer 3y ago

>IT sector is a "free sector" and does not have a union. My wife works as a teacher and she is member of a union. It sounds exactly like America then.

fallingfrog 3y ago

Yeah American companies go scorched earth against any union activity. The Starbucks in my city unionized and they immediately shut it down and fired everyone. And look how long the writers strike went on- how much money did that cost them versus the cost of just negotiating a little Honestly I feel like it just must be egotistical powerful men who don’t want to lose control over those they see as beneath them, to the point that they’re willing to do the wrong thing from a business point of view.

InTheArena 3y ago

Unions in America are much more militant and much less cooperative, much more likely to go to zero-sum negotiations than in Europe. They also are far far far more corrupt than unions in Europe.

throwboatyface 3y ago
This is just saying "union bad" in more words. The recent WGA strike and Teamsters strike at UPS both got terrific results for workers. The UAW and SAG-AFTRA are also very effectively striking right now.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > This is just saying "union bad" in more words. That's not "just" what is being said. Unions are generally good in the US, but the tactics have aligned across industries. Notably, the teacher's unions, police unions, and often utility unions are horribly corrupt.
  - saltminer 3y ago
    I believe the union-busting tactics of the 20th century are a big reason for the corruption of many unions: the ones that could stand up best to union busting were the ones management and politicians were physically afraid of meaningfully challenging. That said, I live in North Carolina, where public sector unions are illegal (no state, county, or local agency is allowed to engage in collective bargaining with its employees). Sure, there are things like the NCAE, but in practice they're all completely powerless - aside from creating proposals which the NCGOP will subsequently ignore in favor of diverting more public funds to under-performing for-profit charter schools under the guise of "school choice," the only thing the NCAE really provides to teachers are benefits that the state doesn't. To quote a comment I wrote last January (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885392): > There's also another factor at play: in many states, the power of unions is quite weak. E.g. public-sector employees in NC cannot collectively bargain, which is why they're able to get away with paying teachers horrendous wages. Want to strike? Go on ahead, pay your sub for the day (or your contract will not be renewed) and go down to Raleigh, where the legislature will recess and most of them will literally just go home and ignore all the people with picket signs.