4 ms·

>What does that have to do with the unions? If there is just one "software engineer" union, if you work in software, you have to be part of that union. >So a

by robswc 3y ago

>What does that have to do with the unions? If there is just one "software engineer" union, if you work in software, you have to be part of that union. >So a programmers union would ensure that you have the same rights regardless of whether you work for Meta, Google or Carl's Discount Software. Exactly. That's the blessing and curse of monopoly. What if you feel the union isn't doing a good job of representing you? >They vote in the next union election and vote out who ever approved of that idea. So you're at the mercy of the 51%? >The point of the union is collective bargaining If that is all the unions did, I wouldn't be as weary. The problem is they do far more than that. >You're not forced to be a member to work in an industry, but at least parts of your benefits and minimum salary may be negotiated by the union regardless. >You're not forced to be a member to work in an industry Maybe in theory but in a world where there is only one software union for FAANG, that won't be the case.

ryandrake 3y ago
> So you're at the mercy of the 51%? I guess I'd rather have a vote over my compensation and working conditions rather than having to negotiate it or "vote with my feet". Different strokes for different folks. For what it's worth I'm against mandatory union participation, but would almost certainly participate if I had the option.
- robswc 3y ago
  That's fair. My problem comes down to "choose between X and Y" when you may have option Z without a union middleman.
mrweasel 3y ago
> Maybe in theory but in a world where there is only one software union for FAANG, that won't be the case. Why would it? My wife works in a heavily unionized industry, but you're not forced to be a member, but your baseline benefits are negotiated by a union. You're free to negotiate directly better terms if you can, you just can't do worse. I do see your point, say you have some benefits that mostly favors people with children, which you'd happily give up for higher pay. That is a downside. > So you're at the mercy of the 51%? Welcome to democracy, unless you're in the US where you at the mercy of less that 50% of the population anyway. I was always taught that democracy is the rule of the majority, but with consideration for the minority. In a normal election it's not win takes all, say you elect 15 people to run the union, sure 51% could elect the exact same type of people, in normal elections that rarely happens. It happens with gerrymandering, but normally, you broadly get a reasonable representation of the members. That's not to say that there aren't a group of people that believe something entirely different, and yes, it sucks to be them. Saying that 2% or 5% should be able to get exactly what they want, even if that costs the remaining group what they want is really arguing against democracy and I'm not sure what you'd replace it with. Still, you should always be free to leave a union that doesn't represent you, but that should prevent everyone else from benefiting. Maybe most agree with you and you start a new union.
- robswc 3y ago
  >My wife works in a heavily unionized industry Which industry? >You're free to negotiate directly better terms if you can, you just can't do worse Do you have sources for this? I'm not doubting you, its just I admit I'm not experienced with unions but from what I've gathered from friends/family, you have certain "steps" in salary/benefits. Are you negotiating with the union or with the company? Can you negotiate every year or only when you first start? >Saying that 2% or 5% should be able to get exactly what they want Well, IMO its not really about people getting exactly what they want, its about getting what is owed to each individual. I would love to be paid $1,000,000 to make CRUD apps all day but that's not possible (unless I owned the business or something). As it is now, when you take on a job you can negotiate salary and benefits. No use fighting over an orange when one person wants to eat it and the other wants the skin. I've negotiated tens of thousands of dollars in salary. Sometimes a business needs something done fast and has the money. Sometimes they have less money but can meet you on vacation/benefits. If a union establishes a higher floor, it will be at the expense of a ceiling, at least for software. I'm not saying unions are reason for the horribly low tech salaries in Europe... but the way employment there is handled is certainly a factor. Why take risks on people if you can't really get rid of them after you hire them? >Welcome to democracy [...] I'm not sure what you'd replace it with Right now, I can represent myself to my employer and I deal directly with my employer. A union would introduce a middleman that may or may not represent me well. Of course, a union would bring with it "leverage" of collective negotiation... but for me, that is not worth it to give up my ability to negotiate as an individual. I do get your points though. Democracy is a pretty awful system but it is the "least-worst." I think direct representation to your employer is the "least-worst" for software engineering though.
ck425 3y ago
There doesn't necessarily need to be just one. You can have a few that cover an industry that are bigger than an employee specific one while still having competition between unions. For example I work for the NHS and there are multiple unions I could join, all of which are consulted on pay deals.

by robswc 3y ago

ryandrake 3y ago

> So you're at the mercy of the 51%? I guess I'd rather have a vote over my compensation and working conditions rather than having to negotiate it or "vote with my feet". Different strokes for different folks. For what it's worth I'm against mandatory union participation, but would almost certainly participate if I had the option.

robswc 3y ago
That's fair. My problem comes down to "choose between X and Y" when you may have option Z without a union middleman.

mrweasel 3y ago

> Maybe in theory but in a world where there is only one software union for FAANG, that won't be the case. Why would it? My wife works in a heavily unionized industry, but you're not forced to be a member, but your baseline benefits are negotiated by a union. You're free to negotiate directly better terms if you can, you just can't do worse. I do see your point, say you have some benefits that mostly favors people with children, which you'd happily give up for higher pay. That is a downside. > So you're at the mercy of the 51%? Welcome to democracy, unless you're in the US where you at the mercy of less that 50% of the population anyway. I was always taught that democracy is the rule of the majority, but with consideration for the minority. In a normal election it's not win takes all, say you elect 15 people to run the union, sure 51% could elect the exact same type of people, in normal elections that rarely happens. It happens with gerrymandering, but normally, you broadly get a reasonable representation of the members. That's not to say that there aren't a group of people that believe something entirely different, and yes, it sucks to be them. Saying that 2% or 5% should be able to get exactly what they want, even if that costs the remaining group what they want is really arguing against democracy and I'm not sure what you'd replace it with. Still, you should always be free to leave a union that doesn't represent you, but that should prevent everyone else from benefiting. Maybe most agree with you and you start a new union.

robswc 3y ago
>My wife works in a heavily unionized industry Which industry? >You're free to negotiate directly better terms if you can, you just can't do worse Do you have sources for this? I'm not doubting you, its just I admit I'm not experienced with unions but from what I've gathered from friends/family, you have certain "steps" in salary/benefits. Are you negotiating with the union or with the company? Can you negotiate every year or only when you first start? >Saying that 2% or 5% should be able to get exactly what they want Well, IMO its not really about people getting exactly what they want, its about getting what is owed to each individual. I would love to be paid $1,000,000 to make CRUD apps all day but that's not possible (unless I owned the business or something). As it is now, when you take on a job you can negotiate salary and benefits. No use fighting over an orange when one person wants to eat it and the other wants the skin. I've negotiated tens of thousands of dollars in salary. Sometimes a business needs something done fast and has the money. Sometimes they have less money but can meet you on vacation/benefits. If a union establishes a higher floor, it will be at the expense of a ceiling, at least for software. I'm not saying unions are reason for the horribly low tech salaries in Europe... but the way employment there is handled is certainly a factor. Why take risks on people if you can't really get rid of them after you hire them? >Welcome to democracy [...] I'm not sure what you'd replace it with Right now, I can represent myself to my employer and I deal directly with my employer. A union would introduce a middleman that may or may not represent me well. Of course, a union would bring with it "leverage" of collective negotiation... but for me, that is not worth it to give up my ability to negotiate as an individual. I do get your points though. Democracy is a pretty awful system but it is the "least-worst." I think direct representation to your employer is the "least-worst" for software engineering though.

ck425 3y ago

There doesn't necessarily need to be just one. You can have a few that cover an industry that are bigger than an employee specific one while still having competition between unions. For example I work for the NHS and there are multiple unions I could join, all of which are consulted on pay deals.