5 ms·

Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to). I'm not saying they are a bad thing necessarily, but they don't make sense in competit

Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to). I'm not saying they are a bad thing necessarily, but they don't make sense in competitive markets.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Yeah, that’s why NBA players have them. Because they can’t compete on skill.
- deadeye 3y ago
  I suppose that's a union by name. But for the millions of people in a real union, it isn't recognizable as one. Most unions function to keep an established order where seniority matters more than capability and performance. Besides sports unions, actors guilds, and other small examples, unions exist to provide a framework for collectivising unskilled labor into a unit of power, where individually they have none.
  - Ironchefpython 3y ago
    Yeah, you handwave some of the most visible and effective unions in the United States (SAG-AFTRA, WGA), you're also ignoring education unions, healthcare unions, and many other careers where pay is not just about seniority, but also education, certification, specialization, and other factors. Even unions in industries with legitimately undifferentiated labor will have shift differentials built into their contracts.
  - jmopp 3y ago
    I would put a hypothetical software engineer's union in the same category as a sports union/actor's guild. Just as an actor has brand recognition and can leverage this or start their own productions, so can a skilled software engineer start their own company/be recognised in their craft. And beyond that, can you imagine what would happen if software engineers decided to strike? It has the potential to have a far greater impact than pretty much any other industrial action. If factory workers down tools for a week, production is delayed. If Google SREs down tools for a week, it might break the internet.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    No, it’s recognizable and sports unions often refuse to break picket lines for low wage workers: https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/20/inter-miami-hotel-workers-strike-fairmont-miramar https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/20/inter-... What you’re doing is trying to craft a special definition of a union that excludes the most analogous unions to the one that software engineers could form and ignores the real examples of solidarity between professional class and other types of workers. See also the solidarity strikes against Tesla in Sweden. I won’t speak to your motivations in attempting to do so, but it doesn’t correspond to how labor organizing is actually practiced.
Scarblac 3y ago
Developers don't really compete on skill much. Most importantly because companies have no good way of judging skill of developers. And also because, in most companies writing business software, good enough is good enough.
- deadeye 3y ago
  That is the exact opposite of my experience.
ako 3y ago
There are many situations where employers are not interested in skills, they’re just looking to fill a position with the cheapest (licensed) person. There’s very little ROI in upgrading your skills in this situation.
- deadeye 3y ago
  I think we're saying the same thing. If that's what employers do then employees can't compete on skill.
  - ako 3y ago
    Agreed, just wanted to stress the point that it is often not even an option for a potential employee to try and compete on skills.
fragmede 3y ago
Or for people that want better for themselves and their coworkers. Listen, I know as SWEs, we're supposed to reject unions because we're paid so well, and listening to a lifetime of anti-union propaganda that leads to hilarious conclusions like the above. But reading some of the other threads complaining about work conditions that it sounds like a majority would like to avoid, not to mention some of the horror stories out of, eg, video game development studios, getting people to understand that, no, a union could be useful is, for some reason, an unhill battle. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to try and do deep work in an open office floor plan? if there were more conference rooms? If RTO wasn't a thing? If there was no deathmarch to make the upcoming release? Because people, including those that can compete on skill, could still band together and say "we're not putting up with open office floor plans".
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to). I mean, the “on skill” part is superfluous, but, yes, it is definitionally true that a union is for workers that no longer wish primarily to compete with each other, and who realize that such competition is a race to the bottom that works against them and for the benefit of their employers. All organized groups are rejections on some level of competition among the members in favor of cooperation for joint advantage.

Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to). I'm not saying they are a bad thing necessarily, but they don't make sense in competitive markets.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

Yeah, that’s why NBA players have them. Because they can’t compete on skill.

deadeye 3y ago
I suppose that's a union by name. But for the millions of people in a real union, it isn't recognizable as one. Most unions function to keep an established order where seniority matters more than capability and performance. Besides sports unions, actors guilds, and other small examples, unions exist to provide a framework for collectivising unskilled labor into a unit of power, where individually they have none.
- Ironchefpython 3y ago
  Yeah, you handwave some of the most visible and effective unions in the United States (SAG-AFTRA, WGA), you're also ignoring education unions, healthcare unions, and many other careers where pay is not just about seniority, but also education, certification, specialization, and other factors. Even unions in industries with legitimately undifferentiated labor will have shift differentials built into their contracts.
- jmopp 3y ago
  I would put a hypothetical software engineer's union in the same category as a sports union/actor's guild. Just as an actor has brand recognition and can leverage this or start their own productions, so can a skilled software engineer start their own company/be recognised in their craft. And beyond that, can you imagine what would happen if software engineers decided to strike? It has the potential to have a far greater impact than pretty much any other industrial action. If factory workers down tools for a week, production is delayed. If Google SREs down tools for a week, it might break the internet.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  No, it’s recognizable and sports unions often refuse to break picket lines for low wage workers: https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/20/inter-miami-hotel-workers-strike-fairmont-miramar https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/20/inter-... What you’re doing is trying to craft a special definition of a union that excludes the most analogous unions to the one that software engineers could form and ignores the real examples of solidarity between professional class and other types of workers. See also the solidarity strikes against Tesla in Sweden. I won’t speak to your motivations in attempting to do so, but it doesn’t correspond to how labor organizing is actually practiced.

Scarblac 3y ago

Developers don't really compete on skill much. Most importantly because companies have no good way of judging skill of developers. And also because, in most companies writing business software, good enough is good enough.

deadeye 3y ago
That is the exact opposite of my experience.

ako 3y ago

There are many situations where employers are not interested in skills, they’re just looking to fill a position with the cheapest (licensed) person. There’s very little ROI in upgrading your skills in this situation.

deadeye 3y ago
I think we're saying the same thing. If that's what employers do then employees can't compete on skill.
- ako 3y ago
  Agreed, just wanted to stress the point that it is often not even an option for a potential employee to try and compete on skills.

fragmede 3y ago

Or for people that want better for themselves and their coworkers. Listen, I know as SWEs, we're supposed to reject unions because we're paid so well, and listening to a lifetime of anti-union propaganda that leads to hilarious conclusions like the above. But reading some of the other threads complaining about work conditions that it sounds like a majority would like to avoid, not to mention some of the horror stories out of, eg, video game development studios, getting people to understand that, no, a union could be useful is, for some reason, an unhill battle. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to try and do deep work in an open office floor plan? if there were more conference rooms? If RTO wasn't a thing? If there was no deathmarch to make the upcoming release? Because people, including those that can compete on skill, could still band together and say "we're not putting up with open office floor plans".

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to). I mean, the “on skill” part is superfluous, but, yes, it is definitionally true that a union is for workers that no longer wish primarily to compete with each other, and who realize that such competition is a race to the bottom that works against them and for the benefit of their employers. All organized groups are rejections on some level of competition among the members in favor of cooperation for joint advantage.