4 ms·

There's some "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" chicken-and-egg problems to solve: tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper mana

There's some "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" chicken-and-egg problems to solve: tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper management and riches rather than blue collar and closer to the masses and collective problems. Not all Unions are "blue collar", of course, but there's definitely a perception problem to fix if you are starting from the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire individual on the fast track" mindset seeing how unionization can apply to you.

tqi 3y ago
That is a pretty dismissive and patronizing view of the very people you'd like to form a union with...
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  It's not meant to be dismissive and I'm not sure it is patronizing when I know that I also struggle with this phenomenon, though I forgot to mention it. It's definitely a "we all" problem, I just wasn't great at expressing it that way in this particular approach. In tech we all often default to a clinical voice rather than a personal one, even for personally applicable things. I'm trying to get better about that. The industries want us to think we are all alone and in it for ourselves and only ourselves. Eliminating that mindset is hard for all of us not just because we have that mindset, but that there are many systems in place to continue to feed that mindset to us. It's the opposite of dismissive to say that we all have this problem, it is about trying to be very aware of the systems in place designed to keep us in this problem and that the problem is hard to dismiss (otherwise we'd have done it already, right?).
  - tqi 3y ago
    Thanks for the measured response, and I do appreciate the perspective. I personally think that unions are a solution to many problems, but come with a set of tradeoffs and genuine issues. There I think it is unhelpful (and why I used the word patronizing) to assume that people who are not on board with unionization must either be a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" and/or the under the influence of some unseen force ("the industries").
    - WorldMaker 3y ago
      You seem to be taking "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" as some sort of name calling or insult, but it's an old "term of art" name for a systemic problem (often attributed to John Steinbeck, though the notorious quote was a paraphrase/"calque" of what Steinbeck actually wrote). Systemic issues aren't an "unseen force" in terms of a mystery of how they happened and being able to blame it solely on outside "ne'erdowells" (though yes I did use "the industries" as a handwave and really meant "the systems in place"), but a lot of established status quo things and a lot of unchecked assumptions and a lot of PR and propaganda and mystique like "The American Dream". This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). I think it particularly is applicable to mention as one of the biggest chicken-and-egg/catch-22 reasons that tech workers in general have many specific issues with the concept of unionization because it is often successful in strategies that break solidarity, because we tech workers still feel close to the VC seats of power and "recent/near" to massive wealth bubbles like the 90s dot-com boom. I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them. You can't solve problems you intentionally leave in a blindspot.
      - tqi 3y ago
        I'm familiar with the idiom and origins. The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich ("tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper management and riches") is patronizing. Assuming that people must be opposed to unionization because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda is patronizing. I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them as well. I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want and assuming it is because they are misinformed or selfish is helpful. > This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.

tqi 3y ago

That is a pretty dismissive and patronizing view of the very people you'd like to form a union with...

WorldMaker 3y ago
It's not meant to be dismissive and I'm not sure it is patronizing when I know that I also struggle with this phenomenon, though I forgot to mention it. It's definitely a "we all" problem, I just wasn't great at expressing it that way in this particular approach. In tech we all often default to a clinical voice rather than a personal one, even for personally applicable things. I'm trying to get better about that. The industries want us to think we are all alone and in it for ourselves and only ourselves. Eliminating that mindset is hard for all of us not just because we have that mindset, but that there are many systems in place to continue to feed that mindset to us. It's the opposite of dismissive to say that we all have this problem, it is about trying to be very aware of the systems in place designed to keep us in this problem and that the problem is hard to dismiss (otherwise we'd have done it already, right?).
- tqi 3y ago
  Thanks for the measured response, and I do appreciate the perspective. I personally think that unions are a solution to many problems, but come with a set of tradeoffs and genuine issues. There I think it is unhelpful (and why I used the word patronizing) to assume that people who are not on board with unionization must either be a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" and/or the under the influence of some unseen force ("the industries").
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    You seem to be taking "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" as some sort of name calling or insult, but it's an old "term of art" name for a systemic problem (often attributed to John Steinbeck, though the notorious quote was a paraphrase/"calque" of what Steinbeck actually wrote). Systemic issues aren't an "unseen force" in terms of a mystery of how they happened and being able to blame it solely on outside "ne'erdowells" (though yes I did use "the industries" as a handwave and really meant "the systems in place"), but a lot of established status quo things and a lot of unchecked assumptions and a lot of PR and propaganda and mystique like "The American Dream". This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). I think it particularly is applicable to mention as one of the biggest chicken-and-egg/catch-22 reasons that tech workers in general have many specific issues with the concept of unionization because it is often successful in strategies that break solidarity, because we tech workers still feel close to the VC seats of power and "recent/near" to massive wealth bubbles like the 90s dot-com boom. I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them. You can't solve problems you intentionally leave in a blindspot.
    - tqi 3y ago
      I'm familiar with the idiom and origins. The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich ("tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper management and riches") is patronizing. Assuming that people must be opposed to unionization because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda is patronizing. I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them as well. I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want and assuming it is because they are misinformed or selfish is helpful. > This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.