5 ms·

> " ... said AT&T did not bargain in good faith and sent negotiators who didn’t have any authority to make decisions." [which is illegal, according to the Unio

by ncr100 2y ago

> " ... said AT&T did not bargain in good faith and sent negotiators who didn’t have any authority to make decisions." [which is illegal, according to the Union] Is what we can expect from our employers when we unionize, as technologists. Hardball tactics. Good to see how it's played, to prep for that likely future, as our jobs will face restrictions with AI eventually replacing some of us, squeezing some humans out of the workplace. I feel money is in its own reality.

xphos 2y ago
To be fair they are a dying company and have been laying people off for years. They just were lucky they got monopoly big before getting split up. It is a shame though because they had some many huge innovations made especially at Bell labs. Saying half the internet exists because of the work done there wouldn't be an understatement. But I guess that would be true for any group that was first laying down fundamental technology
jimnotgym 2y ago
> what we can expect from our employers when we unionize, as technologists. Hardball tactics. >Good to see how it's played, to prep for that likely future, For those that monitor critical infrastructure where down time is not allowed...just imagine your manager having to do that while you are on a picket line. Imagine the power you will have
- ethbr1 2y ago
  That's always been the power labor has, when it's chosen / been allowed to wield it. That there aren't more strikes in the modern economy (until recently) was one sign of how unbalanced things were.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Be careful proclaiming how critical your jobs are, or you might be forbidden from striking, like air traffic controllers.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    ATC were forbidden from striking (or rather not protected from retaliation for striking) because they were federal employees, not because of how critical they were.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 > An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— > (3)participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
      - aw1621107 2y ago
        Interestingly, I think the "participates in a strike" portion of the statute might be the only part of Section 7311 that could survive and/or has survived [0, 1] a First Amendment challenge. [0]: https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-washington https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-washington [1]: https://casetext.com/case/national-association-of-letter-carriers-v-blount https://casetext.com/case/national-association-of-letter-car...
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Thanks for the correction, I never knew that was the real reason.
    - vkou 2y ago
      Governments regularly order key industries striking back to work at gunpoint. It's one thing that both parties can agree on. See: Rail workers' strike.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        Really only the rail and airline industries as they are covered by the older Railway Labor Act, rather than the National Labor Relations Act. Though if a strike in another industry threatened the whole economy, no doubt that would quickly change.
- tibbon 2y ago
  The move they'll make (I've seen this firsthand) is they'll exclude the most senior people (architects, distinguished engineers) from union eligibility. Leadership will do this by including them in meetings where they are privy to sensitive and confidential information and then will classify them as a 'confidential employee'. This tactic is useful in ensuring that you always have a few people who can _probably_ keep the lights on, even if they are sub-optimally practiced at those systems.
  - xhrpost 2y ago
    I don't know a ton about unions so first I've heard of such a thing. How does this work? Isn't it illegal to prevent someone from joining a union? (Yellow dog contracts?)
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Confidential employees are prohibited by the NLRA from joining a union, same as managers and supervisors. Plenty of senior technologists acting as team leads would fall under one of those categories.
prepend 2y ago
I don’t expect technologists to ever really unionize. In all the orgs I’ve worked senior engineers are effectively management. So unless that shifts so ICs are just labor, I don’t know if a union will make sense. Maybe with lower level positions, but I think the trend in those is to automate them away. There could be a future where base IT is like teamsters where no one can touch the WiFi unless they have a union card.
- tibbon 2y ago
  It's already happening. CWA has around 700k members, many of of them are technologists, programmers, etc. It isn't just low level or IT. There are a lot of things that a union can do that would be nearly impossible for non-unionized employees to ask for.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by ncr100 2y ago

xphos 2y ago

To be fair they are a dying company and have been laying people off for years. They just were lucky they got monopoly big before getting split up. It is a shame though because they had some many huge innovations made especially at Bell labs. Saying half the internet exists because of the work done there wouldn't be an understatement. But I guess that would be true for any group that was first laying down fundamental technology

jimnotgym 2y ago

> what we can expect from our employers when we unionize, as technologists. Hardball tactics. >Good to see how it's played, to prep for that likely future, For those that monitor critical infrastructure where down time is not allowed...just imagine your manager having to do that while you are on a picket line. Imagine the power you will have

ethbr1 2y ago
That's always been the power labor has, when it's chosen / been allowed to wield it. That there aren't more strikes in the modern economy (until recently) was one sign of how unbalanced things were.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Be careful proclaiming how critical your jobs are, or you might be forbidden from striking, like air traffic controllers.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  ATC were forbidden from striking (or rather not protected from retaliation for striking) because they were federal employees, not because of how critical they were.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311 > An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— > (3)participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
    - aw1621107 2y ago
      Interestingly, I think the "participates in a strike" portion of the statute might be the only part of Section 7311 that could survive and/or has survived [0, 1] a First Amendment challenge. [0]: https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-washington https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-washington [1]: https://casetext.com/case/national-association-of-letter-carriers-v-blount https://casetext.com/case/national-association-of-letter-car...
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Thanks for the correction, I never knew that was the real reason.
  - vkou 2y ago
    Governments regularly order key industries striking back to work at gunpoint. It's one thing that both parties can agree on. See: Rail workers' strike.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Really only the rail and airline industries as they are covered by the older Railway Labor Act, rather than the National Labor Relations Act. Though if a strike in another industry threatened the whole economy, no doubt that would quickly change.
tibbon 2y ago
The move they'll make (I've seen this firsthand) is they'll exclude the most senior people (architects, distinguished engineers) from union eligibility. Leadership will do this by including them in meetings where they are privy to sensitive and confidential information and then will classify them as a 'confidential employee'. This tactic is useful in ensuring that you always have a few people who can _probably_ keep the lights on, even if they are sub-optimally practiced at those systems.
- xhrpost 2y ago
  I don't know a ton about unions so first I've heard of such a thing. How does this work? Isn't it illegal to prevent someone from joining a union? (Yellow dog contracts?)
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Confidential employees are prohibited by the NLRA from joining a union, same as managers and supervisors. Plenty of senior technologists acting as team leads would fall under one of those categories.

prepend 2y ago

I don’t expect technologists to ever really unionize. In all the orgs I’ve worked senior engineers are effectively management. So unless that shifts so ICs are just labor, I don’t know if a union will make sense. Maybe with lower level positions, but I think the trend in those is to automate them away. There could be a future where base IT is like teamsters where no one can touch the WiFi unless they have a union card.

tibbon 2y ago
It's already happening. CWA has around 700k members, many of of them are technologists, programmers, etc. It isn't just low level or IT. There are a lot of things that a union can do that would be nearly impossible for non-unionized employees to ask for.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]