4 ms·

Union negotiation isn't always about money, though it is usually part of it. It's also about working conditions and benefits. Also you can get a raise without

Union negotiation isn't always about money, though it is usually part of it. It's also about working conditions and benefits. Also you can get a raise without "costing" anything extra in the expense column, such as fewer working hours for the same pay/benefits.

shagie 2y ago
There are potentially many reasonable things to negotiate for. So far, all the information I can find is "stalled contract negotiations". Working without a contract is a perfectly valid reason to strike. Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable. As of yet, the contents of the negotiation aren't public - so we can only guess. In the meantime, the idea that everyone should be able to make Big Tech wages ignores the reality that most companies aren't Big Tech and have a revenue per employee that is a small fraction of it... and are running on much slimmer profit margins.
- morgante 2y ago
  > Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable. Yes it would. Explicitly demanding inefficiency is exactly why unions are terrible for innovation and progress.
  - rincebrain 2y ago
    There's likely always going to be tension between how many people management thinks are necessary to do the work and the reality of people not working like machines. If the union workers think that management would like to cut things so much that it will cause the quality of the resulting work to suffer drastically, to say nothing of their health, then they're not arguing for inefficiency. And if they don't trust that any sort of metric for "good enough" wouldn't be gameable since the management has more expensive lawyers to write contracts than them, a blanket rule makes more logical sense than trying to bet you didn't leave a loophole. (All opinions my own, obviously.)
  - cess11 2y ago
    That's a strawman. The demand you're quoting is to not fire people.
    - paperplatter 2y ago
      Keeping employees they don't need/want is an inefficiency.
      - cess11 2y ago
        No, which is why worker owned organisations tend to be more resilient to downturns.
paperplatter 2y ago
This is a distinction without difference.

shagie 2y ago

There are potentially many reasonable things to negotiate for. So far, all the information I can find is "stalled contract negotiations". Working without a contract is a perfectly valid reason to strike. Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable. As of yet, the contents of the negotiation aren't public - so we can only guess. In the meantime, the idea that everyone should be able to make Big Tech wages ignores the reality that most companies aren't Big Tech and have a revenue per employee that is a small fraction of it... and are running on much slimmer profit margins.

morgante 2y ago
> Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable. Yes it would. Explicitly demanding inefficiency is exactly why unions are terrible for innovation and progress.
- rincebrain 2y ago
  There's likely always going to be tension between how many people management thinks are necessary to do the work and the reality of people not working like machines. If the union workers think that management would like to cut things so much that it will cause the quality of the resulting work to suffer drastically, to say nothing of their health, then they're not arguing for inefficiency. And if they don't trust that any sort of metric for "good enough" wouldn't be gameable since the management has more expensive lawyers to write contracts than them, a blanket rule makes more logical sense than trying to bet you didn't leave a loophole. (All opinions my own, obviously.)
- cess11 2y ago
  That's a strawman. The demand you're quoting is to not fire people.
  - paperplatter 2y ago
    Keeping employees they don't need/want is an inefficiency.
    - cess11 2y ago
      No, which is why worker owned organisations tend to be more resilient to downturns.

paperplatter 2y ago

This is a distinction without difference.