17 ms·

I think Boeing developers might be part of their engineers union. Tech companies tend not to unionize, because most developers don't see net gain to be had fro

I think Boeing developers might be part of their engineers union. Tech companies tend not to unionize, because most developers don't see net gain to be had from unionizing. Most unions end up serving the interest of the union instead of the company, and enact things like seniority based pay and promotion. There's just too much incentive to cater towards interest of mediocre employees in a union model. Another big factor in software development is that the jobs are comfortable and pay very well. So lots of people would happily apply to the job. IIRC, it's something like a 40:1 ratio of applicants to offers at big tech companies.

miltonlost 2y ago
[flagged]
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  it's not anti union propaganda. The largest union in the United States is the public school teachers union. It has explicitly fought against merit based pay for decades. Other Unions like the electricians unions also sets up seniority base systems. You can proclaim that it's propaganda all you want, but what matters is whether or not it's actually true. I agree that the union has no incentive to look after the benefits of the company, but that's exactly why unions are typically harmful to businesses.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - matrix87 2y ago
    you see "merit based pay", I see corporations incentivizing shitty boundaries if you adjust for hours worked, unionized employees will make more
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      If one worker is willing to respond to alerts at 3 AM and another only works 9-5, then those two workers are providing different levels of value to the company assuming equal ability. Why shouldn't the worker that contributes more get rewarded? This is why unionized workplaces are > if you adjust for hours worked, unionized employees will make more This is in large part because unions artificially restrict the workforce. A union job at the docks is great... if you can actually get a job. Plenty of unions practice institutionalized nepotism, with friends and family given priority in hiring. Take the LA port union for example: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/02/longshoreman-lottery-results-announced-for-long-beach-la-ports-find-out-if-youre-on-the-list/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/02/longshoreman-lottery-... > This time around, about 80,000 put their names in for the drawing, and 25,000 were picked out and placed in sequential order. The first 2,300 on the list will be eligible for a part-time dockworker position that can lead to full-time employment, PMA officials have previously said. > Negotiated between the ILWU and PMA, the controversial lottery process has been criticized over the years for being a two-tiered system that favors ILWU friends and family. > Anyone can put their name in the drawing by sending in a postcard, but ILWU members get a specially marked postcard for their friends and family. >The two are placed in separate barrels and drawn randomly from alternating piles. The two groups hired an outside party, Moorpark-based InterOptimis, to conduct the drawing behind closed doors, stoking distrust from those outside the process. Institutionalized nepotism to restrict lucrative jobs to friend and family. That's what happens when unions control well paying jobs. Union jobs that actually are accessible are things like public school teachers, electricians, plumbers. They pay okay, but nothing compared to to $150,000 median wage of a longshoremen.
      - matrix87 2y ago
        > Why shouldn't the worker that contributes more get rewarded? Expecting work at 3AM is inhumane. Incorporating it into the incentive structure enables a race to the bottom that jeopardizes sleep schedule which has numerous health consequences Also let's consider a bunch of these workers are on a visa and can get deported at the whim of their employer > Plenty of unions practice institutionalized nepotism, with friends and family given priority in hiring I mean, are you saying that the corporations they're negotiating against don't do this also? It's a problem anywhere where there's money
- dehrmann 2y ago
  > In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Some unions are more powerful than companies (think UAW). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the company, and not having backgrounds in running companies, union leaders might not be thinking about that.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    All companies are more powerful than individual workers (think anywhere without a union). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the human workers, and not having backgrounds in caring about people and only money, CEOs might not be thinking about that. Unions look out for workers. That's their priority. They should not cater to the business.
    - dehrmann 2y ago
      My point is that unions should (but don't always) think about long-term business health because if the business loses market share or fails, it's bad for workers. If negotiating power is balanced, this might not matter, but if the union has more power, it can negotiate terms the company can't afford.
      - miltonlost 2y ago
        My point is business should (but never do) think about their employees as humans and not just numbers on a spreadsheet. So, rather than try to balance the individual worker against the company with a union on the off-chance the union becomes more "powerful" than the business, you'd keep the business (i.e., billionaires and capital) more powerful than the workers. You: Unions? bad for workers. No union? also bad for workers. Whelp, can't do anything like other countries have done with stronger labor laws This comes down to your valuing a "successful" business over humans, where "successful" means American exploitation of profits to owners, whereas some of those profits should go to the workers.
        Manuel_D 2y ago
- tqi 2y ago
  Dismissing any form of dissent as purely the result of propaganda is not a good way to bring people to your side. > In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Maybe if the workers in the union partly owned the company. For one, a meaningful amount of tech worker compensation comes in the form of company stock. For another, I would argue that anyone who wants to stay in their job long term should care about the company and it's long term health.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    I'm not dismissing ANY form of dissent. I'm dismissing the "unions mostly cater to the mediocre employees" as propaganda which ignores the universal benefits a union gives to all employees, mediocre and superstar alike. Benefits that would either not be guaranteed without a negotiated contract or would be hard to have conceded on an individual basis.
matrix87 2y ago
> because most developers don't see net gain to be had from unionizing. you think visa workers have the balls to unionize? that's what this is all about, finding people who can't say "no". if this round of visa workers wants to say "no" they'll just turn around and import a few more

miltonlost 2y ago

[flagged]

Manuel_D 2y ago
it's not anti union propaganda. The largest union in the United States is the public school teachers union. It has explicitly fought against merit based pay for decades. Other Unions like the electricians unions also sets up seniority base systems. You can proclaim that it's propaganda all you want, but what matters is whether or not it's actually true. I agree that the union has no incentive to look after the benefits of the company, but that's exactly why unions are typically harmful to businesses.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  [flagged]
- matrix87 2y ago
  you see "merit based pay", I see corporations incentivizing shitty boundaries if you adjust for hours worked, unionized employees will make more
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    If one worker is willing to respond to alerts at 3 AM and another only works 9-5, then those two workers are providing different levels of value to the company assuming equal ability. Why shouldn't the worker that contributes more get rewarded? This is why unionized workplaces are > if you adjust for hours worked, unionized employees will make more This is in large part because unions artificially restrict the workforce. A union job at the docks is great... if you can actually get a job. Plenty of unions practice institutionalized nepotism, with friends and family given priority in hiring. Take the LA port union for example: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/02/longshoreman-lottery-results-announced-for-long-beach-la-ports-find-out-if-youre-on-the-list/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/02/longshoreman-lottery-... > This time around, about 80,000 put their names in for the drawing, and 25,000 were picked out and placed in sequential order. The first 2,300 on the list will be eligible for a part-time dockworker position that can lead to full-time employment, PMA officials have previously said. > Negotiated between the ILWU and PMA, the controversial lottery process has been criticized over the years for being a two-tiered system that favors ILWU friends and family. > Anyone can put their name in the drawing by sending in a postcard, but ILWU members get a specially marked postcard for their friends and family. >The two are placed in separate barrels and drawn randomly from alternating piles. The two groups hired an outside party, Moorpark-based InterOptimis, to conduct the drawing behind closed doors, stoking distrust from those outside the process. Institutionalized nepotism to restrict lucrative jobs to friend and family. That's what happens when unions control well paying jobs. Union jobs that actually are accessible are things like public school teachers, electricians, plumbers. They pay okay, but nothing compared to to $150,000 median wage of a longshoremen.
    - matrix87 2y ago
      > Why shouldn't the worker that contributes more get rewarded? Expecting work at 3AM is inhumane. Incorporating it into the incentive structure enables a race to the bottom that jeopardizes sleep schedule which has numerous health consequences Also let's consider a bunch of these workers are on a visa and can get deported at the whim of their employer > Plenty of unions practice institutionalized nepotism, with friends and family given priority in hiring I mean, are you saying that the corporations they're negotiating against don't do this also? It's a problem anywhere where there's money
dehrmann 2y ago
> In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Some unions are more powerful than companies (think UAW). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the company, and not having backgrounds in running companies, union leaders might not be thinking about that.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  All companies are more powerful than individual workers (think anywhere without a union). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the human workers, and not having backgrounds in caring about people and only money, CEOs might not be thinking about that. Unions look out for workers. That's their priority. They should not cater to the business.
  - dehrmann 2y ago
    My point is that unions should (but don't always) think about long-term business health because if the business loses market share or fails, it's bad for workers. If negotiating power is balanced, this might not matter, but if the union has more power, it can negotiate terms the company can't afford.
    - miltonlost 2y ago
      My point is business should (but never do) think about their employees as humans and not just numbers on a spreadsheet. So, rather than try to balance the individual worker against the company with a union on the off-chance the union becomes more "powerful" than the business, you'd keep the business (i.e., billionaires and capital) more powerful than the workers. You: Unions? bad for workers. No union? also bad for workers. Whelp, can't do anything like other countries have done with stronger labor laws This comes down to your valuing a "successful" business over humans, where "successful" means American exploitation of profits to owners, whereas some of those profits should go to the workers.
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
tqi 2y ago
Dismissing any form of dissent as purely the result of propaganda is not a good way to bring people to your side. > In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Maybe if the workers in the union partly owned the company. For one, a meaningful amount of tech worker compensation comes in the form of company stock. For another, I would argue that anyone who wants to stay in their job long term should care about the company and it's long term health.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  I'm not dismissing ANY form of dissent. I'm dismissing the "unions mostly cater to the mediocre employees" as propaganda which ignores the universal benefits a union gives to all employees, mediocre and superstar alike. Benefits that would either not be guaranteed without a negotiated contract or would be hard to have conceded on an individual basis.

matrix87 2y ago

> because most developers don't see net gain to be had from unionizing. you think visa workers have the balls to unionize? that's what this is all about, finding people who can't say "no". if this round of visa workers wants to say "no" they'll just turn around and import a few more