3 ms·

What makes solidarity between workers possible is the homogeneity of their labour. This condition is not present for tech workers. Labour market conditions are

What makes solidarity between workers possible is the homogeneity of their labour. This condition is not present for tech workers. Labour market conditions are completely different from those of say, a meat processing plant or a factory assembly line.

vuggamie 1y ago
There is more than enough homogeneity of labor in this industry. All workers should organize.
- flmontpetit 1y ago
  The real homogeneity is class, thus the need for developing class consciousness in all workers.
- int_19h 1y ago
  Seeing how the article link is to IWW, it might be interesting to bring up their take: not only all workers should organize, but they should organize in a single union cutting across industries to maximize their collective power vs holders of capital. IWW strives to become exactly that.
cratermoon 1y ago
generative ai is rapidly homogenizing tech labor. By design.
- dcre 1y ago
  Capital sowing the seeds of its own destruction! Where have I heard this before?
throw0101a 1y ago
> What makes solidarity between workers possible is the homogeneity of their labour. Ethan Hunt play by Tom Cruise and Waitress #2 played by Jane Doe aren't very homogeneous with regards to pay and fame, but they're both part of SAG.
- dauertewigkeit 1y ago
  Good point. I am not familiar with Hollywood to know what their job market is like. EDIT: another commented mentioned that NBA players are also unionized. I think there is a second element to it, which has to do with how monopolized the employer market is.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Doesn’t the “G” in SAG stand for “Guild?” A guild is different from a union, right? It is more like a bunch of independent contractors making connections or something like that.
  - parpfish 1y ago
    a guild for software would be interesting. not only would the collective provide benefits to the individual workers, but it would serve as an (optional) form of licensure/credentialing that ensures each member has a baseline level of competence. it could make hiring so much easier if you could skip the fizzbuzz screening rounds by pulling from a pool of vetted talent.
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      Yeah. There are groups like ACM, IEEE has some computer sub-group if I recall correctly, and there are more niche groups like SIAM. But, they all seem to have a somewhat academic focus, at least in my (very limited) experience.
  - unionthrowaway 1y ago
    This exact exchange (Unions are great for fungible labor but computer programming isn't like that / But Hollywood A-list actors are unionized and they're the polar opposite of fungible labor / Oh but SAG is a Guild not a Union) plays out in every HN thread I've seen which mentions unions. As a union member (not SAG-AFTRA), I find this curious. SAG-AFTRA is a Union. They have a cool name but, like many other groups with Guild in their name, they are recognized by the NLRB as a Union. There's no special classification for Guild, at least in America. When you look at Wikipedia's list of largest unions in the US, only 2 of the top 10 have Union in their name, but that doesn't mean the other 8 aren't actually Unions. Or that the ones with Brotherhood in their name don't allow women, or any other silly extrapolation one wants to concoct. It's just a name. We're not in the 13th century any more. There is no longer any functional difference between Guild and Union. Of the alleged benefits of Guilds enumerated in HN threads (vetting and certification of members, continuing education, ability to be paid above scale, etc), literally every single one is already offered by unions today. And if you thought of a new one that wasn't, you could bring it up at your next union meeting and vote on it. It's frustrating to read discussions of unions by online commenters who have never been union members or paid dues, never read a union contract, never attended a union meeting or voted with their coworkers, never worked similar jobs in both union and non-union workplaces. It's like a bunch of people who have never lived in a free society arguing over whether they should form a Democracy or a Republic, by picking countries with these words in their names, and selecting attributes of those countries they do or don't want to emulate. That's not how it works.
ses1984 1y ago
Most of us have way, way more in common with a meat processing worker than we have in common with the people who sign our pay checks. The wealthy class makes multiples of your salary in passive income and their marginal tax rate is lower. You work and fork over 40%. They do nothing and pay 15% or less. You put your retirement money into a 401k. They put their retirement money into a “charitable foundation”. You draw down from your retirement money. They take a loan against it. What’s the difference between a billionaire and a meat packing worker? Billions of dollars. What’s the difference between a billionaire and a faang engineer? Also billions of dollars.
- dauertewigkeit 1y ago
  I said nothing about belonging to different economic classes. My point is simply that if you are 1 of 50,000 in a meat processing plant, you do not really have any way of competing with your fellow workers. You might try to work harder and faster, but then you end up raising the bar for all, and you now have to maintain the new pace. And once the rest catch up with your pace, the pay for all will be lowered again. In tech, every job is slightly different, and there is a real opportunity to meaningful differentiate yourself from the rest and compete in a much more dynamic job market. Also, who are the ones hurting currently? The juniors or the seniors? Seniors are mostly doing fine. Juniors are the ones hurting. And juniors would have an even harder time, if you transitioned to a unionized system, because entry requirements would be raised significantly to account for the fact that you cannot fire people so easily.
  - ses1984 1y ago
    [flagged]
dcre 1y ago
This is the exactly the right kind of question to be asking, but I think your conclusion is wrong. Why think the painters and the welder in an auto factory have more in common than 20 different kinds of programmers do?
- matkoniecz 1y ago
  As far as I know workers in auto factory work on assembly line with very standardized amount of work and with work itself being highly repetitive. Also, their output is relatively easy to measure and stand arise. This is not true for programmers, making standard pay increase for programmers less useful as a target. What would be measured? Hours in office? Commits? Lines of code?
- KiranRao0 1y ago
  I think this is the right line of thinking. My understanding of the grandparent's argument is 2 pieces: 1. Heterogeneity/homogeneity of labour. 2. Tight/lose labour market. I think Argument 1 is the weaker argument. There's a lot of fungibility between software roles. However, there's a higher learning cost. Moving to a new software company requires a few months before someone is close to full productivity. This in contrast between a painter moving from a Ford supplier to a GM supplier will likely close to full productivity within a few weeks. The cost (to the employer) is lower to rehire someone. Argument 2 is the stronger argument, but may not be forever. In a tight labour market, I see very little need for unions. If the marginal worker can (and will) leave their position for a better position (pay, benefits, culture, etc), I see little need for unions. However, if the labour market for software engineers shifts in favor of businesses, this will change rapidly.
  - dcre 1y ago
    Tight labor markets don't last forever!

vuggamie 1y ago

There is more than enough homogeneity of labor in this industry. All workers should organize.

flmontpetit 1y ago
The real homogeneity is class, thus the need for developing class consciousness in all workers.
int_19h 1y ago
Seeing how the article link is to IWW, it might be interesting to bring up their take: not only all workers should organize, but they should organize in a single union cutting across industries to maximize their collective power vs holders of capital. IWW strives to become exactly that.

cratermoon 1y ago

generative ai is rapidly homogenizing tech labor. By design.

dcre 1y ago
Capital sowing the seeds of its own destruction! Where have I heard this before?

throw0101a 1y ago

> What makes solidarity between workers possible is the homogeneity of their labour. Ethan Hunt play by Tom Cruise and Waitress #2 played by Jane Doe aren't very homogeneous with regards to pay and fame, but they're both part of SAG.

dauertewigkeit 1y ago
Good point. I am not familiar with Hollywood to know what their job market is like. EDIT: another commented mentioned that NBA players are also unionized. I think there is a second element to it, which has to do with how monopolized the employer market is.
bee_rider 1y ago
Doesn’t the “G” in SAG stand for “Guild?” A guild is different from a union, right? It is more like a bunch of independent contractors making connections or something like that.
- parpfish 1y ago
  a guild for software would be interesting. not only would the collective provide benefits to the individual workers, but it would serve as an (optional) form of licensure/credentialing that ensures each member has a baseline level of competence. it could make hiring so much easier if you could skip the fizzbuzz screening rounds by pulling from a pool of vetted talent.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    Yeah. There are groups like ACM, IEEE has some computer sub-group if I recall correctly, and there are more niche groups like SIAM. But, they all seem to have a somewhat academic focus, at least in my (very limited) experience.
- unionthrowaway 1y ago
  This exact exchange (Unions are great for fungible labor but computer programming isn't like that / But Hollywood A-list actors are unionized and they're the polar opposite of fungible labor / Oh but SAG is a Guild not a Union) plays out in every HN thread I've seen which mentions unions. As a union member (not SAG-AFTRA), I find this curious. SAG-AFTRA is a Union. They have a cool name but, like many other groups with Guild in their name, they are recognized by the NLRB as a Union. There's no special classification for Guild, at least in America. When you look at Wikipedia's list of largest unions in the US, only 2 of the top 10 have Union in their name, but that doesn't mean the other 8 aren't actually Unions. Or that the ones with Brotherhood in their name don't allow women, or any other silly extrapolation one wants to concoct. It's just a name. We're not in the 13th century any more. There is no longer any functional difference between Guild and Union. Of the alleged benefits of Guilds enumerated in HN threads (vetting and certification of members, continuing education, ability to be paid above scale, etc), literally every single one is already offered by unions today. And if you thought of a new one that wasn't, you could bring it up at your next union meeting and vote on it. It's frustrating to read discussions of unions by online commenters who have never been union members or paid dues, never read a union contract, never attended a union meeting or voted with their coworkers, never worked similar jobs in both union and non-union workplaces. It's like a bunch of people who have never lived in a free society arguing over whether they should form a Democracy or a Republic, by picking countries with these words in their names, and selecting attributes of those countries they do or don't want to emulate. That's not how it works.

ses1984 1y ago

Most of us have way, way more in common with a meat processing worker than we have in common with the people who sign our pay checks. The wealthy class makes multiples of your salary in passive income and their marginal tax rate is lower. You work and fork over 40%. They do nothing and pay 15% or less. You put your retirement money into a 401k. They put their retirement money into a “charitable foundation”. You draw down from your retirement money. They take a loan against it. What’s the difference between a billionaire and a meat packing worker? Billions of dollars. What’s the difference between a billionaire and a faang engineer? Also billions of dollars.

dauertewigkeit 1y ago
I said nothing about belonging to different economic classes. My point is simply that if you are 1 of 50,000 in a meat processing plant, you do not really have any way of competing with your fellow workers. You might try to work harder and faster, but then you end up raising the bar for all, and you now have to maintain the new pace. And once the rest catch up with your pace, the pay for all will be lowered again. In tech, every job is slightly different, and there is a real opportunity to meaningful differentiate yourself from the rest and compete in a much more dynamic job market. Also, who are the ones hurting currently? The juniors or the seniors? Seniors are mostly doing fine. Juniors are the ones hurting. And juniors would have an even harder time, if you transitioned to a unionized system, because entry requirements would be raised significantly to account for the fact that you cannot fire people so easily.
- ses1984 1y ago
  [flagged]

dcre 1y ago

This is the exactly the right kind of question to be asking, but I think your conclusion is wrong. Why think the painters and the welder in an auto factory have more in common than 20 different kinds of programmers do?

matkoniecz 1y ago
As far as I know workers in auto factory work on assembly line with very standardized amount of work and with work itself being highly repetitive. Also, their output is relatively easy to measure and stand arise. This is not true for programmers, making standard pay increase for programmers less useful as a target. What would be measured? Hours in office? Commits? Lines of code?
KiranRao0 1y ago
I think this is the right line of thinking. My understanding of the grandparent's argument is 2 pieces: 1. Heterogeneity/homogeneity of labour. 2. Tight/lose labour market. I think Argument 1 is the weaker argument. There's a lot of fungibility between software roles. However, there's a higher learning cost. Moving to a new software company requires a few months before someone is close to full productivity. This in contrast between a painter moving from a Ford supplier to a GM supplier will likely close to full productivity within a few weeks. The cost (to the employer) is lower to rehire someone. Argument 2 is the stronger argument, but may not be forever. In a tight labour market, I see very little need for unions. If the marginal worker can (and will) leave their position for a better position (pay, benefits, culture, etc), I see little need for unions. However, if the labour market for software engineers shifts in favor of businesses, this will change rapidly.
- dcre 1y ago
  Tight labor markets don't last forever!