24 ms·

> I’m all for taking action. I just don’t know what action best suits my needs, other than finding a new job or starting my own business and hoping I don’t beco

> I’m all for taking action. I just don’t know what action best suits my needs, other than finding a new job or starting my own business and hoping I don’t become one of the greedy ones too. Tech workers shouldn't punch down against unions. We should be pro-union in general.

ryandrake 1y ago
For some reason, too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 1% of tech workers, captains of their industry, and master negotiators: Each of them are a unicorn worker that unions couldn't possibly help.
- bpt3 1y ago
  US style unions generally require the above average workers to give up some form of compensation to benefit the below average workers. While you could argue "too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 50% of tech workers" and be correct, that is very different than claiming unions help everyone but the top 1%.
  - clayhacks 1y ago
    What sources do you have for that? Unionized employees make more than their non-unionized counterparts [0]. Even if the top earners to bottom earners gap shrank in relative terms, in absolute terms both would likely be higher. [0]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/weekly-earnings-of-nonunion-workers-were-85-percent-of-union-members-earnings-in-2024.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/weekly-earnings-of-nonunio...
    - bpt3 1y ago
      The gap is much smaller for private sector workers, and it's somewhat self-selecting by the fields where a union exists at all. If I'm one of many types of service worker, sure I very well might join a union because I'm pretty replaceable and my income has little to do with my individual performance. I'll do better by forcing my employer to collectively bargain on terms that are relatively favorable to me by law. That doesn't mean that all tech workers should support unions entering their field.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Henchman21 1y ago
    I think you may have misread this: For some reason, too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 1% of tech workers They’re saying too many erroneously believe they are part of the top 1% of their field. They’re thinking they’re better than they actually are. And so, mistakenly, it follows that unions are of no use to these top performers.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      I did not misread it. My point is that you can fall well below the top 1% and still fail to benefit from a union.
      - Henchman21 1y ago
        I’ve been in several unions in the US. Generally they’re positive experiences and not something I’d denigrate. After having read your other comments in this thread, it would seem you and I would at best disagree. You give me the impression you’re a total mercenary with no other obligations other than enriching yourself. I am and know plenty of people who actually want to build community, build the commons, etc. Not saying that isn’t you, just saying from this thread I don’t have that impression. You’re right of course, that super high performers don’t always benefit from a union. But the rest of us do when those folks have a sense of obligation to others.
        bpt3 1y ago
        I work to make money. My obligation there is to ethically make as much money as possible for my company, myself, and my employees. I build community/commons/etc. in my personal time (which also includes some overlap since I do have some social relationships with work colleagues). The amount of money I make at my job allows me dedicate more resources to those efforts, rather than intentionally docking my own pay to benefit some random person who happens to be performing a similar job to me much less effectively and would stand to benefit from being in a union.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    It is true that unions often have a leveling effect on wages across workers. But you are missing a big part of it. They also take a larger share of the pot from the owners. So while a particularly strong engineer might be giving up some earnings to less skilled engineers, the pot is larger to start with.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      And because the stronger engineers are giving up some earnings to the less skilled engineers, the larger pot doesn't matter to them. Unions basically buy job security for a fixed duration of time for their members by offering concessions related to compensation. Competent workers in a non-declining field (i.e. pretty much all of tech) already have job security via their skills, and don't need to explicitly guarantee it by giving up some compensation to offset that risk for the employer. It makes even less sense for software development since it can be moved overseas so easily in most cases.
      - UncleMeat 1y ago
        What if the pot is very large. I am paid very well. But my employer makes so much in profit that any loss to other engineers would be vastly outweighed by the amount won from the bosses. Unions are not just about job security. They can fight for compensation and benefits. And job security is not some meaningless thing, even for competent workers. Getting laid off still sucks even if you can find another job. If you are here on a work visa that's going to be stressful as all hell even if you are a massively in-demand engineer. We can also see what happens when there are coordinated layoffs by the bosses. It is definitely not the case that all competent engineers are having fast turnarounds to get another job right now.
    - gitremote 1y ago
      The leveling effect is because poor negotiators, people without powerful networks, and people in disadvantaged positions have people negotiating on their behalf from a position of strength, not because people who are paid less on average (women and racial minorities) are mostly shit workers.
bpt3 1y ago
Why? Assuming you're talking about a standard US union and not something like a guild, it would ultimately suppress wages for the top talent to provide job security to the other end of the bell curve.
- gitremote 1y ago
  Why do you think this, other than "unions = communism"?
  - bpt3 1y ago
    I have no problem with unions as a concept and if people want to join them that's fine with me. However, unions in practice enforce mediocrity while also becoming an institution that exists to support itself (aka its leaders) rather than its members once it reaches a large enough size (which is not unique to unions at all). Unions makes no sense for a top performer in a field where an individual can outperform other workers performing similar tasks by orders of magnitude. Software development is one of those fields. What part of that do you take issue with?
    - Twistyfiasco 1y ago
      A top performer is not immune to exploitation by capital.
      - bpt3 1y ago
        Sure, no one is. However, a top performer is much less likely to be exploited and much more likely to have their pay reduced by collective bargaining.

ryandrake 1y ago

For some reason, too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 1% of tech workers, captains of their industry, and master negotiators: Each of them are a unicorn worker that unions couldn't possibly help.

bpt3 1y ago
US style unions generally require the above average workers to give up some form of compensation to benefit the below average workers. While you could argue "too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 50% of tech workers" and be correct, that is very different than claiming unions help everyone but the top 1%.
- clayhacks 1y ago
  What sources do you have for that? Unionized employees make more than their non-unionized counterparts [0]. Even if the top earners to bottom earners gap shrank in relative terms, in absolute terms both would likely be higher. [0]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/weekly-earnings-of-nonunion-workers-were-85-percent-of-union-members-earnings-in-2024.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/weekly-earnings-of-nonunio...
  - bpt3 1y ago
    The gap is much smaller for private sector workers, and it's somewhat self-selecting by the fields where a union exists at all. If I'm one of many types of service worker, sure I very well might join a union because I'm pretty replaceable and my income has little to do with my individual performance. I'll do better by forcing my employer to collectively bargain on terms that are relatively favorable to me by law. That doesn't mean that all tech workers should support unions entering their field.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Henchman21 1y ago
  I think you may have misread this: For some reason, too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 1% of tech workers They’re saying too many erroneously believe they are part of the top 1% of their field. They’re thinking they’re better than they actually are. And so, mistakenly, it follows that unions are of no use to these top performers.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    I did not misread it. My point is that you can fall well below the top 1% and still fail to benefit from a union.
    - Henchman21 1y ago
      I’ve been in several unions in the US. Generally they’re positive experiences and not something I’d denigrate. After having read your other comments in this thread, it would seem you and I would at best disagree. You give me the impression you’re a total mercenary with no other obligations other than enriching yourself. I am and know plenty of people who actually want to build community, build the commons, etc. Not saying that isn’t you, just saying from this thread I don’t have that impression. You’re right of course, that super high performers don’t always benefit from a union. But the rest of us do when those folks have a sense of obligation to others.
      - bpt3 1y ago
        I work to make money. My obligation there is to ethically make as much money as possible for my company, myself, and my employees. I build community/commons/etc. in my personal time (which also includes some overlap since I do have some social relationships with work colleagues). The amount of money I make at my job allows me dedicate more resources to those efforts, rather than intentionally docking my own pay to benefit some random person who happens to be performing a similar job to me much less effectively and would stand to benefit from being in a union.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  It is true that unions often have a leveling effect on wages across workers. But you are missing a big part of it. They also take a larger share of the pot from the owners. So while a particularly strong engineer might be giving up some earnings to less skilled engineers, the pot is larger to start with.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    And because the stronger engineers are giving up some earnings to the less skilled engineers, the larger pot doesn't matter to them. Unions basically buy job security for a fixed duration of time for their members by offering concessions related to compensation. Competent workers in a non-declining field (i.e. pretty much all of tech) already have job security via their skills, and don't need to explicitly guarantee it by giving up some compensation to offset that risk for the employer. It makes even less sense for software development since it can be moved overseas so easily in most cases.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      What if the pot is very large. I am paid very well. But my employer makes so much in profit that any loss to other engineers would be vastly outweighed by the amount won from the bosses. Unions are not just about job security. They can fight for compensation and benefits. And job security is not some meaningless thing, even for competent workers. Getting laid off still sucks even if you can find another job. If you are here on a work visa that's going to be stressful as all hell even if you are a massively in-demand engineer. We can also see what happens when there are coordinated layoffs by the bosses. It is definitely not the case that all competent engineers are having fast turnarounds to get another job right now.
  - gitremote 1y ago
    The leveling effect is because poor negotiators, people without powerful networks, and people in disadvantaged positions have people negotiating on their behalf from a position of strength, not because people who are paid less on average (women and racial minorities) are mostly shit workers.

bpt3 1y ago

Why? Assuming you're talking about a standard US union and not something like a guild, it would ultimately suppress wages for the top talent to provide job security to the other end of the bell curve.

gitremote 1y ago
Why do you think this, other than "unions = communism"?
- bpt3 1y ago
  I have no problem with unions as a concept and if people want to join them that's fine with me. However, unions in practice enforce mediocrity while also becoming an institution that exists to support itself (aka its leaders) rather than its members once it reaches a large enough size (which is not unique to unions at all). Unions makes no sense for a top performer in a field where an individual can outperform other workers performing similar tasks by orders of magnitude. Software development is one of those fields. What part of that do you take issue with?
  - Twistyfiasco 1y ago
    A top performer is not immune to exploitation by capital.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      Sure, no one is. However, a top performer is much less likely to be exploited and much more likely to have their pay reduced by collective bargaining.