6 ms·
For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.
by idiotsecant 1y ago
For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.
- Denote6737 1y agoTech attracts the radical independent types.
- palmotea 1y ago> Tech attracts the radical independent types. No. I think it's a combination of: 1) HN being associated with a startup incubator, and thus attracting a large contingent of people who see themselves as the boss doing this, not the workers affected; 2) tech attracts a certain kind of gullible person who's easily seduced by tidy little systems like the pop-capitalism of libertarian tracts; and 3) tech workers (until recently) had more economic bargaining power than a typical worker, so could delude themselves into thinking they do better by going it alone.
- lynx97 1y agoYour point 2 is such a condescending take. I read it as: "Everyone who does not think the same way as I do is gullible and has been seduced, because I am obviously right and they must be weak." This kind behaviour convinces me even more that I dont really trust union people.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- baq 1y agoIf you felt personally attacked you’ve let your biases win over rational thought. Tech obviously does attract libertarians (see bitcoin maxis for a single example of a significant cohort). Libertarianism is also blind towards the obvious failure mode of an organized group overpowering the egoistic as a virtue libertarians. (Think barbarians… or HR.)
- lynx97 1y agoI don't feel personally attacked. However, I find the particular wording of the post I initially replied to condescending and reeking of elitism. Calling someone--or a group--gullible and seduced is not going to win them over. Besides, while we are at wording. I dont usually pull that card, but... I am blind, in a literal sense. Seeing my disability being used in a rhetorical way makes me sometimes sad. It kind of shows--on a meta level--that inclusion will never happen.
- mlrtime 1y agoIronic considering that tech attracts people with rational thought and less emotional decision making. Is it surprising that I can be rational and not naive? bad take.
- tarsinge 1y agoTo me (and it’s my personal experience) I read it as tech people have a bias for systemic thinking, and usually lack skills and/or experience in human social dynamics, especially when young, which makes laissez faire capitalism / libertarianism attractive. I’m a bit on the spectrum and to me it has a video game like quality (e.g. humans that are robot like rational actors) that was appealing and reassuring when trying to make sense of the world. In short don’t find it condescending to say a bias exists, independently of the agreement with the political line of thinking. In fact when I was younger I was condescending the other way: surely if you are not into libertarianism your systemic thinking must be limited.
- palmotea 1y ago> To me (and it’s my personal experience) I read it as tech people have a bias for systemic thinking, and usually lack skills and/or experience in human social dynamics, especially when young, which makes laissez faire capitalism / libertarianism attractive. I’m a bit on the spectrum and to me it has a video game like quality (e.g. humans that are robot like rational actors) that was appealing and reassuring when trying to make sense of the world. That is exactly what I meant. Also tech people are often intelligent (in a way) and identify as such, but then let that get to their head and get really overconfident about whatever clicks with them.
- idiotsecant 1y ago'union people' - you mean people who collectively bargain their labor? Do you honestly these people who organize with co-workers to equalize the power imbalance between them and management are a certain kind of 'people'? Are you one of those people who clutches their pearls and tells on your co-worker to management for discussing how much money they make? Those are definitely a kind of 'people'.
- kimixa 1y agoI kinda disagree with #2, even ignoring the adversarial wording - at most it's an extension of "HN isn't All Of Tech" From people I've spoken to personally, I've seen it as primarily #3 - "Why do we need collective bargaining when we have negotiating power from being in high demand with lower supply?" - despite IMHO that is when you should be using that power for such, as that power will never last forever. Don't need politics/a "type of person" to be only looking at the short term, and thinking the current status quo will last forever. It seems pretty much a constant in every demographic.
- ChadNauseam 1y agoTech people would obviously be well served by being in the union. If you make a cartel with other people who can do the same job as you, and you don't profit from that, you're doing something terribly wrong. The reason I'm opposed to it isn't because it wouldn't be good for tech people. I'm opposed to it because in general I think it would be more bad for everyone else than it would be good for tech people. I expect they would see fewer products, higher prices on the products that they have, and lower quality products. Additionally, I expect the union to advocate for the interests of the tech workers, which would generally be for tech workers to make more money, and not in the interests of broader society. You can see a great example of this with the AMA, which did a great job advocating for the government to reduce the number of new doctors. It's probably great for existing doctors, but the rest of us should not be happy that we're paying more for our healthcare because of it.
- vincnetas 1y agowhy do you think maximising profit for company is ok and everyone is cheering about that, but when employee tries to maximise profit then "oh noes the society will collapse "
- ChadNauseam 1y agoI don't have an issue with an employee maximizing profit. I do have an issue with employees banding together and bargaining collectively. Exactly the same way I don't have an issue with a company maximizing profit, but I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively. A difference is that there's not necessarily an inherent size limit on companies while there is an inherent size limit on individuals because you can only be one person. One person can only be so economically valuable. However, that's why we have the whole system of antitrust to say when a company gets too big, as soon as we can show that it's having some kind of negative effect on consumers, we split it up. And that's exactly what we should do. And we definitely should prevent more mergers as well. What I would do differently w.r.t. antitrust is say that instead of only looking at harm to consumers (those who a company sells to), we should also look at harm to workers (aka those who a company buys from).
- mlrtime 1y ago>tech attracts a certain kind of gullible person This is incredibly condescending. This is exactly the type of elitism speak that tells people how to vote because they know whats better for them.
- flag_fagger 1y ago> This is exactly the type of elitism speak Condescending towards who? Overpaid code monkeys? Maybe they should start a professional victimhood organization > that tells people how to vote because they know whats better for them. A large portion of this country doesn’t even have the self stewardship to not eat themselves to obesity. Such people should have no place in any political process ideally.
- akramachamarei 1y agoCould you elaborate on what you mean by "pop-capitalism" and which "libertarian tracts" you are referring to? Because in the expressions of major libertarian(/-adjacent) thinkers (Friedman, Hayek, Smith), the free market is not "tidy". On the contrary these concepts are rather subtle and unintuitive. Perhaps you are referring to some bastardized form? Because, usually you get a gullible person with simple ideas, and capitalism isn't.
- skirge 1y agothey become leaders and there is no room for two
- zwnow 1y agoTech salaries are too high for people to do that. At least in Europe. Having an union will fuck with peoples salaries.
- triceratops 1y agoSoccer players in Europe are in unions. Tell me again how low star players' salaries are.
- consp 1y agoThe vast majority of IT jobs pay pretty meager here. There are some exceptions but not that much. You gave to be "manager" to get any decent pay most of the time.
- zwnow 1y agoHmm most people I know earn well above median and whenever I look at my regions statistics it confirms that... Joining an union would mean cuts to these people. I am a fan of unions for low pay jobs but not in tech.
- Krasnol 1y agoIsn't startup culture known for ripping off their employees before they sell and disappear? Sounds like there would be no space for unions or social aspects in that.
- raw_anon_1111 1y agoAnd when has a union ever stopped a multinational company from just closing shop and opening up overseas? If a company making physical things can do it, how hard do you think it would be for a software company?
- ljf 1y agoWhile they cannot stop something like that (a Union never gets to control the business), they can at least negotiate good terms for the departing employees, and help ensure everything is in order.
- alkonaut 1y ago> a Union never gets to control the business This varies. e.g. Sweden: if there are over 25 employees, the union gets a seat in the board. https://bolagsverket.se/en/foretag/aktiebolag/startaaktiebolag/styrelseochverkstallandedirektoriaktiebolag/arbetstagarrepresentanteriaktiebolag.507.html https://bolagsverket.se/en/foretag/aktiebolag/startaaktiebol...
- ljf 1y agoA seat at the board is great, but that won't stop a company making major changes like those described.
- raw_anon_1111 1y agoHave you ever heard about someone who was laid off from a major tech company complain about the severance amount? My n=1 experience at BigTech is that I got $40K severance after 3 years (and anecdotally had 3 offers within two weeks of looking in 2023. But I realize the market is worse now than then) And that severance was from Amazon.
- ljf 1y agoFAANG maybe not, but there are heaps of horror stories from plenty of other big and medium tech players.
- baq 1y agoMost everyone is a temporarily embarrassed unicorn founder around here.
- Popeyes 1y agoJust one line of code away from being an alpha tech bro with Elon's number on their phone.
- ikari_pl 1y agothe line must be the Permenance Code. Jeez, it was such a stupid movie ruining the franchise. Nobody needed a rushed sequel.
- AbstractH24 1y agoI do feel like folks forget HN is a subproject of YC. What traits do you think are going to be common in the audience it attracts?
- mlrtime 1y agoThis is such a cynical unoriginal take. No, I don't care about being in a unicorn and I'm not a embarrassed billionaire. But I don't idolize unions either. I don't want to be paid the same as all other workers with the same title, I like getting personal bonuses based on performance. I don't want to be in a union.
- triceratops 1y ago> I don't want to be paid the same as all other workers with the same title That's not what unions do. > I like getting personal bonuses based on performance A union doesn't prevent that. Film and TV actors, and professional athletes are in unions. They are not all paid the same. They get lavish bonuses based on performance. Retail and fast food workers are usually not in unions. They don't make much money. A union can't increase wages (much) and it doesn't decrease wages. Only supply and demand can do that.
- 1y ago
- VirusNewbie 1y agoThere are software engineer or tech unions, you're welcome to go work at one of them and reap the "reward" of far less money, vacation, perks, and more than if you'd work at one of the non union big tech companies.
- gedy 1y agoI can only speak for myself, but I think there is a naive idealist view of (modern, American) unions that gloss over the tradeoffs. I don't want another bureaucratic layer that tells me what to do, and run by yet more HR admin-types. We aren't working in the coal mines or steel mills here in the 1920s. Sorry I'm not interested in that for office jobs. I'm glad they still work in some countries and cultures.
- blindhippo 1y agoI don't care what kind or style of job - if the balance of power in any labour relationship is overwhelmingly on the employer side, collective action is the only way labour can regain a modicum of negotiating power. To think that the style of job has any bearing on this relationship is naive.
- gedy 1y agoI do agree collective action specifically can help, but not via organizing with a modern American Union.
- devilbunny 1y agoThe laws under which unions are organized have a huge influence on their effectiveness, and American unions are consequently... not that great. The United Auto Workers partially funded the Port Huron Statement authored by Students for a Democratic Society, a generally socialist group. Now, it's entirely plausible that the UAW leadership wanted to have some modicum of influence, and that's why they loaned them an entire union retreat on Lake Huron. But I doubt that the average UAW factory worker was excited to see their union dues used to provide elite college students with a mostly-free vacation for political organizing. I am not a labor law expert by any means, but my understanding of, say, German labor law is that it's much better at actually representing the workers in a given factory, in part because a union that doesn't do that loses its members to ones that will (since there's no requirement that everyone in a given job class has to join the same union).
- mlrtime 1y ago
- II2II 1y agoIdeally, there would be stronger and enforced labour regulations since the government can serve as a neutral third party. That said, I also realize that we don't live in an ideal world and governments tend to be more in touch with the needs of businesses than the needs of the people they are supposed to represent. There are many reasons for that, without resorting to conspiracy theories (but you are welcome to believe in conspiracy theories if that's your thing). Unions are low on my list to address labour issues. They create a whole slew of problems, but I also recognize that collectivized bargaining is one of the few tools workers have to represent their interests so I see them as a necessary evil.
- threatofrain 1y agoI don't think it's wildly unpopular, I think that starting a union is wildly hard and paints a target on your back, but once someone does the hard work I think we'll see that there was sufficient support to make a play. I also think if you do a text embedding on the recent years of HN post and you look for conversations on unions, you'll find a plurality of support.
- idiotsecant 11mo agoNo? Did you read this thread?
- namlem 1y agoUnions often end up decreasing productivity due to added bureaucracy, leading to ultimately worse compensation in the long run.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y agoHistorically in the US, American devs have done a tremendous amount to undermine their own bargaining power by (a) starting bootcamps and other "learn to code" initiatives which flood the market with new devs, and (b) creating AI tools which automate away jobs for devs. Any software developers' union almost necessarily needs to take an anti-AI position at this point. Got to move fast before it is too late.
- shawn_w 1y agoI'm waiting for the AIs to unionize. Will probably happen before you can get the herd of cats that are programmers to agree that collective bargaining is in their best interest.
- ryandvm 1y agoCollective bargaining has been unpopular in this industry for so long because 25 years ago pretty much any ADHD autodidact that was interested in tech could get an extremely promising job with nothing more than a high school diploma. Naturally, these individuals had very little interest in waiting in line behind retiring gray-beards for high pay and job security. They experienced that just being interested in tech was enough for huge opportunities to fall into their lap. Of course 25 years later, that ship has sailed and almost nobody is hiring people without a degree in C. And now you have the self taught gray-beards bumping up against ageism and the weird effects AI is having on the marketplace, and they're starting to wonder if, "hmmm, maybe unions aren't such a bad idea after all."
- wakawaka28 1y agoUnions can't defeat the forces of supply and demand. If people feel it is in their best interest to take a pay cut, they should be free to do so. If you want to take a job for a lower rate because of a mismatch in experience, union rates can amount to a ban on you getting a job. Likewise, if you can command a higher wage than average, no union should be able to tell you that you're not fit for the pay grade. If the self-taught greybeards don't understand this, they should self-teach themselves some basic economics.
- swatcoder 1y agoSome of the healthiest, oldest, and most mutually respected unions are in the entertainment arts -- actors, musicians, writers, directors, etc. In these unions and in their negotiations, talent value is understood to sometimes be very singular; a particular education or apprenticeship process isn't deemed strictly necessary for talent to mature; and that work often comes in the form of a time-boxed project that might need many members for a while and then far less (or none) after it reaches some progress threshold, leading to cycles of on/off work. What these unions achieve by forming solidarity between the most exceptional talent and more average working members is that they can establish baseline working conditions that are respectful and non-exploitative, a wage floor that allows occasional workers to earnestly commit to their trade even when confronted with intermittent downtime, internally managed group benefit programs that free producers from needing to administer and offer them and give members stability in participation, etc A healthy union for software engineers, which the gaming industry in particular is well suited towards right now, looks more like one of these kinds of unions than it does a factory laborers union. And by the accounts of both talent and producers, at basically all levels, these unions fundamentally provide a clear benefit to the market. Tension and bluster flare up during frustrating negotiations, but almost nobody with experience in these industries wants to get rid of these unions. Not even the producers.
- prewett 1y agoSpeaking for myself, I see unions as frequently corrupt, being intransigent (such as essentially making Detroit not cost-effective) and just as self-serving as management. Every union experience I have had or hear about involves arbitrary rules (we're not allowed to do that, union rules; you have to get that union to do that). Why would I want to pay dues for that? Furthermore, I see no reason for a union; software development is not commodity labor. If I have to join a union to software development I'm probably going to go find a new career. Additionally, software developers tend to be pretty anti-gatekeeper, so if we are opposed to even credentialing, such as other engineering disciplines, why would there be any appetite for a union?
- idiotsecant 1y agoYeah, that's exactly the attitude I was talking about, thanks for the stellar demonstration. A union isn't any of the things that the capital class wants you to think they are. Have you ever wondered why anti-union propaganda is so well funded? Think about it for a minute. A union is just when you and your co-workers pool your collective power so that the owners can't push you around. That's it. What you do after that is up to you.
- VirusNewbie 1y agothank you, agree. There are lots of us who see through the bullshit of unions. The poeple pushing unions think they have a better shot of navigating the politics of unions than a free market, which is why they push it so hard.
- Dayshine 1y agoNone of the things you mention are things I've seen in my union covered jobs in the UK. I've never heard of union rules here. Employees are not required to be part of the union in order to get their benefits, the unions just negotiate with employers on behalf of all employees. I've also never heard of credentials/gatekeeping for unions in the companies I've worked in. For reference, I was working as a software developer at a University on a research project: I got the benefits of the higher education university (nationally negotiated pay scales, holiday benefits, etc) but was not a member. Pay was lower, yes, but that wasn't mandatory; that was just the budget of a research project.
- sershe 1y agoI mean there are many reasons, I really don't have time to reiterate all of them but I'll provide one serious and one funny example before summarizing. One kinda relevant to the present moment and the fact that dude still has a street named after him in SF - Cesar Chavez running his own border patrol against undocumented immigrants https://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/chavez-ufw-and-wetback-problem/ https://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/chavez-ufw-and-wetback-prob... As much I despise it, I feel the current administration really missed a trolling opportunity, naming their thing Cesar Chavez Memorial Patrols. The funny one from a 1960ies govt report on UK shipbuilding industry: ...literally took three different workers to change a lightbulb: …a laborer (member of the Transport and General Workers Union) [to] carry the ladder to site, a rigger (member of the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structural Workers Union) [to] erect it and place it in the proper position, and an electrician (member of the Electrical Trades Union) [to] actually remove the old bulb and screw in the new one. Production was often halted while waiting Call me old-fashioned but I don't want to wait for a different union member to run my build! (and the situation like this still occurs - someone I know works at a place where they are not allowed to clean up above a certain trivial threshold and have to wait for a custodian, because otherwise the latter union would be pissed) Unions are, in essence, a pressure group for locking down certain jobs against anyone else who might want them, and against any kind of technological progress. They will, and have been shown to, do anything - from lobbying for legal monopolies to violence against immigrants, other workers, political candidates; racism, connections to organized crime - in pursuit of that goal. And blocking any attempts at improvement and automation. The goal itself though, on top of the methods, is fundamentally evil. It's next level up from people who don't want immigrants to "take jobs", at least for immigrants there's some flimsy justification, but unions operate against their fellow citizens. From a purely moral perspective, compromising principles for personal gain aside, I'd rather join a drug cartel than a union.