6 ms·

I'll never understand why so many tech workers are so strongly against the idea of unions. I've yet to encounter a criticism that doesn't essentially stem from

by saghm 5mo ago

I'll never understand why so many tech workers are so strongly against the idea of unions. I've yet to encounter a criticism that doesn't essentially stem from criticism of blue-collar unions, and regardless of whether I agree with those criticisms or not, almost none of them seem to be universally true of unions. People seem to be worried about either a small minority of vocal outliers driving the policy or collectivism of the masses somehow drowning out the desires of the elite few, but they never seem to address the obvious counterexamples in higher-paid work; the $780,000 minimum salary for MLB players doesn't seem to have stopped Shohei Ohtani from getting a contract making almost 90 times more than that per year, and Adam Sandler doesn't seem like he's struggling with his $48 million payout last year despite the union-negotiated guarantees for anyone getting a speaking role on screen existing for decades. (I'n not usually on the "downvoting for disagreement is bad" train, but when the major point of my comment is that there never seems to be a strong counterargument to the line of thinking here, it's hard not to find it a bit ironic when someone doesn't care to elaborate on why they don't like what I said)

zdragnar 5mo ago
You're comparing unions that cover short-term contracts (film production, MLB) with "blue-collar unions" that represent hourly or salaried long-term employment contracts. Is it any surprise that people who work as salaried employees would presume a union at their workplace would be structured and behave more like a "blue collar" union than not?
- bonsai_spool 5mo ago
  > Is it any surprise that people who work as salaried employees would presume a union at their workplace would be structured and behave more like a "blue collar" union than not? Yes, it is a surprise! Because we're talking about very educated technical workers. It seems like top tech programmers are closer to pro athletes than factory floor workers from the perspective of their value to owners.
  - saghm 5mo ago
    > It seems like top tech programmers are closer to pro athletes than factory floor workers from the perspective of their value to owners. To me, the question is whether that will continue to remain the case in the absence of unions. It doesn't seem at all implausible to me that 50 years from now, tech programming might much more closely resemble factory work if there's no mechanism for pushing back against it.
- saghm 5mo ago
  MLB players routinely have contracts for multiple season, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. How many salaried engineers in the US do you think have multi-year contracts compared to "at-will" employment? Also, I'd argue that establishing a union when a profession has relatively high social standing and pay if it seems likely that things will get worse is exactly the mechanism for fighting back against that decline. It's a lot harder to get management to agree to your terms if you've already lost most of your influence.
9rx 5mo ago
> I'll never understand why so many tech workers are so strongly against the idea of unions. Tech attracts a lot of "undesirables", for want of a better word, and there is no great way to separate them from the quality people you'd actually want to have a union with. The MLB union works exceptionally well because the business naturally screens out anyone who isn't in the upper echelons of baseball society. Try advocating for a baseball union that includes the MLB down to every small town B-league team and you'd get the same pushback. The trouble is that there is no MLB of tech. Anyone random yahoo who no more than the smallest amount of motivation to work in tech is pretty much guaranteed a place in it (at least that was the case up until recently). Even at companies that like to boast about only hiring the best end up with lots of the dregs all the same. The need for tech workers is larger than the number of quality people. When there is a social division then the desire to associate goes out the window.
- saghm 5mo ago
  I'm not sure I find that argument super compelling, since the union campaigns for software engineers (or more specifically game developers, since that seems to be where most of the recent examples are) do not seem to start out by organizing at the national level but usually at individual employers or even a specific office location. If we were drowning in software jobs the way you describe, why would anyone tolerate having such awful coworkers at their office instead of finding somewhere better? I don't think I've ever had a significant number of coworkers I'd describe in terms like "undesirables", "random yahoo", or "dregs", so I can't really relate to the idea that I find my colleagues so loathsome that I would be reluctant to associate with them; after all, that's what I'm already doing!
  - 9rx 5mo ago
    > If we were drowning in software jobs the way you describe, why would anyone tolerate having such awful coworkers at their office instead of finding somewhere better? I am not sure I follow your thinking here. We would be (or at least would have been until recently; the market is much less clear now) drowning in software jobs if businesses were only willing to hire the "MLB superstars" of the tech world. We have never drowned in software jobs because businesses have been willing to hire warm bodies for where the "MLB superstars" weren't available. To be clear, I said "The need for tech workers is larger than the number of quality people", not "The need for tech workers is larger than the number of people". > I would be reluctant to associate with them; after all, that's what I'm already doing! You may work together, but would you want to start a business with them? That is what a union ultimately is, after all: A group of people who have come together to want to sell labor under an organization instead of individually. The thing is that working together when you're not the stakeholder is quite easy because the stakeholder has to deal with the shit. Things get real when it is only you and your fellow brethren. That's not to say that it wouldn't work in your particular situation. There are going to be pockets where the stars have aligned. But no doubt you have already formed a union with your coworkers if you have the necessary mutual trust. I mean, why wouldn't you in such a case? (If you are game but your coworkers are the ones who are reluctant, remember it is you who is the "yahoo")

by saghm 5mo ago

zdragnar 5mo ago

You're comparing unions that cover short-term contracts (film production, MLB) with "blue-collar unions" that represent hourly or salaried long-term employment contracts. Is it any surprise that people who work as salaried employees would presume a union at their workplace would be structured and behave more like a "blue collar" union than not?

bonsai_spool 5mo ago
> Is it any surprise that people who work as salaried employees would presume a union at their workplace would be structured and behave more like a "blue collar" union than not? Yes, it is a surprise! Because we're talking about very educated technical workers. It seems like top tech programmers are closer to pro athletes than factory floor workers from the perspective of their value to owners.
- saghm 5mo ago
  > It seems like top tech programmers are closer to pro athletes than factory floor workers from the perspective of their value to owners. To me, the question is whether that will continue to remain the case in the absence of unions. It doesn't seem at all implausible to me that 50 years from now, tech programming might much more closely resemble factory work if there's no mechanism for pushing back against it.
saghm 5mo ago
MLB players routinely have contracts for multiple season, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. How many salaried engineers in the US do you think have multi-year contracts compared to "at-will" employment? Also, I'd argue that establishing a union when a profession has relatively high social standing and pay if it seems likely that things will get worse is exactly the mechanism for fighting back against that decline. It's a lot harder to get management to agree to your terms if you've already lost most of your influence.

9rx 5mo ago

> I'll never understand why so many tech workers are so strongly against the idea of unions. Tech attracts a lot of "undesirables", for want of a better word, and there is no great way to separate them from the quality people you'd actually want to have a union with. The MLB union works exceptionally well because the business naturally screens out anyone who isn't in the upper echelons of baseball society. Try advocating for a baseball union that includes the MLB down to every small town B-league team and you'd get the same pushback. The trouble is that there is no MLB of tech. Anyone random yahoo who no more than the smallest amount of motivation to work in tech is pretty much guaranteed a place in it (at least that was the case up until recently). Even at companies that like to boast about only hiring the best end up with lots of the dregs all the same. The need for tech workers is larger than the number of quality people. When there is a social division then the desire to associate goes out the window.

saghm 5mo ago
I'm not sure I find that argument super compelling, since the union campaigns for software engineers (or more specifically game developers, since that seems to be where most of the recent examples are) do not seem to start out by organizing at the national level but usually at individual employers or even a specific office location. If we were drowning in software jobs the way you describe, why would anyone tolerate having such awful coworkers at their office instead of finding somewhere better? I don't think I've ever had a significant number of coworkers I'd describe in terms like "undesirables", "random yahoo", or "dregs", so I can't really relate to the idea that I find my colleagues so loathsome that I would be reluctant to associate with them; after all, that's what I'm already doing!
- 9rx 5mo ago
  > If we were drowning in software jobs the way you describe, why would anyone tolerate having such awful coworkers at their office instead of finding somewhere better? I am not sure I follow your thinking here. We would be (or at least would have been until recently; the market is much less clear now) drowning in software jobs if businesses were only willing to hire the "MLB superstars" of the tech world. We have never drowned in software jobs because businesses have been willing to hire warm bodies for where the "MLB superstars" weren't available. To be clear, I said "The need for tech workers is larger than the number of quality people", not "The need for tech workers is larger than the number of people". > I would be reluctant to associate with them; after all, that's what I'm already doing! You may work together, but would you want to start a business with them? That is what a union ultimately is, after all: A group of people who have come together to want to sell labor under an organization instead of individually. The thing is that working together when you're not the stakeholder is quite easy because the stakeholder has to deal with the shit. Things get real when it is only you and your fellow brethren. That's not to say that it wouldn't work in your particular situation. There are going to be pockets where the stars have aligned. But no doubt you have already formed a union with your coworkers if you have the necessary mutual trust. I mean, why wouldn't you in such a case? (If you are game but your coworkers are the ones who are reluctant, remember it is you who is the "yahoo")