6 ms·

You are quick to point out how you don't want a union, but what you are describing are pretty much the first steps to creating a union. Most are born out of the

You are quick to point out how you don't want a union, but what you are describing are pretty much the first steps to creating a union. Most are born out of the desire to provide financial and emotional support to those within your industry. That's not to say that they are always all sunshine and lollipops, but I guess it's too difficult for some people to accept that unions can actually also be a positive thing too.

Joeboy 13y ago
I guess the bit of a union that's not wanted is the collective bargaining bit, which probably seems unappealing or pointless while web developers are generally in demand.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I guess the bit of a union that's not wanted is the collective bargaining bit, which probably seems unappealing or pointless while web developers are generally in demand. Sorry, but collective bargaining is a real need, even if wages are high. As programmers, we should have: * readily available legal support when faced with non-paying clients. * recourse against clients and employers who use reputation threats to justify nonpayment or bad behavior (i.e. "if you don't accept our unfunded scope creep, we'll call other clients.") * (for employees) representation when in trouble with management. The right to have a representative *in the room* (mostly, because if you negotiate on your own behalf, you're at risk of getting emotional and saying something stupid) when dealing with management or HR. * defense against negative references and back-channel reference checks in general. * transparency in compensation. * negotiation of terms that are embarrassing for an individual to formally address, such as severance, health accommodations and workplace privacy. These are things that "collective bargaining" can get. Hollywood actors have a union, even though they're clearly in high demand. In a celebrity economy, you need unions and agents just to deal with the reputation-management issues that quickly become a full-time job in their own right (and that are typically ill-handled by creative specialists like actors or computer programmers). As white-collar employment becomes increasingly reputation-driven, we need this infrastructure yesterday. Let's say that you find out that an ex-boss from 4 years ago is bad-mouthing you and costing you gigs. If you hire a nasty fucker like me, I can make him shut the fuck up. I'd find a plausible health problem, either one you have and don't mind sharing, or one that would work. Then I'd ask you to communicate to him that you had disclosed that health problem during your employment, his error if he forgot, and that negative communication about you or your performance will be judged discriminatory, so it's best not to say anything at all. Then I'd call that reference for you, about a month later, getting everything on tape and if he was still giving you problems, I'd refer you to a lawyer (but, unlike a union, I can't afford to pay for that). Chances are, you wouldn't know how to handle that. Most people don't. A competent union will.
  - craiglockwood 13y ago
    I disagree - that sounds like you want to regulate the industry. I just want us to look out for each other.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      Look out for each other? That's exactly what I'm talking about, but I'm also giving concrete examples of what we need to look out against. This isn't a vague, "people should help each other more" (well, no shit). I want to talk about structure and what we need to do to actually get change through. People are getting depression and anxiety in this industry, in part, because it's a nerve-wracking and often depressing place. I don't want to regulate compensation. If you're good enough that people will pay $500 per hour for your services, that's great. Nor do I want the seniority-driven culture of traditional labor unions that leads to mediocrity. What I want is a system that allows programmers to bargain collectively for their interests. Not one that regulates compensation, protects truly bad employees, or imposes seniority policies that lead to entrenched mediocrity. We should have a formal structure that allows us to look out for our interests without the risks of going alone. Let's say you're given an offer letter, but it has a binding arbitration clause (meaning that you can't sue). Arbitration is rigged against employees, because the company pays the arbitrator, and it never sees daylight, so the company doesn't fear the PR risks of discovery. This means you can't expect a severance. Ok, you say, I'm not planning on getting fired. Well, no shit; who is? But it also means the company can treat people poorly because the cost (to it) of a morale problem is lower; it can fire without considering severance costs. That affects you, even if you're a high performer. Without binding arbitration, an underperformer costs then 3 months of severance or a morale-killing "PIP", so they have an incentive to keep you from getting bored. Or, you might just get unlucky and get fired over something not your fault, but with binding arbitration, you're fucked. It's unfair, ridiculous, and wrong. However, if you push on this issue (i.e. fighting over a term that, while ludicrous, only matters if you're fired or leave on very bad terms) management will see you as either a troublemaker or someone likely to underperform. One company asked me to sign a waiver legally releasing them, and all parties called, over results of a reference check, including back-channel references (i.e. references I didn't provide). That's a ridiculous concession. A competent union or professional organization would nuke that from orbit. But as an individual, pushing back against it made it sound like I had something to hide, and while it didn't cost me the offer, I was told that my negotiation of that term "was discussed" as a possible red flag. (I ended up declining their offer. Shitty legal processes are a red flag for me.) I shouldn't have to go out individually (and be a "troublemaker") to get onerous terms like that stricken. A union is basically an insurance policy. You pay your dues so that, if you're ever unfairly treated at work and need someone to get your back, you have that. This keeps management honest and is generally to the benefit of both sides.
- mattgreenrocks 13y ago
  > while web developers are generally in demand Do you think it's always going to be like this? I see this sentiment everywhere on HN: "everything's going well, therefore it's always going to be like this!" I'm not saying it's falling apart, but do you think business-owners like paying developers as much as they do?
incision 13y ago
>"That's not to say that they are always all sunshine and lollipops, but I guess it's too difficult for some people to accept that unions can actually also be a positive thing too." Absolutely. Whenever I see an anti-union sentiment from people in tech I have to wonder how many have actually participated in one versus second-hand impressions drawn from stories about autoworkers or dealings with carrier technicians? I've been a due-paying union member and even dabbled as a shop steward. I've also been a contractor and employee for public and private sector. I can draw on my time in the union (and out, for that matter) to match stories of sickening apathy and mediocrity with anyone, but I've also witnessed the good that can come of it. The key is balance and bad things happen whenever the scale tips too far in either direction. As I said here the other day [0], the rank and file of tech seem largely content with allowing that balance to continue slip. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494204

Joeboy 13y ago

I guess the bit of a union that's not wanted is the collective bargaining bit, which probably seems unappealing or pointless while web developers are generally in demand.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I guess the bit of a union that's not wanted is the collective bargaining bit, which probably seems unappealing or pointless while web developers are generally in demand. Sorry, but collective bargaining is a real need, even if wages are high. As programmers, we should have: * readily available legal support when faced with non-paying clients. * recourse against clients and employers who use reputation threats to justify nonpayment or bad behavior (i.e. "if you don't accept our unfunded scope creep, we'll call other clients.") * (for employees) representation when in trouble with management. The right to have a representative *in the room* (mostly, because if you negotiate on your own behalf, you're at risk of getting emotional and saying something stupid) when dealing with management or HR. * defense against negative references and back-channel reference checks in general. * transparency in compensation. * negotiation of terms that are embarrassing for an individual to formally address, such as severance, health accommodations and workplace privacy. These are things that "collective bargaining" can get. Hollywood actors have a union, even though they're clearly in high demand. In a celebrity economy, you need unions and agents just to deal with the reputation-management issues that quickly become a full-time job in their own right (and that are typically ill-handled by creative specialists like actors or computer programmers). As white-collar employment becomes increasingly reputation-driven, we need this infrastructure yesterday. Let's say that you find out that an ex-boss from 4 years ago is bad-mouthing you and costing you gigs. If you hire a nasty fucker like me, I can make him shut the fuck up. I'd find a plausible health problem, either one you have and don't mind sharing, or one that would work. Then I'd ask you to communicate to him that you had disclosed that health problem during your employment, his error if he forgot, and that negative communication about you or your performance will be judged discriminatory, so it's best not to say anything at all. Then I'd call that reference for you, about a month later, getting everything on tape and if he was still giving you problems, I'd refer you to a lawyer (but, unlike a union, I can't afford to pay for that). Chances are, you wouldn't know how to handle that. Most people don't. A competent union will.
- craiglockwood 13y ago
  I disagree - that sounds like you want to regulate the industry. I just want us to look out for each other.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Look out for each other? That's exactly what I'm talking about, but I'm also giving concrete examples of what we need to look out against. This isn't a vague, "people should help each other more" (well, no shit). I want to talk about structure and what we need to do to actually get change through. People are getting depression and anxiety in this industry, in part, because it's a nerve-wracking and often depressing place. I don't want to regulate compensation. If you're good enough that people will pay $500 per hour for your services, that's great. Nor do I want the seniority-driven culture of traditional labor unions that leads to mediocrity. What I want is a system that allows programmers to bargain collectively for their interests. Not one that regulates compensation, protects truly bad employees, or imposes seniority policies that lead to entrenched mediocrity. We should have a formal structure that allows us to look out for our interests without the risks of going alone. Let's say you're given an offer letter, but it has a binding arbitration clause (meaning that you can't sue). Arbitration is rigged against employees, because the company pays the arbitrator, and it never sees daylight, so the company doesn't fear the PR risks of discovery. This means you can't expect a severance. Ok, you say, I'm not planning on getting fired. Well, no shit; who is? But it also means the company can treat people poorly because the cost (to it) of a morale problem is lower; it can fire without considering severance costs. That affects you, even if you're a high performer. Without binding arbitration, an underperformer costs then 3 months of severance or a morale-killing "PIP", so they have an incentive to keep you from getting bored. Or, you might just get unlucky and get fired over something not your fault, but with binding arbitration, you're fucked. It's unfair, ridiculous, and wrong. However, if you push on this issue (i.e. fighting over a term that, while ludicrous, only matters if you're fired or leave on very bad terms) management will see you as either a troublemaker or someone likely to underperform. One company asked me to sign a waiver legally releasing them, and all parties called, over results of a reference check, including back-channel references (i.e. references I didn't provide). That's a ridiculous concession. A competent union or professional organization would nuke that from orbit. But as an individual, pushing back against it made it sound like I had something to hide, and while it didn't cost me the offer, I was told that my negotiation of that term "was discussed" as a possible red flag. (I ended up declining their offer. Shitty legal processes are a red flag for me.) I shouldn't have to go out individually (and be a "troublemaker") to get onerous terms like that stricken. A union is basically an insurance policy. You pay your dues so that, if you're ever unfairly treated at work and need someone to get your back, you have that. This keeps management honest and is generally to the benefit of both sides.
mattgreenrocks 13y ago
> while web developers are generally in demand Do you think it's always going to be like this? I see this sentiment everywhere on HN: "everything's going well, therefore it's always going to be like this!" I'm not saying it's falling apart, but do you think business-owners like paying developers as much as they do?

incision 13y ago

>"That's not to say that they are always all sunshine and lollipops, but I guess it's too difficult for some people to accept that unions can actually also be a positive thing too." Absolutely. Whenever I see an anti-union sentiment from people in tech I have to wonder how many have actually participated in one versus second-hand impressions drawn from stories about autoworkers or dealings with carrier technicians? I've been a due-paying union member and even dabbled as a shop steward. I've also been a contractor and employee for public and private sector. I can draw on my time in the union (and out, for that matter) to match stories of sickening apathy and mediocrity with anyone, but I've also witnessed the good that can come of it. The key is balance and bad things happen whenever the scale tips too far in either direction. As I said here the other day [0], the rank and file of tech seem largely content with allowing that balance to continue slip. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494204