3 ms·

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.
- avoutthere 13y ago
  > Let's say you're given an offer letter, but it has a binding arbitration clause (meaning that you can't sue). I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. > I shouldn't have to go out individually to get onerous terms like that stricken. Why not? I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. History has shown us that unions almost never perform the way you describe. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. In the long run, they rarely benefit either party, let alone both. No thank you.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. Even if they accept your change (and, often, they will) you've now identified yourself as a "PITA". Before you've done your first day of work, you've had to negotiate terms of termination. That's unfair to you. You shouldn't have to talk about you getting fired to get binding arbitration struck. It shouldn't be on the table in the first place. It's an utter abuse of the original arbitration laws. I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. Let's say that you're an employee. Things are going well, but there's a change of management and, for political reasons, you're served with a PIP and it's pretty obvious that the outcome (you fail) has been decided. Is management going to let you call an external agent into the office, right then and there, to help you in the process? Almost certainly not. You'll be fired, and they'll try to argue that you committed "insubordination" by placing the call, or even that your sharing of information with an external party (such as an agent or lawyer) constitutes a "leak", making the termination "for cause". You might be able to beat them in the courts, but it'll rarely be worth it. They'll perjure themselves all over the place and fuck up your reputation, even if you win. That's where you need, on paper, the right to have an agent or representative present when you deal with management or HR. They can go 2-on-1 against you (manager plus HR rep) so you should have the right to make it 2-on-2. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. The world is a complicated place, and often confrontational. Besides, the other side has its collective bargaining infrastructure in place. HR is their agent, and corporations are just collective bargaining for rich, powerful people. Fights aren't good, but I'd rather it be a fight than a beating in which I lose.

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.

avoutthere 13y ago
> Let's say you're given an offer letter, but it has a binding arbitration clause (meaning that you can't sue). I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. > I shouldn't have to go out individually to get onerous terms like that stricken. Why not? I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. History has shown us that unions almost never perform the way you describe. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. In the long run, they rarely benefit either party, let alone both. No thank you.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I would negotiate that term out of the contract. If they won't negotiate, I decline. Even if they accept your change (and, often, they will) you've now identified yourself as a "PITA". Before you've done your first day of work, you've had to negotiate terms of termination. That's unfair to you. You shouldn't have to talk about you getting fired to get binding arbitration struck. It shouldn't be on the table in the first place. It's an utter abuse of the original arbitration laws. I'm happy to negotiate my own contracts, but if you are not then you should hire an agent to negotiate for you. Let's say that you're an employee. Things are going well, but there's a change of management and, for political reasons, you're served with a PIP and it's pretty obvious that the outcome (you fail) has been decided. Is management going to let you call an external agent into the office, right then and there, to help you in the process? Almost certainly not. You'll be fired, and they'll try to argue that you committed "insubordination" by placing the call, or even that your sharing of information with an external party (such as an agent or lawyer) constitutes a "leak", making the termination "for cause". You might be able to beat them in the courts, but it'll rarely be worth it. They'll perjure themselves all over the place and fuck up your reputation, even if you win. That's where you need, on paper, the right to have an agent or representative present when you deal with management or HR. They can go 2-on-1 against you (manager plus HR rep) so you should have the right to make it 2-on-2. They introduce overhead and confrontation into the contract negotiation process, turning a cooperative relationship into a confrontational one. The world is a complicated place, and often confrontational. Besides, the other side has its collective bargaining infrastructure in place. HR is their agent, and corporations are just collective bargaining for rich, powerful people. Fights aren't good, but I'd rather it be a fight than a beating in which I lose.