4 ms·

The IT workers should form a union. I'm not a fan of unions (they seem to devolve towards corruption here in Australia), but I'd prefer that over arseholes like

The IT workers should form a union. I'm not a fan of unions (they seem to devolve towards corruption here in Australia), but I'd prefer that over arseholes like Jobs et al making wage "agreements". How scummy is that, they're raking in billions, and they decide to be tight on the people that make them their cash? Scumbags.

abandonliberty 12y ago
Due to the rampant hostility towards unions, a professional association like what doctors and lawyers have, while serving the same purpose, would be an easier sell. Implementation is hell though.
- mc32 12y ago
  How would union bureaucracy affect changes in the environments. From changes in hardware, software and organizational? Unions seem to typically act very protectively and hence allow change very slowly. I think while this would make for a more comfortable labor market for engineers in terms of labor, in terms of dynamism I suspect it would slow things down. After all automation (efficiency) is at odds with membership numbers.
criley2 12y ago
Considering most labor protections in the US are written to create an "exempt" employee who is largely unprotected in labor matters, and that exemption is almost entirely for anyone working in the software industry... yeah, unionization and law change would be nice. If software companies were forced to pay overtime instead of expecting it for no cost, I think work/life balance would look a lot different.
- abandonliberty 12y ago
  At the very least California has a minimum wage requirement to be OT exempt. British Columbia imported the laws, but dropped the minimum. I know people who make less than they would at a call center. Of course they're living at home, socially stunted, and don't understand the value they provide.
blfr 12y ago
Why would people who are being offered $250k signing bonuses and don't find it enticing enough (according to the OP) need a union?
- harkyns_castle 12y ago
  Well, sign me up for that hehe. I honestly don't know anyone that gets that kind of cash. Its probably a bit of a supply/demand thing, but that seems like a pretty obscene salary. This is what I don't understand - if you have in excess of 1-5m dollars, why do you want more? Can't we put a cap on this kind of greed?
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
This is a colossally bad idea. As a Chicagoan I can tell you unions only cause more problems. They make damn sure that patronage and favor systems rule, not meritocracy. That you can't fire terrible people and that all promotions are done via just seniority. That's on top of the eventual corruption, dues, and worse outcomes and being run circles around by non-union shops. > but I'd prefer that over arseholes like Jobs et al making wage "agreements". Under existing law this is collusion and illegal. The real question is why the, ironically, union-friendly Obama administration didn't crack down on this with an iron fist? I think Obama's DOJ needs to be held accountable here. Its clear they let Jobs become an untouchable man and this attitude hurt a lot of people's lives, moreso than anything Gates did and he was nearly destroyed by Clinton.
- rl3 12y ago
  Unions have their place, though they seem more suitable for situations where there isn't any potential for employees to accelerate their careers on the basis of merit. The transportation sector is an especially good example of this. A cab driver, airline pilot, and train engineer are all expected to operate their respective vehicles safely and efficiently. The opportunity for rapid career advancement that creatives in the tech industry enjoy is simply not present. Therefore, the meritocracy-breaking overhead often associated with unions isn't nearly as much of a concern as it would be in an industry that's heavily dependent on the meritocratic dynamic. If unions somehow become a thing in Tech, I suspect it will have been due to their implementation being so radically different so as to resemble the traditional model in name only, if that.
- harkyns_castle 12y ago
  Yeah sound points. I guess I'd just say it feels like we're relying on the foxes to regulate the henhouse, when its really not in their best interests.

abandonliberty 12y ago

Due to the rampant hostility towards unions, a professional association like what doctors and lawyers have, while serving the same purpose, would be an easier sell. Implementation is hell though.

mc32 12y ago
How would union bureaucracy affect changes in the environments. From changes in hardware, software and organizational? Unions seem to typically act very protectively and hence allow change very slowly. I think while this would make for a more comfortable labor market for engineers in terms of labor, in terms of dynamism I suspect it would slow things down. After all automation (efficiency) is at odds with membership numbers.

criley2 12y ago

Considering most labor protections in the US are written to create an "exempt" employee who is largely unprotected in labor matters, and that exemption is almost entirely for anyone working in the software industry... yeah, unionization and law change would be nice. If software companies were forced to pay overtime instead of expecting it for no cost, I think work/life balance would look a lot different.

abandonliberty 12y ago
At the very least California has a minimum wage requirement to be OT exempt. British Columbia imported the laws, but dropped the minimum. I know people who make less than they would at a call center. Of course they're living at home, socially stunted, and don't understand the value they provide.

blfr 12y ago

Why would people who are being offered $250k signing bonuses and don't find it enticing enough (according to the OP) need a union?

harkyns_castle 12y ago
Well, sign me up for that hehe. I honestly don't know anyone that gets that kind of cash. Its probably a bit of a supply/demand thing, but that seems like a pretty obscene salary. This is what I don't understand - if you have in excess of 1-5m dollars, why do you want more? Can't we put a cap on this kind of greed?

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

This is a colossally bad idea. As a Chicagoan I can tell you unions only cause more problems. They make damn sure that patronage and favor systems rule, not meritocracy. That you can't fire terrible people and that all promotions are done via just seniority. That's on top of the eventual corruption, dues, and worse outcomes and being run circles around by non-union shops. > but I'd prefer that over arseholes like Jobs et al making wage "agreements". Under existing law this is collusion and illegal. The real question is why the, ironically, union-friendly Obama administration didn't crack down on this with an iron fist? I think Obama's DOJ needs to be held accountable here. Its clear they let Jobs become an untouchable man and this attitude hurt a lot of people's lives, moreso than anything Gates did and he was nearly destroyed by Clinton.

rl3 12y ago
Unions have their place, though they seem more suitable for situations where there isn't any potential for employees to accelerate their careers on the basis of merit. The transportation sector is an especially good example of this. A cab driver, airline pilot, and train engineer are all expected to operate their respective vehicles safely and efficiently. The opportunity for rapid career advancement that creatives in the tech industry enjoy is simply not present. Therefore, the meritocracy-breaking overhead often associated with unions isn't nearly as much of a concern as it would be in an industry that's heavily dependent on the meritocratic dynamic. If unions somehow become a thing in Tech, I suspect it will have been due to their implementation being so radically different so as to resemble the traditional model in name only, if that.
harkyns_castle 12y ago
Yeah sound points. I guess I'd just say it feels like we're relying on the foxes to regulate the henhouse, when its really not in their best interests.