4 ms·

IT workers need a union

6 points by omouse 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago
No thanks.
- omouse 17y ago
  Why "no thanks"?
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Because, as a relatively high achiever, A union will only serve to bring me down/prevent my advancment. I see no reason why I would want to encourage that.
    - omouse 17y ago
      Not all unions are like that. In the IT world, a union could only be used for collective agreements so that the contracts don't include unacceptable clauses. Some people are afraid to say something about a contract because they're afraid they won't be hired or they're afraid they'll get fired if they're an employee. Start a union that doesn't bring down or limit someone's advancement.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        >Some people are afraid to say something about a contract because they're afraid they won't be hired or they're afraid they'll get fired if they're an employee. This is not a problem I have. Is there way a union will specifically benefit me?
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Not all unions are like that. How about 3 examples that are more than 30 years old. (Unions tend to last as long as the host, which is a problem for the UAW.)
        omouse 17y ago
        I can't because I don't know enough about all the diff types of unions. In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an ideal and working towards it is a waste of time.
        anamax 17y ago
        > I can't because I don't know enough about all the diff types of unions. In other words, you don't know enough to support your position. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but .... > In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an ideal and working towards it is a waste of time. It's quite relevant. Unions have been tried many times and the end result has always had certain characteristics. If you're going to argue that this time will be different, you have to explain why and what you're going to do different. And that's where background knowledge is required. No, it's not enough to "believe" - Tinkerbelle logic doesn't work in the real world.
      - tomjen2 17y ago
        >In the IT world, a union could only be used for collective agreements so that the contracts don't include unacceptable clauses. Unacceptable to whom?
      - ja30278 17y ago
        Can you name 3 profitable, growing, unionized industries? Not to mention the paternalistic relationship it implies. If I don't care for the terms of an employment contract, I won't work under it. If no business in my industry offers terms I consider favorable, I can start my own business. If that's impractical, or I'm unwilling to do it, I should change professions entirely.
        omouse 17y ago
        Here's a list of companies: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/no-profitable-unionized-companies/ http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/no-profitable-unio... Profitablility of a company is mainly tied to decisions made by management. A unionized company could be very well or badly run, depending on the management. It's the management that hires the workers and decide what they should be doing after all. A union helps both the workers and the company because without the company, the workers (and the union) would no longer be needed. In the GM bailout, the UAW took some wage/benefits cuts so that GM wouldn't be completely down the shitter. Not to mention the paternalistic relationship it implies. If I don't care for the terms of an employment contract, I won't work under it. If no business in my industry offers terms I consider favorable, I can start my own business. If that's impractical, or I'm unwilling to do it, I should change professions entirely. Changing professions is sometimes impractical. What will you do and how will you live while you are training to join another profession? Starting a business is difficult, you can ask all the people here how much work they have to put into it. What if you don't have the skills to manage a business or to market a product? Not only that, but where do you get the capital from? VCs? Banks? You have to beg them and do a song and dance to get any money from them. Then you have to keep doing that while you remain unprofitable so that the business keeps on running. What if every employer offers contracts that are crappy in one way or another? What do you do then? Choose the lesser of a million evils? Why should you do that when you can bargain and possibly get a better contract? A union is as paternalistic as the state or the corporation. So if you have no problem with those, groups of people co-operating to achieve something, then you shouldn't have a problem with a union. Maybe the word has a negative connotation for you, we can change that easily. Let's call it XYZ or some other word instead.
nym 17y ago
Local 1337 demands more red bull and pizza.
wheaties 17y ago
Unions are great when they are needed. The problem with unions is that once they are not needed anymore they don't go away.
- omouse 17y ago
  Corporations and governments are great when they are needed. The problem with corporations and governments is that once they are not needed anymore they don't go away.
  - anamax 17y ago
    Let's see if I understand the logic. A is a bad idea. B shares the characteristics that make A a bad idea, therefore we should do B. Wrong. The fact that unions, govts and corps tend to go bad is not an argument for expanding any of them. It's an argument against expanding all three of them. The continued existings of broken {unions, corps, govts} is not an argument for creating new {unions, corps, govts}. Interestingly enough, I've never had a corp tell me that I couldn't do biz with another corp, union, or govt. Unions, on the other hand, exist to keep me from doing biz with a corp. Yes, govts are even more pervasive in their "you can't deal with" powers, but that's not much of an argument for unions.
iigs 17y ago
Blain is president of WashTech, a Seattle affiliate of the Communications Workers of America. A link to the opposing viewpoint is cited at the end of the article. Personally, I prefer to retain all of my bargaining control, rather than delegating it to another entity. Furthermore, I do not understand the "us-vs-them" attitude that is pervasive in the pro-union mentality. I have stock in my company: I am them.
- tdoggette 17y ago
  We're all on a site centered around the idea that we want to be them, but that's simply not the case everywhere. Sure, you may own stock in your company and be great pals with 'em, but what about normal people who work for large organizations that pay them by the hour and screw them over?
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Then why work for "them"? Are there really that many IT workers who work for large organization who pay by the hour and screw them over? Is this some kind of IT assembly line? At every company I've worked at that had an IT department, we were an extremely small percentage of the employees or management didn't want to dedicate resources to something that they didn't perceive was core to the business or the company's core competency (either because the IT group was really good and there was no need for more people, or because management didn't see the value in more technical bandwidth). The last thing I want is to be considered a scab because I know what I'm worth and am willing to work for someone who recognizes that but doesn't recognize collective bargaining. It's not like technology positions require a huge capital investment, in things like factories or real estate (thus reducing worker mobility), and the workers are largely interchangeable cogs (we're not, no matter what management would wish). If a company wants to replace me with someone cheaper in order to save money, well, I'm not sure that's a place I want to work anyway. And if they can find someone just as good as me who is willing to takes less, well, that's just good business (meaning: I can't really fault them for doing the same thing I would) -- maybe then I'd need to sell myself better. From the OP: In some cases it works out that way. But in many cases, years of 60-hour weeks and taking classes on your own dime to keep up with technology leave you in the unemployment line, after being laid off with no notice. I don't know many technology workers who are laid off without notice for reasons other than the company being in dire straights anyway. And this is often bad management (yuck!), or an unsustainable business (equally bad). Companies I've worked that had "continuing education" options were usually along the lines of certifications, which were mainly about being able to charge more for my work to clients because I was certified -- after all, they're running a business here, not putting people through school. And even if you are paying for taking classes out of your own pocket, they only serves to INCREASE your marketability if you get laid off, so taking classes or learning on your own is in your own best interest anyway. Paying for it yourself means you aren't beholden to the company either. Admittedly, the OP is talking about contract work as the form of hourly work. How many people get hired for contract work that collective bargaining at a single company would make a difference? Contractors are usually in for temporary (time limited) work anyway, which is not "being fired" unexpectedly.
timwiseman 17y ago
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of them can speak to this, but I know in some circles there is a belief that unions tend to commoditize their workers, practice if not in theory. I do not know if that is true, but I do know that I absolutely do not want my services to be a commodity. I work hard to try to get into the upper echelons of a highly differentiated field, and I would seek to either differentiate myself or change fields to a more differentiated one if it began to appear that my services could easily be commoditized.
tomjen2 17y ago
So we can get another set of bureaucrats to annoy us? Anyway if you have tried for several years to get better medical insurance, you might want to change tactics and/or jobs.
cmars232 17y ago
Yeah... look how well that works for the US auto industry. Hey, maybe we could fail too & get a bailout!
- omouse 17y ago
  The US auto industry was badly mismanaged; SUV craze, killing off electric vehicles or assuming they had no future. The unions can't run the company for you, management has to do it. The unions made sure the employees got paid enough to do their work. Whether or not it was the right work to do was up to management. Also, banks and insurance companies got far larger loans than the US auto industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#P... The unions wanted to keep the auto workers employed and that's kind of hard to do when the companies go to shit (mainly because of management). It may sound anti-free-market to you, but then you have to consider the bansk got larger loans. How is that a free market? Why not just let them all fail? So yeah, I would say the union works pretty well for auto industry workers. Unions never sit well with management because their business is to cut costs and maximize profit, employee welfare be damned.

6 points by omouse 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago

No thanks.

omouse 17y ago
Why "no thanks"?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Because, as a relatively high achiever, A union will only serve to bring me down/prevent my advancment. I see no reason why I would want to encourage that.
  - omouse 17y ago
    Not all unions are like that. In the IT world, a union could only be used for collective agreements so that the contracts don't include unacceptable clauses. Some people are afraid to say something about a contract because they're afraid they won't be hired or they're afraid they'll get fired if they're an employee. Start a union that doesn't bring down or limit someone's advancement.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      >Some people are afraid to say something about a contract because they're afraid they won't be hired or they're afraid they'll get fired if they're an employee. This is not a problem I have. Is there way a union will specifically benefit me?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Not all unions are like that. How about 3 examples that are more than 30 years old. (Unions tend to last as long as the host, which is a problem for the UAW.)
      - omouse 17y ago
        I can't because I don't know enough about all the diff types of unions. In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an ideal and working towards it is a waste of time.
        anamax 17y ago
        > I can't because I don't know enough about all the diff types of unions. In other words, you don't know enough to support your position. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but .... > In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an ideal and working towards it is a waste of time. It's quite relevant. Unions have been tried many times and the end result has always had certain characteristics. If you're going to argue that this time will be different, you have to explain why and what you're going to do different. And that's where background knowledge is required. No, it's not enough to "believe" - Tinkerbelle logic doesn't work in the real world.
    - tomjen2 17y ago
      >In the IT world, a union could only be used for collective agreements so that the contracts don't include unacceptable clauses. Unacceptable to whom?
    - ja30278 17y ago
      Can you name 3 profitable, growing, unionized industries? Not to mention the paternalistic relationship it implies. If I don't care for the terms of an employment contract, I won't work under it. If no business in my industry offers terms I consider favorable, I can start my own business. If that's impractical, or I'm unwilling to do it, I should change professions entirely.
      - omouse 17y ago
        Here's a list of companies: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/no-profitable-unionized-companies/ http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/no-profitable-unio... Profitablility of a company is mainly tied to decisions made by management. A unionized company could be very well or badly run, depending on the management. It's the management that hires the workers and decide what they should be doing after all. A union helps both the workers and the company because without the company, the workers (and the union) would no longer be needed. In the GM bailout, the UAW took some wage/benefits cuts so that GM wouldn't be completely down the shitter. Not to mention the paternalistic relationship it implies. If I don't care for the terms of an employment contract, I won't work under it. If no business in my industry offers terms I consider favorable, I can start my own business. If that's impractical, or I'm unwilling to do it, I should change professions entirely. Changing professions is sometimes impractical. What will you do and how will you live while you are training to join another profession? Starting a business is difficult, you can ask all the people here how much work they have to put into it. What if you don't have the skills to manage a business or to market a product? Not only that, but where do you get the capital from? VCs? Banks? You have to beg them and do a song and dance to get any money from them. Then you have to keep doing that while you remain unprofitable so that the business keeps on running. What if every employer offers contracts that are crappy in one way or another? What do you do then? Choose the lesser of a million evils? Why should you do that when you can bargain and possibly get a better contract? A union is as paternalistic as the state or the corporation. So if you have no problem with those, groups of people co-operating to achieve something, then you shouldn't have a problem with a union. Maybe the word has a negative connotation for you, we can change that easily. Let's call it XYZ or some other word instead.

nym 17y ago

Local 1337 demands more red bull and pizza.

wheaties 17y ago

Unions are great when they are needed. The problem with unions is that once they are not needed anymore they don't go away.

omouse 17y ago
Corporations and governments are great when they are needed. The problem with corporations and governments is that once they are not needed anymore they don't go away.
- anamax 17y ago
  Let's see if I understand the logic. A is a bad idea. B shares the characteristics that make A a bad idea, therefore we should do B. Wrong. The fact that unions, govts and corps tend to go bad is not an argument for expanding any of them. It's an argument against expanding all three of them. The continued existings of broken {unions, corps, govts} is not an argument for creating new {unions, corps, govts}. Interestingly enough, I've never had a corp tell me that I couldn't do biz with another corp, union, or govt. Unions, on the other hand, exist to keep me from doing biz with a corp. Yes, govts are even more pervasive in their "you can't deal with" powers, but that's not much of an argument for unions.

iigs 17y ago

Blain is president of WashTech, a Seattle affiliate of the Communications Workers of America. A link to the opposing viewpoint is cited at the end of the article. Personally, I prefer to retain all of my bargaining control, rather than delegating it to another entity. Furthermore, I do not understand the "us-vs-them" attitude that is pervasive in the pro-union mentality. I have stock in my company: I am them.

tdoggette 17y ago
We're all on a site centered around the idea that we want to be them, but that's simply not the case everywhere. Sure, you may own stock in your company and be great pals with 'em, but what about normal people who work for large organizations that pay them by the hour and screw them over?
- thwarted 17y ago
  Then why work for "them"? Are there really that many IT workers who work for large organization who pay by the hour and screw them over? Is this some kind of IT assembly line? At every company I've worked at that had an IT department, we were an extremely small percentage of the employees or management didn't want to dedicate resources to something that they didn't perceive was core to the business or the company's core competency (either because the IT group was really good and there was no need for more people, or because management didn't see the value in more technical bandwidth). The last thing I want is to be considered a scab because I know what I'm worth and am willing to work for someone who recognizes that but doesn't recognize collective bargaining. It's not like technology positions require a huge capital investment, in things like factories or real estate (thus reducing worker mobility), and the workers are largely interchangeable cogs (we're not, no matter what management would wish). If a company wants to replace me with someone cheaper in order to save money, well, I'm not sure that's a place I want to work anyway. And if they can find someone just as good as me who is willing to takes less, well, that's just good business (meaning: I can't really fault them for doing the same thing I would) -- maybe then I'd need to sell myself better. From the OP: In some cases it works out that way. But in many cases, years of 60-hour weeks and taking classes on your own dime to keep up with technology leave you in the unemployment line, after being laid off with no notice. I don't know many technology workers who are laid off without notice for reasons other than the company being in dire straights anyway. And this is often bad management (yuck!), or an unsustainable business (equally bad). Companies I've worked that had "continuing education" options were usually along the lines of certifications, which were mainly about being able to charge more for my work to clients because I was certified -- after all, they're running a business here, not putting people through school. And even if you are paying for taking classes out of your own pocket, they only serves to INCREASE your marketability if you get laid off, so taking classes or learning on your own is in your own best interest anyway. Paying for it yourself means you aren't beholden to the company either. Admittedly, the OP is talking about contract work as the form of hourly work. How many people get hired for contract work that collective bargaining at a single company would make a difference? Contractors are usually in for temporary (time limited) work anyway, which is not "being fired" unexpectedly.

timwiseman 17y ago

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of them can speak to this, but I know in some circles there is a belief that unions tend to commoditize their workers, practice if not in theory. I do not know if that is true, but I do know that I absolutely do not want my services to be a commodity. I work hard to try to get into the upper echelons of a highly differentiated field, and I would seek to either differentiate myself or change fields to a more differentiated one if it began to appear that my services could easily be commoditized.

tomjen2 17y ago

So we can get another set of bureaucrats to annoy us? Anyway if you have tried for several years to get better medical insurance, you might want to change tactics and/or jobs.

cmars232 17y ago

Yeah... look how well that works for the US auto industry. Hey, maybe we could fail too & get a bailout!

omouse 17y ago
The US auto industry was badly mismanaged; SUV craze, killing off electric vehicles or assuming they had no future. The unions can't run the company for you, management has to do it. The unions made sure the employees got paid enough to do their work. Whether or not it was the right work to do was up to management. Also, banks and insurance companies got far larger loans than the US auto industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#P... The unions wanted to keep the auto workers employed and that's kind of hard to do when the companies go to shit (mainly because of management). It may sound anti-free-market to you, but then you have to consider the bansk got larger loans. How is that a free market? Why not just let them all fail? So yeah, I would say the union works pretty well for auto industry workers. Unions never sit well with management because their business is to cut costs and maximize profit, employee welfare be damned.