4 ms·

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 artic

by 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.
- iigs 17y ago
  I mean it mostly theoretically: In my case I work at a company with a multiple billion dollar market cap, several thousand employees, and I have 4-digits in stock/options (and lately that's been a generous estimate). I was the ~100th employee, so to some extent I feel allegiance, but I'm also salaried well below market rate for my skillset (part of that going to work early for a company thing). Also, regarding per-hour: The salaried people are often the ones "getting screwed"! I grabbed my work-life balance by the horns, but some of my coworkers were not as fortunate, and they rightly make the argument that if they were paid by the hour they'd be making 50-100% more per year than their salaried rate. One of the sweetest stories I know in this regard is a guy who went from helpdesk to system administration -- he refused to take the official title change so that he could stay salaried. He'd have to take a 30-40% pay cut to switch. As it goes, I'd prefer to have even _more_ fine grained control over my destiny: If I could work 80% as much and make 70-80% of the salary, I'd think long and hard about it. A lot of other people might not want to make that choice. A coworker of mine would rather be on a half-time program with reduced or no benefits (and is brilliant enough to merit the inconvenience to the organization). We can't do that because of the inflexibility of the business world, but collectivism would play directly against that goal.

by iigs 17y ago

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.
iigs 17y ago
I mean it mostly theoretically: In my case I work at a company with a multiple billion dollar market cap, several thousand employees, and I have 4-digits in stock/options (and lately that's been a generous estimate). I was the ~100th employee, so to some extent I feel allegiance, but I'm also salaried well below market rate for my skillset (part of that going to work early for a company thing). Also, regarding per-hour: The salaried people are often the ones "getting screwed"! I grabbed my work-life balance by the horns, but some of my coworkers were not as fortunate, and they rightly make the argument that if they were paid by the hour they'd be making 50-100% more per year than their salaried rate. One of the sweetest stories I know in this regard is a guy who went from helpdesk to system administration -- he refused to take the official title change so that he could stay salaried. He'd have to take a 30-40% pay cut to switch. As it goes, I'd prefer to have even _more_ fine grained control over my destiny: If I could work 80% as much and make 70-80% of the salary, I'd think long and hard about it. A lot of other people might not want to make that choice. A coworker of mine would rather be on a half-time program with reduced or no benefits (and is brilliant enough to merit the inconvenience to the organization). We can't do that because of the inflexibility of the business world, but collectivism would play directly against that goal.