
Employee activism in tech stops short of organizing unions - pecanpie
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/technology/tech-companies-union-organizing.html
======
ttcbj
My Dad owns a construction company in a highly unionized region. He is an
advocate for unions, although he acknowledges that quality varies among them.
That said, many of the conditions where unions are beneficial don't seem to
apply in tech:

* Vocational training: unions in our area run schools to train craftsman (e.g. carpenters). This increases productivity and screens for quality.

* Shifting workforce: Construction companies expand/contract as they get big jobs. The union is a clearinghouse that enables tradespeople to switch between companies as they expand/contract. The union also helps by running benefit programs that travel with the workers.

* Commodity-ish labor: Most carpenters have about the same productivity, so it makes sense to negotiate their compensation in bulk. Unions don't work as well when productivity/value varies greatly between workers.

I also worked as an apprentice carpenter for several summers during college. I
wouldn't say that the carpenters I worked with had a glowing view of the
union. They seemed suspicious that the union reps were corrupt, and talked
about how they would "shut down the job" over minor union infractions. They
also believed the "hall" was corrupt/political in how it matched carpenters
who were out of work to jobs. Several were also contemptuous of what they saw
as the union discouraging hard work (if you were working hard, you were
"ruining the job.")

The main point I am trying to make is that unions are complex from both the
employer and employee side.

~~~
vcarl
Vocational training absolutely could be done in tech, web/app development is
much closer to carpentry than it is to computer science in my view.

Unions are definitely complex, it's not a silver bullet to solve issues in the
workplace. But at its core it's a group of people negotiating as a unit: the
rest is just the natural evolution of a group where some power has been
attained. More members means more organization needed to keep everything
straight, and more organization means more barriers to joining. Once there's a
real structure to the power a union gets, it's subject to the same people
problems as an other organization.

~~~
ttcbj
True, but one difference is that the market for carpentry talent is local. So,
a company that is supporting a union in city X has a reasonable expectation of
benefiting from its training.

With remote work, computer science is much more global, so someone could
easily be trained by a union and then go work for a company that doesn't
support the union.

Interestingly, this is one of my Dad's main complaints about unions these
days: That our city trains great carpenters, but then they are recruited away
to non-union areas.

~~~
lonelappde
Seems that a fix for that would be to attach a loan/bond to the training that
gets repaid by cash or by credits for working at a member employer.

~~~
jimcsharp
Unions were started in part as a response to indentured servitude. I'm not
sure that would fly, politically.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Purdue does something similar without requiring you work for a specific
employer.

[https://www.purdue.edu/dfa/types-of-aid/income-share-
agreeme...](https://www.purdue.edu/dfa/types-of-aid/income-share-
agreement/index.html) (Income Share Agreements)

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/29/708152566/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/29/708152566/episode-903-a-new-
way-to-pay-for-college) (Episode 903: A New Way To Pay For College)

------
LarryDarrell
I used to be all around anti-union. Now that I'm older I regret that position.
There are bad unions and there are good unions. Sometimes they can be corrupt,
but they never really exceed the corruptness of the corporate powers they
negotiate with. It's an imperfect solution, but it's the only one that seems
to work. The idea that we are all lone super stars that need to negotiate for
ourselves is not only selfish, but more than likely wrong. Even if I
considered myself a super-coder, should I be willing to sacrifice the well-
being of everyone else in my field?

Tech workers feel pretty good here in the US because they are compensated
better than most. The time to organize is now, not after worker supply has
increased or during a recession when workers are more desperate. We have real
issues (Ageism, Working Conditions, etc) that we'll never be able to address
individually.

~~~
duxup
> but they never really exceed the corruptness of the corporate powers they
> negotiate with

I'm not convinced that is the case, nor is it an either or (union or corporate
powers).

Your protection by the union depends on what the union negotiates... beyond
that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there. Then you are
again at the mercy of your employer. I've had first had experience with "oh
yeah they can do that" union situations.

Also premature organization IMO is much like premature optimization, more
likely to be a bigger problem and miss any real issues.

~~~
smallbigfish
You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them.
Call it government, call it whatever but it was an organization fighting on
your behalf.

> beyond that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there.

Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

~~~
duxup
>You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for
them.

I think that is a bit of a grand statement don't you think?

I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not
directly due to a union... I wouldn't associate ALL benefits with a union, nor
would that necessitate forming one simply if you thought those benefits were
related.

I've worked for some nice people, I do belive they seriously want to provide
their people benefits...

>Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

Negotiate what exactly? The Union and corporate relationship generally lays
out what the lay of the land is, the the areas that the employer gets to
decide are usually pretty obvious and the union isn't likely to call a general
strike because an employer made a choice.

~~~
ghettoCoder
If you think that any of the labour laws, health benefits, vacation days,
special leave (bereavement for example) or any of the other things you take
for granted as part of your normal work day didn't come from unions
continually pushing the envelope of worker's rights then I good luck with
that.

The remuneration package offered by a business is typically dictated by the
business sector (competitors) so saying "I've worked non union jobs and I'm
pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union." is faulty
logic. If half the shops are union shops or competition for staff is fierce
then pay/benefits will reflects.

Unions gave us 40 weeks (as opposed to 60+), no child labour, work place
health & safety (maybe not such a big deal in tech but in other industry it's
critical), etc... yes, government legislation made them law but unions applied
pressure to get it done. While many aspects of unions have, or appear to have,
outlived their usefulness they are still a very important tool in the
employer-employee relationship.

Look at it this way, if unions were really just about the money then employers
wouldn't care so much and attempt to keep unions out of their businesses
(sometimes illegally). An employer could just say to the union "this is how
much I have to spend on labour, how would you like it budgeted" and call it a
day cause at that point it's just deciding on how big your slice of pie is.

I guess I sound like a union fanboy, which I'm not, but we shouldn't discount
the very real impact and ongoing influence unions have.

~~~
duxup
I just don't buy into the idea that because unions have helped generally
compared to decades ago ... that means you should consider one as a solution
now.

------
mikeash
I'm always amazed at the complete double standard between unions and
companies.

Look at the discussion here: lots of people arguing against unions, saying
they're just plain bad, or they're good in some industries but not in tech, or
we just don't need them, or whatever.

And not to say that these arguments are wrong, but....

Hands up, how many of you think that it's a good idea to run a business with
employees as a sole proprietorship?

I'm pretty sure there are no hands up. The first thing you do when you're
going to create a business with employees is to organize. This is so ingrained
that we don't even think about it. When was the last time you saw "Ask HN: do
I need to incorporate?" Of _course_ you do. There are many questions around
where to do it and what type of corporation to create and what ownership
structure you want to use and so forth, but there's _no_ question about
whether it's a good idea.

When employees band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "union"
and we come up with many reasons why this may not be a good idea.

When employers band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a
"corporation" and nobody takes even a moment to wonder whether or not this is
a good thing to do.

If workers are better off without organization, maybe the same is true on the
management side? Instead of big companies, we should have individual managers
on their own, employing a team as a sole proprietor.

~~~
Zarel
I'm pretty confused by your argument here.

When employers band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a
"cartel" and it's radioactively illegal, and not a single person defends it as
a good thing.

When employees band together to negotiate collectively, we call that a "union"
and have a variety of opinions on it; with plenty of people thinking it's a
good thing.

Corporations don't seem remotely analogous to unions and are mostly created
for legal reasons, not for anything related to collective negotiation?

~~~
TomMckenny
I believe the following is being referred to:

Inside a company, the management/owners regularly talk together about how to
minimize the cost of employees, including compensation. But employees talking
together about maximizing their compensation is considered scandalous, harmful
or even unethical. The practice is even given special names "organizing" and
"unionizing" and is certainly considered unusual.

Corporations acting together are not analogous to a union because, legal
fictions aside, corporations are not people.

But the activities of humans working together inside a cooperation to maximize
some benefit, say a promotion or higher personal profit buy cutting employee
costs vs a group of employees seeking a pay increases, seems a credible
analogy.

~~~
mikekchar
I'm going to be controversial here. I don't think management/owners regularly
talk together about how to minimize the cost of employees. I mean, it happens
occasionally, but it's not actually a normal conversation in a company.

Instead companies talk about how much they can afford to pay for salaries.
Frequently they talk about increasing the cost of employees from the point of
view of expanding. Should we hire more people? Will it improve the business?
Should we increase salaries? Will it allow us to attract better employees?

When companies are talking about reducing or restricting the cost of
employees, it's usually in the context of solving problems in the company. The
company is losing in money in some areas. Should we lay off employees? Can we
negotiate a pay freeze or a pay cut until the company can get in better shape?
Will we lose too many employees if we do that? Will we lose our best employees
if we do that?

The biggest problem I have with unions (being one of the few programmers who
has actually worked as a programmer in a union) is that in my experience is
the conversations almost _never_ discuss the health of the company. They
_only_ discuss strategies for maximizing pay, benefits or ensuring that
layoffs are impossible.

I honestly believe that the attitude of "They are doing it so we have to too!"
is a thing that destroys companies. The Us vs. Them approach helps nobody.
Yes, if you have no choice and the company you are working for has decided
that _they_ want "Us vs. Them" and you can't convince them to join you in
making the company and it's employees successful, I can completely see the
point of a union. For me, that's a last resort. I'll try everything I can to
fix the problem a different way before I'll say, "We're going to organise so
that we can effectively compete with you". This includes simply quitting my
job and finding another one.

Or to be more clear: I greatly value working at a company where I wouldn't
ever think of organising a union. I value working at a company where the
company values me and sees it as a cooperative venture. I _don 't_ want to
work for a company that views me as an adversary or as someone they need to
manipulate. _That 's_ why I don't want a union. In my fairly long career I've
worked for both kinds of companies, so I know both exist.

~~~
TomMckenny
I agree that there is nuance and details that make it more useful in some
cases than others. Conversely, unions can assist a companies survival. There
are cases where even the teamsters(!) agreed to pay cuts to save businesses.
And of course it can occasionally go wrong and there can be incompetence just
like everything else in this world. But there are some widely held beliefs
that demonize unions more than should be.

For example[1], empirically the presence of a union does not correlates with a
bad workplace or failing business because the bulk of last half of the
twentieth century saw widespread union membership yet was dominated by
enormous growth in both production and quality of life along side high job
satisfaction. While the last 40 years with declining union membership has seen
slower GDP growth and in some cases quality of life reversal. So unions can't
be causing the problem.

And the Us vs Them attitude is certainly close to catastrophic. But people
aren't going to go through the effort, stress and risk of forming a union
unless there are already some never addressed grievances in the first place.
The antagonism would have to precede the talk of unionizing not be caused by
the appearance of the union. And after the fact, there is at least some small
chance of discussing, explaining and solving the problems. But I too would
bail long before it got that broken. But for tight labor markets, with few and
poorly run industries, this choice doesn't exists.

[1]in western countries and Japan

------
negamax
The benefit in tech is options. Don't like your job, get another one. Don't
like your boss, get another one. For many locations it's just the matter of
turning a button on Linkedin or for many people sending some emails.

That keeps people idealistic, vocal and demanding of the behavior from their
employer/bosses. This is not the norm in other business functions.
Unfortunately.

~~~
ahelwer
This current state of affairs gives employees a lot of power, as you observed,
but it's important to realize it will not last. The downturn will come. The
question is whether we want to use our current ephemeral labor power to
protect ourselves when the downturn comes, because organization will be 100x
more difficult when things go to shit and people don't think they have the
luxury of risking their career to build a union.

~~~
ben_jones
There's a dichotomy in software development between the developers who
represent single points of failure in an organization and the increasing
number of "replaceable" developers i.e. developers versed only in popular
frameworks or who hold introductory/recent-grad levels of domain knowledge
with no desire to go further.

I think right now were in a "golden age" where the latter group still holds
power and can command decent salary. I'm convinced this will start to change
in 2-3 years and a lot of people who came in for that golden age are going to
face a shocking reality that they aren't as privileged as they thought they
were.

With the fall of the second group software companies will have much more
leverage across the board and we'll see darker and darker patterns prosper.

~~~
ahelwer
This exists in all industries. It is called experience.

Developers convincing themselves that they're single points of failure is
arrogance, IMO. 99.9% of the time if you leave then someone can step right up
and take your place. Oh sure there will be costs, lost productivity, maybe an
outage, but the world keeps turning. So go ahead and take that vacation.

~~~
Balgair
The OP here mentions that they can just go to another shop and get work if
they do not like their current shop. That's fine, but the employers can do the
same too. They can fire you and get another person as well. Granted, right
now, the employee holds a lot more power in the market, but that will ebb over
time, and it may even switch.

------
aminadude
Tangent - there was an article on the NYTimes the other day about how their
editorial work was trivializing Bernie Sanders political impact the last
election and actually using misleading headlines to distort the truth. I’ll
try to find the link (on my phone now). It was pretty eye opening and had
links to sources as well as exposing some of these editors and their role
working for the Clinton camp.

I call this out because I see a steady stream of NYT articles that focus on
big tech in a negative way.

Big tech has its problems and should be regulated. On the other hand, I
question the NYT and their motive. This clearly isn’t honest journalism but
NYT focusing on companies that are now directly competing with the NYT.

Edit: article I was referring to [https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-
sources/](https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-sources/)

~~~
Spooky23
The problem is that Sanders is in a democratic primary. If people in the
circle of democratic party thinking aren't valid sources for reporting on a
democratic political candidate, who is? Clinton was the party nominee -- all
of the players will have done something connected to that campaign.

The democratic party is a big-tent and demands consensus. When all of these
connected folks eyeroll at the guy, it hints that he would have trouble
governing. An "out-there outsider guy" persona works for the GOP because the
GOP is a political machine party... some state senator from North Dakota would
kill kittens on TV if instructed to.

~~~
malvosenior
The problem isn't that the democratic party is doing what's best for the
democratic party. The problem is that The New York Times is doing what's best
for the democratic party. They claim to be journalism but more and more, they
are clearly biased political activism (as is the case with this story).

~~~
Spooky23
Who would you suggest that they talk to?

Journalists get stories, they do that by talking to people and getting
information. The New York Times has a pretty obvious mainstream approach. Very
few credible people in that community have anything to say about Sanders.

I didn’t notice lots of biased political activism when they were reporting on
the prosecution of NY legislators and a governor. When did the switch flip?

~~~
malvosenior
> _Very few credible people in that community have anything to say about
> Sanders._

He's consistently polled in the top three for the democratic primary. He's
also consistently ahead of Warren who the NYT often promotes. The New York
Times is trying to manufacture credibility by selectively covering candidates.

------
javagram
“In other cases, highly compensated engineers may see themselves as
independent operators who have plenty of leverage on their own and thus do not
need to join a union effort.”

This is definitely my feeling. When I can just open up LinkedIn and browse all
the unsolicited interview requests I get, I don’t end up feeling like I really
need a union to protect my current job - I can always just leave and go
somewhere else if I’m unhappy.

That said, if someone asked me to vote for it I might do that, but I wouldn’t
put the effort into organizing myself.

~~~
onion2k
_I can always just leave and go somewhere else if I’m unhappy._

You think you can, and hopefully you actually can, but your employer might
have other ideas... [https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-
anti-po...](https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-
poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/)

I'll expand on that slightly - the point is that employers are not beyond
_illegally_ getting together to restrict our access to alternative jobs. While
it feels like we can just get a new role with a couple of phone calls, we
might not be getting the best deal for ourselves regardless.

~~~
javagram
Yeah, that was pretty terrible. Good news is that the government found it out
and put a stop to it.

------
noego
This is going to be a unpopular opinion. I think a tech union would likely be
good for the average tech worker - and bad for absolutely everyone else,
broader society included.

Cartels and price-fixing agreements are extremely lucrative, which is why they
were commonplace until outlawed by antitrust legislation, and why cartels like
OPEC still operate today. Unions and collective bargaining are no different.
Unions are equivalent to a cartel of labor-suppliers, and collective
bargaining is identical to price-fixing.

Just like with cartels and price-fixing agreements, unionizing would likely
benefit the average tech worker. It would also have an extremely bad effect on
innovation, bureaucracy, and cost-of-tech-development which would spill over
to consumers in the form of higher prices.

I'm in favor of breaking up big corporations, as well as implementing a wealth
tax, raising the top tax rates, and strengthening the social safety net. But I
don't think encouraging the formation of cartels and price-fixing agreements
is in society's best interests.

~~~
blub
The only parties that I'm aware of which are forming cartels (and getting
slapped on the wrist for it) are American software companies. Seems odd to
accuse not yet existing entities of the same crime that their opponents have
been already convicted for.

Furthermore, a lot of software companies are filthy rich. If anything,
American corporations are squeezing the last drops of profit through creative
(read borderline criminal) accounting, outsourcing, faux-contracting and other
creative arrangements. Said additional profit is not shared with the
employees, invested in society or used in any productive way.

How is it benefiting anyone that Apple is buying back stock for example or
that they have hundreds of billions parked somewhere?

~~~
noego
Just because corporations are getting away with bad behavior doesn't mean we
should encourage a free-for-all. I've already endorsed breaking up big
corporations, more vigorous antitrust enforcement, and increasing taxes on the
wealthy. There is such a thing as a right way and a wrong way to fix a
problem.

------
CSMastermind
In my opinion, unions are very valuable in cases where employees cannot
effectively realize market value for their skillset.

This can happen for a number of reasons:

1\. In cases of specialized skills (like working at a factory where you've
trained on a particular machine). 2\. In cases of natural or artificial
monopolies (like working for a federal government). 3\. In cases where
companies and workers incentives are misaligned (like that of a construction
worker).

Probably more that I'm missing.

I don't see how the current software engineer market meets this condition.

There are more open software engineering jobs than there are software
engineers. If my employer mistreats me, I'll leave and go to a different
company, and likely I can find a job just as good very easily.

I'm not sure how a union would benefit me personally.

~~~
LarryDarrell
How confident are you that this climate will continue for the rest of your
working life? How confident are you that this climate will extend past your
working life?

~~~
dymk
We can form a union when we need to form a union. There's no point in forming
one _just in case_ software engineering no longer becomes a sought-after
skilled job.

~~~
Pfhreak
How shortsighted: "We can form a union when we're in a disadvantageous
position."

There's plenty of stuff that software engineers could want to improve _today_
around oncall, long hours, IP restrictions, non-competes, pay transparency,
parental leave, equity, promotion and career management, educational benefits,
age/gender/racial/etc discrimination, health care, etc.

When we're in a position of power is a great time for us to form a union and
start tackling some of the second tier of issues (like non-competes). If not
now, when?

~~~
dymk
If I'm not happy with my company, I leave the company. It's not that hard. And
I don't pay any dues to a union for that right.

Non-competes are unenforceable in California.

Do you actually think that writing software is going to be come an unskilled
job some day?

~~~
Pfhreak
>If I'm not happy with my company, I leave the company.

This presupposes that you'll have a list of companies to join that have all
the benefits that you want.

> Non-competes are unenforceable in California.

Great. Tech work happens nationwide. You could say, "I got mine in California"
or you could help pull up others. I believe that it's worthwhile, sometimes,
for me to spend some of my income to help others reach a better station.

> Do you actually think that writing software is going to be come an unskilled
> job some day?

Do you not? Also, there are plenty of workers in tech who aren't software
developers. We should be helping them get benefits as well.

~~~
dymk
> This presupposes that you'll have a list of companies to join that have all
> the benefits that you want.

Does anyone, anywhere, have a list of companies that checks _literally all
their boxes_?

> I believe that it's worthwhile, sometimes, for me to spend some of my income
> to help others reach a better station.

Again, I don't think that software engineering is in a position that needs
unionizing. This argument is nil to me. You're asking me to spend my income
for something I don't see as a net gain.

> Do you not? Also, there are plenty of workers in tech who aren't software
> developers. We should be helping them get benefits as well.

You've suddenly moved the goalposts to be about something other than software
engineers, which is not what we were talking about. If another profession
wants to go unionize, more power to them. I don't see _my_ profession as
benefiting, hence I'm arguing against it.

~~~
Apocryphon
> You're asking me to spend my income for something I don't see as a net gain.

Less than $100 a month to have an organization fight open floor plans and to
provide legal services on your behalf for when HR fails you seems like a small
price to pay.

> I don't see my profession as benefiting

Say you're working in the game industry, and management keeps on slashing the
QA org. Enjoy the additional stress of having to write all of the automation
tests yourself on top of fiendish deadlines when you're already working 50
hour weeks with unpaid overtime.

------
dawhizkid
Biggest question is if a union or union-like system makes sense in companies
where the average tenure is ~2-3 years mostly due to employee choice.

~~~
lallysingh
Why do they leave? Are those reasons addressable by a union?

~~~
nerdjon
I know many people leave because of pay reasons, and maybe a union could
address that.

But I also find my self largely wanting to leave out of a desire for a new
challenge, learn something new. It would be way to easy to stay stagnant at a
company and than find yourself forced to deal with new technology in a new
role, that for everyone else is old technology (and there is a limit to how
much you can realistically do that for side projects). Not that it does not
happen anyways.

I don't see any way a Union could (or should) address this.

~~~
Apocryphon
I don't know how often unions actually impact _what_ the business does instead
of _how_ it operates, but here's an example: "Audi's unions demand electric
model for main German plant" [0]

> Mosch, who sits on parent VW’s supervisory board, asked top management to
> provide specific information as to how the growing shift to electric cars
> and digital services will affect employment at Audi, which has 88,000
> workers globally.

Having worked at places where management was deaf to employee concerns about
the direction of the business, and seen the consequences of bad management
fall upon those employees, I can clearly _some_ sort of leverage would be good
for engineers. Perhaps that could involve forcing a company to invest in new
technology, thus allowing you to grow as an engineer- and perhaps making your
job more secure by making the business more competitive.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13986889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13986889)

------
leftyted
There has to be a balance of power between labor and management. When
management has too much power, that power will be abused. When labor has too
much power, that power will be abused.

Unions make sense when labor doesn't have any power. Do programmers have
enough power? I'd say yes. Maybe not across the board but -- in general --
yes. We aren't coal miners, that's for sure.

~~~
eswat
It depends on the specific industry in tech.

Do programmers in general tech startups have enough power? I’d say yes too. Do
programmers in the gaming industry have enough power? Definitely not.

~~~
ivl
The gaming industry has an interesting problem: a lot of fresh college grads
that want to work on games because they are passionate about games.

In that case, I'm unsure of how unionizing would help much, as publishers
could simply invest in games from non-union shops, and happily abandon the
studios that are unionized.

~~~
sigstoat
> In that case, I'm unsure of how unionizing would help much, as publishers
> could simply invest in games from non-union shops, and happily abandon the
> studios that are unionized.

and game development work is probably the most trivial software development to
move to foreign jurisdictions. unless the union promoters would like video
game tariffs.

~~~
ivl
This may seem snide, but it's extremely rare for a union not to be
protectionist. Mostly on account of how unions join together with unions for
adjunct industries.

That said, I'm not convinced game development would be easily outsourced.
Games are some of the most highly optimized pieces of software out there, as
it's in their interest to squeeze every bit of performance out of consumer
hardware. You can think of their target as an intersecting line between the
game being playable on consumer hardware vs. the graphics quality users expect
that would lead to the game selling. Optimization has a big payoff to increase
the possible market to buy a given game.

------
viburnum
The countries with the best human welfare indicators also have the highest
percentage of people in unions. It’s the only countervailing force against
plutocratic power.

~~~
stcredzero
_It’s the only countervailing force against plutocratic power._

"Only?" It can itself, become a nexus of plutocratic power. The best antidote
to corruption is transparency and the dispersal of power.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)

~~~
viburnum
I’m talking about the Nordics at the top, with 70% of people in unions,
followed by Germany/France/Benelux. Transparency doesn’t give create political
power. Coordinating the interests of millions of workers takes organization,
and a broad and politically active trade union movement is the only successful
example in history of delivery widely shared prosperity.

------
mawburn
Maybe unionization needs a disrupt? I'm not against unionization in a lot of
industries, but it just doesn't make sense in its current form for the tech
scene or any other high demand position. It feels like an outdated mechanism
used for people who were happy to sit in the same role, doing the same thing,
for 45yrs.

~~~
jtolmar
Modern unions that only represent one type of skill or workers in one company
(or both!) are far less effective than historical unions that aimed to
unionize as many workers as possible under the same umbrella. Being able to
represent your members even if they switch companies gives you a lot more
opportunities.

Unions are (at least supposed to be) democratically run, so if tech workers
don't want to sit in the same position for 45 years until they can collect a
pension, their union doesn't need to negotiate for that. They can use that
leverage for something else.

Putting that together, your modernized union might be an industry-wide
organization that acts both for collective bargaining and as a placement
agency. They could bargain for making switching companies easier - maybe
employers need to support specific benefits providers so workers don't need to
switch. And they could use their network to improve bargaining - a big part of
strike preparation is making sure everyone is taken care of ahead of time; the
union could secure job offers for workers who can't afford to go on strike.

~~~
Animats
That's the difference between a craft union and an industrial union. A long
time ago, there was the American Federation of Labor, the group for craft
unions, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the group of industrial
unions. The AFL had the Plumbers, the Electricians, the Machinists, etc. The
CIO had the United Auto Workers, the Steelworkers, the United Mine Workers,
etc. They merged in 1955.

Nobody cares much about that any more.

If you want to see a modern union, check out The Animation Guild.[1] Local
839, IATSE. They represent most of the major studio animators in Hollywood.
Although they've tried, they have not been able to organize game developers.

It's about fear. Try to organize a union in the US and you will probably be
fired. Even though that's illegal. WalMart has closed down stores that voted
in a union. Uber workers have a strike scheduled for July 15, but it probably
won't do much in the US.

[1] [https://animationguild.org/](https://animationguild.org/)

------
scythe
It’s generally my understanding that unions tend to decrease labor mobility,
and are most effective for improving working conditions when labor mobility is
naturally very low, as in industries dominated by a few players (shipping,
auto) or where company-specific knowledge becomes very important (retail,
maybe construction?). Industries with a high proportion of freelancers tend to
form guilds, which are slightly different and often focus on licensure
(barbers, doctors, lawyers). But programmers — like managers, accountants and
bankers — have highly transferable skills that give them lots of employment
options. Additionally, programming creates its own communication skills by
(literal) networking, which aids programmers searching for jobs (they can send
code samples over a wire). As such, competition for labor is more effective in
tech than in many other fields.

------
povertyworld
How come the NY Times doesn't push for unions for Wall St? Surely these guys
slaving away over spreadsheets for Silicon Valley level pay should be
unionized too, right?

------
rolltiide
> “Associating unions with blue-collar work and making it a stigma to talk
> about unions in white-collar circles, that’s very deliberate”

This is my observation too, right now there is simply a correlation that
doesn't have to be.

It doesn't matter that you get paid a comfortable amount, and that another
startup delivers snacks all day, and another startup delivers catered food to
you: you aren't getting paid what you are worth to these companies.

The board members are just the VCs and the founders and they aren't in a
position to change that. The fraction of a fraction of a percent equity that
they told you "was a generous amount" after feeding your face has nothing to
do with what a more equitable amount could be. Doesn't give you any
information about all the scenarios in which you would get nothing because the
strike is too high and the preferred shares liquidity preferences are too
onerous.

Even the cash component of tech compensation could likely be 75-150% higher.
This has nothing to do with the stagnating wages in other sectors, we are
working with this generation's largest and fastest growing companies and could
accelerate comp growth and other changes.

~~~
jjeaff
I think that's not the only factor. Unions will also cap wages for the highest
earners. And everyone thinks they are going to end up in that 1 percenter
salary.

~~~
rolltiide
> Unions will also cap wages for the highest earners.

its okay if the average moves up, and transparency increases on stock options
and the liquidity preferences of preferred shareholders. this is only
currently relevant to non-public companies, and this article was about
startups so thats fitting

------
bsmith
I acknowledge that there are definite issues at play with employment in the
tech industry, but, come on; we are one of the most coddled and well-payed
segments of the entire laboring economy. Maybe unions aren't being organized
because we aren't forced to work graveyard shifts with few to no breaks for
very little pay? I'm not sure the actual issues at hand in the tech industry
are best addressed by unions (at least in the traditional sense).

------
kodz4
The tech industry today, is captured quite well by Rolling Stone's Victor
Juhasz illustrations

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BzJO6ELjJT9/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BzJO6ELjJT9/)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BzJP9nlDA5c/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BzJP9nlDA5c/)

Thinking that unions are going to have an effect is like believing flies
effect pigs.

~~~
TooCleverByHalf
Did you have an alternate proposal for course of action?

~~~
kodz4
Save up and eject as soon as you can, and be realistic about what you are up
against.

Thats been the MO for people at Big Oil, Big Pharma and Wall Street for a long
time now. People are in deep denial about the state of affairs.

These are "too big to fail" systems with too much momentum built up behind
them, for a trajectory change.

------
throwaway132435
I already feel distrust for my outspoken colleagues who purport to speak for
me when making demands of management, but would treat me like James Damore if
I dissented from their opinions.

The last thing I want is to let those same people formally represent me in a
union. Given the current climate, those are very likely to be the people who
would be running it.

------
baybal2
For a long time I had an impression that Microsoft had some kind of union(s)
like group running things there.

Is it so, or my memory is playing tricks with me?

------
docker_up
Tech unions are a way for bureaucrats to take a tax off the backs of hard
working tech workers with no benefits.

I am well off, have a flexible work life balance, and I enjoy my job. There is
nothing that a union would bring to the table for me.

If there was a union in Silicon Valley in the early 80s, we would be no where
close to where we are today. Look at the stark difference between a Silicon
Valley worker vs someone working at Boeing or other unionized shops.

------
stefan_
Imagine not getting paid overtime but arguing online how unions in tech are
bad (while doing overtime).

Sometimes HN is a caricature.

~~~
chupa-chups
n-gate.com :)

