

IT workers need a union - omouse
http://www.networkworld.com/forum/2001/0604faceoffyes.html

======
iigs
_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
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
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
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.

------
wheaties
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
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
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.

------
nym
Local 1337 demands more red bull and pizza.

------
cmars232
Yeah... look how well that works for the US auto industry. Hey, maybe we could
fail too & get a bailout!

~~~
omouse
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#P...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants)

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.

------
run4yourlives
No thanks.

~~~
omouse
Why "no thanks"?

~~~
run4yourlives
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
__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.

~~~
anamax
> 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
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
> 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.

