
Developers Vs. Bigcorp - pytrin
http://www.techfounder.net/2012/08/30/developers-vs-bigcorp/
======
mey
I have no desire to join a union. You and I have plenty of bargaining power
without one. Nor can a union represent this very diverse field.

Unions are fantastic when there is no bargaining power, horrible conditions
and most critically no mobility. Coal Miners in a town in the middle of
Pennsylvania come to mind.

You and I have plenty of mobility. Hell I have moved across the US three times
for various jobs and can find work all over the world while sitting on my butt
where I am.

If you are building on someone else's platform, you should know there is more
to that then technical risk. There is business risk. Did Twitter pay you to
develop against their API, did you have them sign an SLA when they return an
fail whale?

Once you realize that you are tying your business lively hood to a transient
non-binding agreement, you might think twice. Then you will use your mobility
and go another direction.

Are external developers what make these tech companies great? Balmer got that
one right. (<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643>) But
to suggest a union? Won't see me paying dues.

~~~
asmithmd1
You as an individual have no bargaining power when "signing" Apple's or
Twitters's developer agreement - it is take what they offer or leave it. If we
banded together it might be possible to negotiate with big companies.

Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are
above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers.

~~~
derleth
> Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are
> above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average
> workers.

Or by being told what they can do and how much they can make based on
seniority, not skillset and talent.

~~~
asmithmd1
Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on
seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that.

Wouldn't you like to have some kind of transparent review process for iPhone
apps? Or an agreement that the Twitter API will be available for 5 years? Good
luck negotiating that on your own.

~~~
anamax
> Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on
> seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that.

Why not? Unions and union members are extremely rational. Are you suggesting
that developers would be less rational?

I'm reasonably anti-union but I'd vote for seniority as a union member. It
elevates my salary at the expense of people who don't get a vote (new people).
It lets me slack off. And, for folks in the bottom half, it's a salary
increase.

> Wouldn't you like to have some kind of transparent review process for iPhone
> apps?

That doesn't have anything to do with unions.

------
aaronbrethorst
Speaking as a rather rabidly liberal software developer, allow me to respond
to one point:

"Here's to hoping that the 21st century Jimmy Hoffa will be a developer."

Please, no: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Prison_sentence>. He was
incredibly corrupt.

~~~
pytrin
You are taking it too literally, I was referring of course to his influence on
making the teamsters one of the strongest unions in American history, not
wishing for a carbon copy of Jimmy Hoffa.

Second, not to slide off topic, but it's hard to know how much of that was
fact and how much of it was because of the many political enemies he made
during his ascent.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
How about using César Chávez as your example, then?

~~~
pytrin
Noted, and updated the article :)

Not a big history buff myself, always interesting to learn new things

------
andybak
I'm curious as to US attitudes to unions. I get the feeling they are viewing
more positively (although ambivalently in Europe/UK) whilst anti-union
sentiment is more deeply ingrained in the US.

(The UK is probably an interesting middle-ground as it is in some other areas)

~~~
pytrin
Most professions in the U.S have unions. The most publicized are their sport
player unions, which have perfected the art of collective bargaining. Worker
unions are a part of U.S culture.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Not true[1], and despite the current, small uptick in numbers, I suspect that
union membership will continue to fall due to the rise right to work laws
around the US[2].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Membership)

[2] [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-
right-t...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-to-
work-laws)

~~~
pytrin
Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a
union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.

~~~
FJim
What does that even mean?

~~~
pytrin
A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training
(Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that
every doctor is a member in it.

~~~
001sky
Part of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals
were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other
words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat
redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do
see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.

~~~
pytrin
I said professions, not professionals.

~~~
001sky
Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class
don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because _they
are/were the ruling class_. [Edit: _Professional Associations_ i believe were
fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific
profession.]

~~~
lutusp
> Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes

Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or
broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had
power.

~~~
001sky
Up until 1812 or so, I would agree with you. But the landed classes were
forced into the professional ranks throughout the 19th C. "To makes ends
meet." The Corn laws, ca1830 & ff.

Edit: If I may elaborate on this.

Also, i did not mean the _political_ sense of "ruling class". I meant,
strictly speaking, their status as economic agents. If you are a partner in a
partnership, you have legal _control rights_. Same as if you are a material
shareholder in a stock-company. You are _not_ an "at-arms-lenght-employee" in
other-words. So, the idea that you would need a union for what were in essence
"company directors" just does not make logical sense. Again, that changes when
(whatever the expertise) thes folks are forced to work for the state; they are
then stripped of their _control rights_ and take on a position more akin to
_Labour_ , structurally.

~~~
lutusp
I must agree that I specified too short a time period before which the
"ruling" class simply ruled and weren't strongly connected to professions and
investment activities.

So thanks for posting.

------
yurylifshits
Maybe there is a simpler solution then a full-blown union.

A good start is simply a list of demands + a list of possible protest actions.
Developers did it really well with Stop SOPA.

~~~
pytrin
That's exactly what a union does, just on a full time basis. So you have an
organization you can appeal to every time there's need for action.

------
greghinch
How would a union negotiate API usage limits that Twitter places on 3rd party
developers? Unions as a whole have become pretty detrimental to society, no
matter how much they originally helped.

More importantly, think of something to build besides another damn Twitter
client. If you can't, get a job like everyone else until you have a better
idea you can execute.

~~~
pytrin
I didn't offer any easy solutions, only the concept of a body that can
represent many developers in order to have actual leverage against those
companies. Twitter is just one example.

~~~
greghinch
So a union would help workers negotiate things like wages, benefits, and
overall treatment of workers. What you are proposing with this analogy is some
kind of organization that would somehow have the power from outside of a given
business to force that business to adopt practices preferred by third parties.
Not really the same thing, not sure how you would go about forming such an
entity, and frankly it sounds pretty terrible for the business climate as a
whole.

~~~
pytrin
A union doesn't have to necessarily regulate wages - just be a source for
developer grievance against companies that generate value from their work.
Also consider that you don't have to be a part of the union if you don't agree
with its principles. The only power a union has is from his members willing to
negotiate collectively, there's nothing more to it.

~~~
greghinch
The fundamental difference remains: a union is for influencing an organization
by employees for the employees (within). What you want is to influence on
behalf third parties with no affiliation with the organization.

~~~
pytrin
I'm not sure what is the 3rd party you are referring to. There are two sides
here - individual developers or small dev companies, and giant tech companies
- who should be working together to create a healthy ecosystem, but when one
is in conflict with the other the giant companies do whatever they want. A
union is a collection of individuals / small companies that together have
enough leverage to negotiate on better terms with the giant companies.

~~~
greghinch
First of all, I don't think you understand what a union is.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States)

Second, I don't think that's a very realistic picture of how things work.
There are businesses which have a) a plan for how to operate and make money b)
employees whom they pay to perform services. Then there are outside parties
who may interact with that business in some way. But the business is going to
operate in the fashion that makes the most sense for the business.

So Twitter has decided that it is in it's own best interest to limit how
outside parties interact with its service. You'll have to convince them
otherwise if you want to reverse that. Similarly, Apple has decided that
allowing outside parties to have a certain degree of free reign in developing
for its products is best for its business. Hopefully the distinction is fairly
clear, but I'll lay it out because it seems like maybe it isn't to you:

Apple makes most of its money selling devices like iPhones, iPads, and
computers. Third parties developing software for those devices only serves to
increase their sales.

Twitter, on the other hand, is still trying to nail down their business model
for making money. Third parties developing software using Twitter's APIs
really only serves to increase the load on their servers. Perhaps initially it
helped drive traffic, generate interface ideas, and even offered a company or
two for Twitter to buy and integrate, but they are beyond that need now. At
best they may be interested in allowing outside parties to build software on
top of their service IF you grant them a share of the money you make in doing
so (hence the whole, "let's talk when you get over your token limit" stance).

Businesses exist to make money. So if you want Twitter to open up their
service, you'll need to demonstrate how it makes them money. That's the bottom
line.

~~~
pytrin
I don't want to get bogged by the semantics of a labor union since that is
really not what I meant (and I think you know that). I'm talking a body
representing developers in ecosystems where they are a part of, regardless of
what semantic name you want to give that organization.

Apple and Twitter, both depend greatly on developers adding value to their
ecosystem. You may say Apple sells devices, but it makes a huge part of its
revenue from selling apps on the (iOS / Mac) appstore. Developers build those
apps, not Apple (who develops a very small subset of integral apps). Those
apps not only generate revenue directly via commissions, but also make their
devices useful and attractive to the general population. Without the apps, the
iPhone is a glorified PDA.

If you think developers are meaningless to those both companies and are just
3rd parties who have no influence, it is you who do not have a realistic
picture of the state of things. Obviously, individual developers or small
companies have no leverage. But a body representing a large portion of the
developers on either platform will have such leverage and could make those
companies make some concessions in the way they treat developers.

If all developers flocked to Android, Apple stock would crash. If developers
pulled the plug on all of their twitter apps, Twitter would feel the effect
strongly. Despite what you want to claim, developers do effect the bottom line
for both companies substantially.

~~~
greghinch
Apples profit from App store sales are pretty minuscule when compared with the
profit they generate by device sales: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-
app-store-economics-ave...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-app-store-
economics-average-paid-app-sale-price-goes-for-1-44/52154)
[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-apples-
gross...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-apples-gross-profit-
per-product-2012-8)

$538 million from app sales vs ~$60 billion from iphone sales and another ~$10
billion from ipad sales. I think the motivation for the app store is pretty
clear based on that.

I'm not sure what you are basing your claim that Twitter would collapse
without developers on, they manage their own in house Twitter clients now.
You'll find that most users outside our little YC echo chamber use a)
twitter.com b) one of the official Twitter clients

~~~
pytrin
I really don't understand what you're saying. Are you denying how crucial the
apps to the sales of the devices? do you think they could sell without the
apps? in addition, do you think apple doesn't care about 500M$ in profits?

Also, are you saying that the twitter API and 3rd party apps have nothing to
do with the success of twitter? I didn't say collapse, I said they would feel
it strongly. Not sure what is your point, really.

~~~
greghinch
My point isn't that Apple doesn't care about the money it makes from the app
store, my point is that Apple has a vested monetary interest in keeping
developers around going forward. iPhone sales pre-app store were pretty small;
the app store drives a lot of their business.

Twitter, on the other hand, has no business interest in developers going
forward. It's true they may not have gotten where they are without third party
devs, but that need is gone now; they can move forward without them. You may
lament that as being cruel in some manner, but that's business my friend.
Twitter isn't going to collapse because they cut off third parties.

------
Beanis
Developer work is too varied to have a single consistent voice. Drop the union
idea, the word has too much baggage and becomes a huge people management
issue. Turn it into what developers do best, build an app/api.

I'm not sure if this idea will make too much sense; I need to see if I can
find some time to explore it a little more. I could see building an app/api
which is a mixture of a news/issue aggregator and a remote config editor.

Figure out how to surface issues to developers in a consistent way. Then let
developers decide which issues matter to them, and how to deliver updated
configs. Then let developers decide how to use the api/config from there.
Maybe some apps will decide to disable in-app purchases for some time period,
maybe some will alter code-flows to use a competitor of a big company, maybe
some app will praise some company for their stance on some issue. The
developers need to be in full control at all times though. The api would let
developers read the remote config from their apps.

Maybe it just turns into a remote config service, and the activism part gets
lost... but it might work as a vehicle for this kind of activism too.

~~~
pytrin
Perhaps "union" is too loaded of a word. My intentions was for a body that can
collectively bargain on behalf of developers against companies that right now
are treating them as they will since as individuals they have no leverage or
recourse.

~~~
krakensden
Unions originally worked because they could stop the flow of all labor (union
or not) into a job site. Now there is a legal process that avoids the violent
bits, but it doesn't really apply to the current situation.

Moreover,the equivalent to a picket line is what, a DDOS? Shit will get you
sent to jail, yo.

The structure of desirable APIs <-> Developers makes collective bargaining not
super useful.

~~~
pytrin
No, it's much more simple than that. Developers can simply cut their apps from
the ecosystem for a short while. Or move to another platform in large numbers.
Just the threat of each action should cause those companies to consider some
concessions.

~~~
krakensden
You're missing the point. Individual workers or developers are replaceable,
and at a serious power disadvantage. A union works by blocking all access to
labor _, and requiring the company to negotiate with the union alone. Unions
used to do this by physically blocking non-union workers from going to job
sites, today there are formal legal processes. There is no alternative to
either method available to developers for closed platforms. If you opt out of
developing for the more lucrative platforms, there are plenty of people
willing to replace you.

_ I know it's more complicated than that and that there are exceptions, and
that over time some places become hybridized. I'm still right.

------
knewter
My dad had his life threatened by union workers for working overtime on a job
he was overseeing installation of (robotics engineer). They told him to stop
working because he was making them look bad (he was working well into the
night because he was away from home and had nothing better to do, plus that's
just who he is).

He thought they were joking, ignored them. They came back with muscle and told
him in no uncertain terms to put down his wrench or they would beat him.

This happened while he was working away from home when I was learning how to
walk.

I run a business right now, and have run several others. I would rather shut
the doors to my businesses than be strongarmed by union thugs. I know I'm not
alone in this.

Ideologically, unionism isn't necessarily horrible. Practically, it involves
all sorts of illegal activity that is forgiven because of labor relations.
There are a ton of legal exemptions in place for unions in the US.

I don't know why I even got into this conversation, but I wanted to make it
clear that there are plenty of business owners that would rather offer zero
jobs and make less money themselves than offer a single job to a unionized
worker.

------
elchief
You don't call it a union, silly. A union is for socialists.

You call it a Professional Association. The same way doctors and accountants
do. It's essentially the same as a union, but it's for rich, conservative
people.

------
mynameishere
An engineer working in a steel factory. Question: Can he carry a screwdriver.
Answer: No. Reason: Union rules.

Please just drop shit you have no knowledge of.

