From first principles, it is the only way for these workers to have more agency and not be treated as disposal feedstock, and as a high empathy human, I would like them to have more agency and be less controlled (if they would like it; the choice is theirs).
Unions seems to make sense but if you see how greedy they are, striking in the best economy in the world and in the history of the world — where people's economic situation is better than anyone else on the planet ever was in history — then you have to wonder if there is not something wrong there. I think I would consider them if they could be less greedy.
I would really like to see some anti price gouging legislation in the US that take these greedy unions to task.
So you think unions are greedy, but want to abolish the professional management class...with nothing? Have you considered that, without some sort of organization, you are powerless and have no ability to effect change?
Also, have you considered that unions aren't greedy, but simply negotiating a fair value for their labor, and your mental model reacts negatively for some reason due?
I don't think they can objectively measure the fair value for their labour. I think I trust the Biden administration way more on this, and they have made it clear that the economic situation of every single American is better today than it has ever been in the past for any country in the world. That to me seems significantly more objective.
Good point, I think we need more unions for child labourers, we need to stop child labour in Asia, Africa and South America. If you start that union I will be the first to sign up, I will gladly not go to work for that cause.
> striking in the best economy in the world and in the history of the world
Isn't this the best time to do it? It seems like if workers did the opposite you'd be complaining that they were striking when conditions were bad and hurting the company!
> I really want more software engineers to see the benefits of unions.
How would a profession where your value to the company scales very directly with your talents and your pay can be very connected to those talents and has a very high celling benefit from being judged as a unit with the least competent instead of an individual on just your own contribution.
By setting minimum work conditions, rather than exact or maximum work conditions? Every SAG actor from George Clooney to video game VAs benefits from residuals, for example.
> How would a profession where your value to the company scales very directly with your talents and your pay can be very connected to those talents and has a very high celling benefit from being judged as a unit with the least competent instead of an individual on just your own contribution.
Your mental model operates under the assumption that you are paid for your individual performance. This leads you to believe organizing is suboptimal. But, the data does not show individual performance is tied to compensation, therefore you're arguing against a model based on a meritocracy fallacy and an incomplete mental model. You might also overweight your own performance vs that of others, in the same way that a majority of drivers believe themselves to be better than the average driver.
Understandably, it is hard to internalize that we are not special, that performance is hard to measure, and that organizations communicate something different than reality. "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."
"I am a gambler and I don't want my upside restricted" is more honest than "the profession shouldn't organize because a small cohort will miss out on outsized comp that they can work hard and are recognized for." Also, importantly, you asked "how would a profession ... benefit" when you really mean just the folks at the top of the income distribution, not the entire profession. One might also consider that pay transparency laws exist because of well known and researched pay inequity issues across wide swaths of the economy.
> When asked about the rationale for the size of their paycheck, both workers and executives overwhelmingly point to one factor: Individual performance. And yet research shows that this belief is false and largely based on three myths people have about their pay: that you can separate it from the performance of others; that your job has an objective, agreed-upon definition of performance; and that paying for individual performance improves organizational outcomes. Instead, your pay is defined by four organizational forces: power, inertia, mimicry, and equity. The bad news is that these dynamics have reshaped the economy to benefit the few at the expense of the many. The good news is that, if pay isn’t some predetermined, rigid reflection of performance, then we can imagine a different world in terms of who is paid what, and how. -- Jake Rosenfeld, a top scholar of the US labor market.
No more unpaid overtime. The right to ignore work messages outside of business hours. No more noncompetes
It's a race to the bottom because of the visa worker situation. People will wake themselves up at 3AM on a saturday because shitty tooling made something in prod break.
Many of my friends are visa workers, but if you're working with people living in fear of deportation, it tends to fuck up the work life boundary across the board
> No more unpaid overtime. The right to ignore work messages outside of business hours. No more noncompetes
This so radically clashes with my experience it makes me wonder if I've had a crazy lucky career or if people have a hard time setting boundaries.
At all the companies I've worked for, I've never once felt like I was obligated to answer a message outside of work hours. Also non-competes are more or less completely unenforceable. And finally... working overtime when you're remote is YOUR choice.
Now all of this is omitting visas. I've never had to deal with that and likely never will. But for US citizens working in tech I don't see how a union helps you at all.
> working overtime when you're remote is YOUR choice.
I'm not sure of what part of industry you're coming from. For me, it's backend web services + data pipelines for a large corporation
Often overtime work is expected. Deployments always happen late in the evening because of there's a diurnal traffic pattern. Oncall is unavoidable and the expectation they have is that regardless of when you get paged, you have to wake up and respond to it
I know personally companies that laid off a major percentage (50% in one case) of their software engineers to replace them with cheaper foreign and visa workers. I don't know if you've tried to find a job recently, but it's as bad as it's ever been regardless of level of experience.
Don't think US citizens are sitting in luxury. Your company will fire you and replace you with cheaper replacements in an instant.
The FTC decision has already been halted by a Texas court nationwide. It's probably going to make it's way to the Supreme Court eventually, but given the courts recent rulings I suspect the FTC rule won't survive.
> Nearly one in five workers in the United States are bound by a noncompete agreement preventing them from finding a new job or starting a business in their field when they leave their employer. Noncompetes are currently governed at the state level, and as a growing body of research shows that noncompetes suppress wages, reduce job mobility, and stifle innovation, states are moving rapidly to restrict them. Currently, four states ban the use of noncompetes entirely and 33 states plus DC restrict their use.
As explained by the FTC, "A district court issued an order stopping the FTC from enforcing the rule on September 4. The FTC is considering an appeal. The decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions." (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/features/noncompetes)
Lina Khan is like 90% of the reason I'm enthused by Biden (now Harris) and it would be an even bigger tragedy than when Google kicked her out of New America. I sincerely hope they don't do that, given I'm far from alone in admiration of Lina
i'm a visa worker and i've seen people in my country say that visa workers are prejudicial to the country's work environment.
what if this kind of person gets to union leadership and just accepts a bad deal to visa workers?
what about a pro-back-to-the-office (and there are tons of people here that are 100% for RTO policies) workers? if they get a majority, they can vote that union workers have to go back and that's it.
1) we get higher salaries to compensate, that's in fact why SWE's are often "exempt" (as well as most jobs making over $80k iirc. We should probably raise that ceiling)
2) I already do that. Maybe I'm lucky, but I've never felt pressured to answer a work message unless there was a legitimate fire.
3) Non-competes are already illegal in California, which I imagine has the most SWEs in the US.
I'm all for unions, but I already see the pushback here. Visa situations definitely suck though.
They correlate somewhat. The more money and demand you have, the less you need to collectively bargain with businesses for basic survival. Unions tend to form out of desperation, rather than some long form insurance plan.
Mine is: "Why negotiate alone? Your employer has an army of lawyers and HR types to prepare your contract. If you and a bunch of coworkers pool your resources you can benefit mightily by hiring someone to sit on the other side of that table."
Incorrect, as you have no leverage as an individual employee. The less resources you pool together, the less negotiation power you have.
What you're describing is an idealized free labor market. In actuality, you are not in fair competition with other laborers because the labor market isn't a free market.
Unfortunately, your "real life" experience is worthless because it's at odds with reality.
Everyone likes to believe they're mama's special little laborer. One in a million, a diamond in the rough.
Even if this were true (it's not), IF you banded with fellow super duper awesome laborers you would necessarily have more bargaining power. It's just logical. If losing you is X bad, then losing 3 of you is X * 3 bad. Given X is some positive number, which is bigger: X or 3X? 3X, of course, so you have much more leverage.
What you need to keep in mind is you have absolutely 0 point of reference. You can't say "well I have a ton of leverage!" when you've never been in a SWE union. You haven't, have you? Okay, so what are you comparing against? Nothing, right?
And even though you have nothing to compare against, you still believe you're correct? With no basis? I'd check your hubris.
I feel I may be wasting my time by pointing out that “real life” == “reality”.
At any rate, I disagree. I don’t like the idea of someone controlling my work prospects for a tiny bump in pay. I’m more than capable of negotiating my own pay.
Fact is, I have enough leverage to be happy with where I’ve gotten in life and I think there’s enough like-minded people like me that (hopefully) we’ll never have to put this theory to the test.
Mama’s special laborer will keep on doing this own thing.
You're not, you've merely deluded yourself into believing it. What I'm telling you about leverage isn't an opinion, it's objective. You, objectively, factually, have significantly less leverage by yourself.
> I think there’s enough like-minded people like me
Unfortunately, you are correct. There exist swaths of people at the intersection of selfish and delusional. The unfortunate thing is, you're not even particularly good at being selfish. If you were, you'd recognize often the best way to propel yourself forward is to help others too.
You believe that, by depriving other's of money, there will be more for someone as special as you. Even a few years in corporate America will prove, without a doubt, this isn't the case.
Your peers aren't the ones making nine figures and buying yachts and vacation homes off the results of the work you're doing. Look up, not sideways, to find the mis-allocated resources that you're after.
I see no misallocated resources. I enjoy exploiting the system that enables the yacht-havers, because then I too can have a yacht.
And while I get the feeling that most HN commenters feel some sort of misplaced injustice due to this, but the thrill of the game is part of the fun to me. I’d rather that than factory work where I can guarantee my skills will never position me to rise above my station.
The tech industry is so unique in this and it blows my mind how people just want to throw it all away.
It's an interesting follow-up, though I will say that addressing this or pretty much any other counterpoint pushes me over the three sentence limit that was requested :)
To your point directly: successful contract negotiation almost exclusively depends on what leverage you have relative to the counterparty; your skill as a negotiator matters very little if your employer isn't incentivized to come to the table (ex. imagine even an extraordinarily persuasive Amazon SWE trying to get themselves exempted from the RTO mandate in the OP). IDK what your employment situation is, but in my experience isolated employees typically have very little leverage, and therefore very little basis to successfully negotiate a better contract, a more favorable RTO policy, etc. Regardless of whether the upside risk is guaranteed or not (and I disagree that it is guaranteed), its magnitude is likely quite small if you are negotiating alone (maybe during the hiring phase you can pick up an extra 10K salary or get classified as remote, but good luck repeating that success year-over-year). The idea of bargaining as a large group (ie. as a union), rather than individually, is that you have far more leverage together than apart, and that's the most relevant factor when dealing with a big corporation like a FAANG. It's less a question of upside vs downside risk and more a question of opportunity cost: what can you get for yourself alone, vs. what can you get for everybody if you all stand together. Looking at the data, standing together is generally the more profitable approach: https://www.axios.com/2024/03/20/union-workers-wealth-compar...
Look at how well you're being treated now without a union. Look at how well union workers are treated versus their no union worker equivalents. Imagine how much better you'd be treated if there was a union versus your current no union status.
Allowing people to work from home, and then yanking that back even after studies prove happier workers and better productivity is mistreatment in my opinion. Especially when it's malicious and arbitrary when they do it in hopes that you will quit. Our quality of life plummets when we're dragged away from our families and forced into long shitty commutes to sit on zoom in a cubicle all day.
I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of union workers are expected to work from their employer's business premises. Workers should unionize if they're being mistreated, but it's not a magic wand that means I can get whatever working conditions I'd like.
US government agencies still have some of the lowest RTO rates in the country (compared to other employers) precisely because of federal employee unions.
I don't understand why this has been so downvoted – although it might be true for now, there's a deeper truth that it's true that any union benefit has to be fought for and constantly defended between negotiations. (Which is why unions usually have legislative and political advocacy arms to codify these benefits – so they don't have to waste barganing power on them.)
"A union of Software Engineers lets us collectively bargain for better working conditions, such as flexible working locations, reducing PTO request denials, and work-life balance conditions."
control your workplace. Same reason for joining a union anywhere. Collective bargaining gives workers agency and real power, which any free person should prefer over sitting in a golden cage.
My company tried at the start of the year to get everyone back in the office. The worker's council (which is not entirely a union, but very close to it) negotiated for the everyone a three day a week RTO.
I refused to go back for those three days in the hope that nobody who matters will notice, yet they made line managers snitch on people and I was fired with notice because the agreement with the worker's council was "legally binding" and no exceptions could be made. So for me personally the involvement of the union sealed my fate into unemployment.
Unions are not a panacea, it leaves individuals without anything to bargain outside of the lines of agreements already established, and while some professions might benefit from them, I think unions for high skill jobs are not a good solution.
