this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
909 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59631 readers
2754 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a very exciting time. I've been a union guy for 25 years and I will go to my grave not understanding the fierce resistance to unions by my X gen and the boomers. When they would say unions were bad, I'd say let's make ours amazing and... they just refused.
I never thought I would see the resurgence of American labor unions. This is an absolute joy to see.
Depending on where you lived you were plied with anti-union rhetoric. I remember back in the '80s and working at a department store and they had us watch "training" videos about how we were a big family and how unions broke up that family and made us adversaries. I thought it was a bunch of bull, but I'm sure there were plenty of folks that bought into it.
I think the most common explanation for anti union sentiment is this:
Most of the time, our justifications for doing anything are post-hoc: we decide based on gut reasoning, then invent a justification after we've already made up our minds in order to convince ourselves that we're creatures of logic.
When companies show those videos, it does two things: it intimidates, and it provides ready-made arguments for post-hoc justification.
They intimidate workers from organizing, but no one's ego can accept that. If someone says "let's unionize", most people think (subconsciously) 'Fuck!!! That's scary! We're not strong enough, and I'm gonna get totally beaten down if I stick my neck out!!'
And then their brain does it's thing and translates that into justifications, and when it needs words to form justifications, it draws then from the handy dandy premade justifications they were given during their intimation session. It's like, 'You're a bug, and if you fight us we'll step on you! Now here's a balm to soothe this massive wound to your pride. You're welcome. Now get back to work.'
Woah, are you telling me that people are not rational thinking creatures instead act purely on emotion. Cause I fully support that statement.
We have stop using the "reasonable, rational thinking" person as a standard. If people were truly that, there would be a lot less people in debt, more people taking care of their health before problems arose, and less bullshit overall.
True. I remember thinking it was a load of crap, but it certainly got the message across that I'd be alone and out of a job if I tried to form a union.
And I also remember lessons in class where the textbook weren't l went into great detail about the corruption and mob ties of some unions, but very little about anything positive. There has definitely been an effort on the part of powerful folks to denigrate unions.
I remember reading The Jungle in college and getting a much different perspective of labor laws and union value
They don't understand or see themselves as workers because of things like this, they see themselves as individuals who will succeed if they just try their best and be their most "authentic" selves or whatever BS they use. Most important message they try to send is your position in the economic system is about you as an individual and not because of your class or relation to capital.
I've been in one union and it was a corrupt joke. That said, it was still the best unskilled job I've had by a large margin.
I've been in two, and both of them were this way. Tossed most of us under the bus to protect a small group of older employees. We definitely need more unionization, but we also need to weed out the unions that are counterproductive.
Start with the police union
Public employee unions are a bit different though because unlike labor unions there is a third interested party in addition to management and labor, namely the public.
My first union had that reputation. I became a steward and was known as a reformer. Honestly, they weren't particularly corrupt or self dealing, they were just really bad at messaging for the employees. Over time, it just became "common knowledge" that the leadership was secretive and self dealing.
I don't mean that to say that yours wasn't self dealing. Those existed and continue to exist. But I have also never been in a union where the labor body was involved and took it seriously and also had those kinds of problems. If there's one takeaway I learned from unions, it's that we get the union we deserve. When we're in it and active as a body, those were always the best unions. When we have an apathetic labor body, we have an apathetic union.
There will always be factions like every other human activity. People will often be tribal to the detriment of the whole. But at the same time, in my experience, those most against "unions" were almost always the people least involved or not involved at all.
McCarthyism and the decades of fear mongering and misinformation about communism and red scare tricked generations of Americans into thinking that the most patriotic thing you could do is die in your work boots for minimum wage.
Certain specific professions like IT, and its mercenary culture, don't fit well with the collective bargaining model. For many other professions/careers, a union can be a great tool for workers.
By "IT" do you mean tech? Because as a software engineer, I've seen turnover rates of 1-2 years for some of my favorite people I've worked with. If they actually had bargaining power, we know via studies done on unions and turnover rates that these engineers likely wouldn't dip as quickly and take institutional knowledge and their smart brains with them. Tech is so allergic to unions that it is literally inflicting damage onto itself - managers will tell you how expensive it is to hire new people because it takes months for them to catch up to your codebase, but the higher-up leadership is completely unwilling to listen to the data on how to actually retain people. They don't care if unions increase productivity or that the elasticity between productivity and salary is >1.0 as the unionisation rate grows (per studies done in Norway), because they don't want to lose their complete control over companies to collective bargaining.
You're making good arguments why a company employing IT staff (software devs, engineers, architects), but where is the argument to the benefit of the worker themselves in this case?
This is a benefit to the worker. They're leaving because they got a better paying gig or less work/fewer hours for the same amount of money.
Yes, because there's no union there to bargain for better pay, bonuses, more time off work, and so forth. Tech is a new industry where workers have more bargaining power on an individual level because expertise is so sought after. Now imagine combining that with unions and we'd probably all be doing 4 day work weeks already, like unions are currently bargaining for in various countries. We'd likely also have more time for tech debt, as unions increase certain types of innovation.
Like, if unions can do this for McDonalds workers after a sympathy strike in Nordic countries:
Why would we assume tech workers in a very profitable industry wouldn't be able to get away with even more?
We're in agreement. The individual has all the power to bargain for themselves better pay, bonuses, more time off work, and so forth. A union in this case not only adds no value, but subtracts value because it dilutes the benefits across more people. There is certainly a good chunk of dead weight in IT, those that let their skills stagnate or don't put in effort to the team. I've worked with a number of them. At one point I've personally been one of them before I understood it. Much of the individual bargaining means gaining resources that, if spread evenly, would go to some of that dead weight. Keep in mind, even dead weight in IT pays pretty decently. Those folks aren't going hungry. In some ways its one of the few partial meritocracies left, though merit here is not only technical skills but soft people skills combined.
Again, this is mostly an organizational benefit, not an employee one. If the employer doesn't heed the warnings of the employees that tech debt is increasing and becoming a business risk to the organization, the employee doesn't have to fall on their sword to try to save the employer in spite of themselves. The employee jumps to another employer which pays more (or requires less hours). The new employer may have equally or possibly even more tech debt. So the situation for the work is unchanged but the employee's salary and benefits are increased. This is the mercenary culture of IT I was referring to.
Because those at the far end of skilled are getting less to level out those that are less skilled or less committed. Ultimately it IS a zero sum game.
Keep in mind, many IT skills can be very "flash in the pan" or trendy. One year you're in extremely high demand able to demand top dollar, and others your skills are out of market favor and saturated with IT workers with the same skills that aren't in demand and what you can earn with what you know is drastically reduced. It requires the constant prognostication of what going to be in demand next, and the effort to learn those skills to be skilled up if those skills go up in value for a time. Its a huge gamble. You bet right sometimes can demand a kings ransom for more hours than you can bill. Other years you bet on the wrong skills and have learned something nearly worthless or so short lived it wasn't worth the effort.
Savvy IT people (and other industries that work the same) understand this cyclical nature and save during the fat years to be able to live okay during the lean years.
Couldn't agree more as a software engineer who recently switched jobs. Unions are fucking amazing in most industries, but I can't help but feel it would hurt workers more than it would benefit us in tech. You could guarantee 5% a year raises indefinitely and it still wouldn't be enough. Even at companies where you consistently get 10% raises per year + bonus you can just jump and hit 20%+.
Software engineers can also have insane risk tolerance career-wise because we make enough money to build massive emergency funds and investment portfolios to fall back on if things go south. This is all without considering that sometimes you just don't vibe with a team, or you stop learning and want to go elsewhere to expand your skill set. Under a union, which usually awards people based on tenure, you'd be punished for making these sorts of moves despite them making you a better software engineer.
I'm a unionized tech worker going on 15 years and many of my close friends from college have similar career paths minus the unionized position. There are a couple who are now in senior leadership management level and make more, but those wouldn't be unionized positions anyway. Everything considered I make more and have better benefits and conditions as a result of collective bargaining, and all the downsides people bring up I've likely had personal experience with, but when I talk about these things with my private-employer friends it usually leads to, "if you think that's bad..." Like I've seen ineffective people be fired and all that. I've moved around a bit, had promotions to different salary bands, all within the union.
Overall I think given the amount of capital thrown in to tech industry vs how people work and are compensated, it's one of the fertile grounds for organization and worker actions. Especially when it comes to outsourcing work to countries where workers can be more easily exploited because the labor laws are so much worse.
All fair points, and I'm definitely leaning more towards your viewpoint having read them.
I guess I've just never felt the need for them given I've been treated and paid well so far, and I really like the ability to just walk next door at a moment's notice if I so desire. Not that I've ever not given two weeks, but the option to do so, and not feeling like I'm gonna be compensated less due to short tenure is nice. Not that unions have to operate that way, but historically that's the case.
I'm glad it has worked well for you! I'll definitely be more open to joining one in the future, and strongly consider it if the opportunity arises. Thanks for your perspective.
I think with professional-managerial type jobs like ours, we have knowledge that the employers consider valuable and if you're effective in the role you're pretty much able to find a good job, like you have that bargaining chip. That doesn't mean that will always be the case but for now it's pretty good, especially in certain countries. For "replaceable" jobs or ones that involve physical labor and safety the unions are a lot more necessary, especially industrial unions.
nah they're just part of the last layoff
This. I'm a computer programmer, never been in a union, but after twenty years of startups I cannot believe how good it is to be at a small, stable, employee owned company.
Only looking back do I realize that the people doing the actual work were never in control, and just how damaging that is.
To pour you life and soul into building something (time, and time again), and then have it taken away from you again, and again.
Never going back.
Unions can't really prevent layoffs unfortunately, but can guarantee severances. However most tech employees already receive generous severance packages.
Software engineers also still sit at half the unemployment rate of the rest of the US despite the layoffs throughout this past year.
I'm very pro-union, I just don't think they belong in tech given how much power engineers already have, and that power being entirely dictated by the ability to jump ship yesterday.
I've never been in a union, but there was an era where individuality and meritocratic means seemed like the pathway to unlimited success but this doesn't really map over to blue collar work. Unions were not likely to help because they batch outstanding workers at the same level as the lowest performers on the team.
But unions work a bit like an alternative to minimum wage. All the boats rise with the tide, so if the UAW scores big with some mfgrs, other auto workers are going to want a piece of that too or they'll switch.
This can backfire though because a lot of jobs can still be automated if they aren't economically feasible.
In my union good workers get paid above scale or they get promoted or they move to a different company that will pay them above scale. Also, people have reputations and if you're a complete fuckup of an employee, you will either be fired or laid off and eventually you'll find yourself on the "available for work" list down at the hall, but never getting hired because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit. You will say that it's a kind of informal blacklisting, which is true, but I'm in the union too and they can't make me hire people I know I don't want.