You can, and the company can choose to not hire you. There is a huge power imbalance between employers and employees. Right now, this is muted because the job market is so tight. This will not be true forever.
> Just because it's something you personally find advantageous doesn't mean others feel the same way, and no one should ever be forced into it.
As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.
Of course we do. Doesn't make it a good idea all the time.
I noticed you've emphasized this twice. You have to admit that this pro-active idea of "join a union before you _really_ need the union" is not that compelling of a sales pitch to a lot of developers who already have good paying jobs. It's human nature.
>I never understand employees who don't want to unionize.
Do you really want to understand? I think the reasons are obvious: most programmers don't see any economic benefits to paying ~$500 (or whatever amount) annual union dues for very little gain.
If you can prove to developers that paying $X would return tangible benefits in excess of those fees, there would be an unstoppable movement. The proof isn't there yet.
As many programmers have testified, they already get excellent pay, benefits, work hours, etc without union representation. Yes, of course some programmers are suffering in terrible jobs but not enough of them (yet) outnumber the people who don't want to pay for a union.
I can easily understand why some programmers want a union. But it's a mystery why union supporters also can't see why some don't want it.
Join a union so your kid doesn't have to direly need a union.
If you don't have kids, substitute an imaginary version of you who's growing up and falling in love with the same craft you did, except right now.
One example - teachers. In the public sector, teachers are unionized yet underpaid, and in general terms, have unfavorable work conditions.
In the private sector, teachers get paid much better and have the freedom to actually run their classroom in the way they see fit.
The union isn't the cause of this disparity, but it clearly doesn't overcome it.
While this might be true wherever you are from, it is definitely not universal. Every US state I have lived in has been the opposite.
At a private school, the advantages to teachers are the student base is self-selected and can be expelled, and the school can teach things a public school cannot (often religious).
At a public school, pay, benefits, and job protections are much better.
Being able to "run your classroom the way they see fit" is a school-by-school work culture thing, but a teacher with more job protections would always have more leeway in how they ran their classroom. A teacher working at-will could never truly run their classroom the way they saw fit, because "do X or you're fired" is always a possible ultimatum.
Ideally the government should have worker protections in place that do exactly what a union does.
Of course in reality you need groups to represent the workers to put pressure on the government to do that. But I'd rather give money to groups like the EFF who specifically push policy and lawsuits over a group like a union.
Should Software Engineers want to remain a part of the professional class over the long term, it would be ignorant to not push for these things and introduce further supply restrictions around who can and cannot be a software engineer just as how accountants, lawyers, actuaries, ect have all done before them.
This is funny for me to read, because you probably intended to imply that's a bad thing. I'd also question whether the forms of domination which the founders of the unions of old has decreased or just changed form - and even given that it has decreased, what is an acceptable level of exploitation? I would say none, and many union members would agree with that supposition.
Today not being that bad means that today is still bad.
It's a trade, one person trades their time, knowledge effort and skill, the other trades money and other compensation. As I said, I'm not even anti union. I would rather see a guild around software development over a union though, based on reputation over protecting the bad performers. It could be considered A union, but wouldn't act like a typical union in practice.
If you are more senior, and submit that a junior is ready to move into a journeyman role, your reputation is also at least partially on the line if they cannot do the work, or put in the effort to get there.
No person's wants should ever infringe on another's rights.
Some theorists define exploitation in capitalist society as unequal exchange of labour, see John Roemer for instance; other more traditional critiques see it similarly but it may apply individually (such as Marx's theory), and yet others see it as a class issue. Of these, they can be grouped into PECP (Profit-Exploitation Correspondence Principle) and CECP (Class-exploitation Correspondence Principle). There's a lot of talk and debate as to whether which of these, if any, is a viable or possible way to characterize modern relations of production.
>It's a trade, one person trades their time, knowledge effort and skill, the other trades money and other compensation.
In the employment relationship, this trade is assymetrical, hence the need for either strong labour laws, a rich union culture or both.
>No person's wants should ever infringe on another's rights.
The critique of capitalism begins with a critique of rights-based thinking. In short, some people don't believe that rights are a useful tool to characterise how society ought to look, since it is clear that despite universal rights, some are clearly more able to take advantage of them than others. The propertyless have right to property. So what? Where does that get them most of the time?
This is an assumption, and a logical fallacy. The whole problem of doing something "for the greater good" is that no one on Earth can definitively define what is good and what is not. Trying to do so is the bottomless rabbit hole we call ethics. OP is correctly pointing out that your view of unionizing being advantageous is subjective.
This is simply moral relativism. That argument holds up only under specific, ad-hoc circumstances. A group of people can very easily come to a conclusion that an action should be taken because they agree on it, and find out later that the consequences of that action were detrimental.
If a group of people collectively make a decision that is not consistent with evidence and their ethical system, then they are not making decisions correctly. I don't think anyone here is debating that decisions can be incorrect.
No it's not. The poster was seemingly espousing a belief that because he didn't want a union, it is morally wrong to force one on him. That is inconsistent with a belief in the benefits that government coercion can sometimes be a good idea. A union could conceivably be a bad thing or a good thing, but to dismiss it with a rights-based argument simply doesn't make sense.
> The whole problem of doing something "for the greater good" is that no one on Earth can definitively define what is good and what is not.
All endeavors may fail. We make decisions based on probability of outcomes. This is the same for both individual and collective decisions. If we cannot make collective decisions under uncertainty, then there is no point to any government whatsoever. Also, if we cannot come up with a baseline of ethics to evaluate possible outcomes, then we can't make any collective decision either.
> A union could conceivably be a bad thing or a good thing
> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.
You are contradicting yourself. If a union could be a good or a bad thing, then one cannot use the argument that we do things for the greater good without presupposing that a union is a good thing. You are indeed assuming your own premise as true, which is indeed a logical fallacy.
There are historical arguments for and against particular unions for particular people, and there are studies of the impact of union activity.
"That's subjective" is the start of a debate, not the end of it.
No I'm not. In these comments I am arguing against the premise that a closed shop union is automatically invalid because the coercion would be wrong. The advantages that a union can have is not subjective under pretty much any reasonable ethical framework. If your ethical system can not produce judgments about public policy based on evidence, then it is useless.
Subjectivity is a different thing from uncertainty. The goal of ethical systems is to provide a way to make ethical decisions based on evidence. If we can agree on some ethical concepts, then objective decisions can be made given those concepts. The selection of an ethical system is subjective, but it's pretty obvious that it must allow for coercion.
Is it hard to see why an individual might be against that?
> Is it hard to see why an individual might be against that?
It's not hard to see, but individuals who prioritize their own desires over the greater good of their community are often (rightly) regarded as selfish. It is hard to have much empathy for someone who has their selfishness thwarted.
I'm represented by a union at my job and I also negotiate these things myself (well, the union has a bargain for minimum working conditions, so I can't say "if you pay me $1000 I'll move my desk to the HVAC room"). The union comes into play more for things like health insurance and retirement benefits. I can't imagine an individual having much luck getting their insurance copays reduced, but the union seems to have a decent amount of success.
I think a lot of people would be better off with a union, though really I more advocate cooperatives.
Turns out, you do need someone to do that for you, in fact you're almost always in better shape if you do get an advocate.
Having a collective agent is almost the polar opposite.
Things like retirement and health benefits are not negotiated at the individual level. having a personal representative likely wouldn’t help much in that area, but a union would.
In the event that your personal agent is negotiating for you personally, but also for several teammates, of course there is then a conflict and your interests may be traded for the interests of another one of his clients, which is an issue.
This is still better than having your interests pooled together, but not as good as having ONLY your interests advocated for.
It's not objectively better to negotiate by yourself, stop pretending like it is.