Hacker News Reader

Comment by 40acres | Hacker News Reader

This is a strange comment and something I see a lot in online forums, I guess you could characterize this as the "slippery slope" or "worst case scenario" argument. Unions have no power in big tech right now, none of the top tech companies have something resembling a union -- and yet even the discussion of unionization within the tech industry, despite some really terrible working conditions for "auxiliary" tech workers (ride share drivers, fulfillment center workers, delivery app drivers) and "core" workers (ageism anyone?) the slight mention of unionization and/or collective bargaining brings up these types of scenarios. Unionization in tech is not going to look like it does in other industries, I can't help but wonder why some folks shoot it discussions so quickly with this type of argument.

View on HN

The reason "auxiliary" workers get a raw deal in this country is that health insurance is dealt through employers via a terrible WW2 era tax incentive.

If companies didn't get on the hook for providing health insurance they would directly employ more people instead of using contractors.

So this is why I'm worried about labor unions in tech and the private sector in general; they are never the solution, and their lack isn't the cause to any of the described problems.

The point of unions is to get workers a better deal through collective bargaining. In a company that's growing rapidly, it doesn't make sense for either the employees or the owners / management to worry too much about how the pie is getting divided up. As companies mature and growth slows, employees who aren't unionized are inevitably going to get screwed. In an industry where corporate profits can exceed $1000000 per employee, I'd say we need more unionization.

So they can kill these companies faster?

Hahahahaha, I don't think half these startups need any help grinding themselves into the dirt any faster, nor do I think that unions would contribute meaningfully to extinguishing something that wasn't already in process of that.

And honestly, if some hotshot startup dies because it's treating its workers like trash then good riddance. In this day and age we ought to do better than exploiting workers to the bone just because we can.

>The reason "auxiliary" workers get a raw deal...

is because they are something of a commodity. It's low-skill work that is managed in bulk and individuals can be replaced with little friction. The core IT work is in demand by companies, rather than the other way around.

I mean, your point is also true, but it's more of an additional factor rather than the main one.

Yes, they are a commodity, so either they can invest in their education and skills to make themselves more valuable or make it easier for companies to take on more of that "commodity".

A stronger safety net that would allow unemployment workers to acquire new skill is a much better social endeavor than antiquated labor unions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com