Hacker News Reader

Comment by bartread | Hacker News Reader

> Of course that doesn't mean that programmers shouldn't form a union.

That's potentially quite an expensive trade-off. You give up your ability to negotiate so that somebody else will collectively negotiate on your behalf.

That can work out well, at least for a while, but it's worth considering the longer-term consequences. E.g., in the longer term it can favour cheaper labour or cheaper competitors elsewhere. (Yes, you can argue that's the case even in the absence of unions, but there are stark examples of unionisation bringing about the premature demise or severe shrinkage of large industries: steel in the UK, the auto industry particularly in the UK (and also, to some extent, the US), coal in the UK, and the list goes on.)

For me outsourcing your negotiating power falls into a similar category to outsourcing your thinking: it simply doesn't feel like a good idea to me.

View on HN

Yes and no. You could likely work outside the union though with their minimum pay/max hours (and a employer side of the same). A union could work for local jobs with other unions (think districts) to keep things local and provide equitable pay guidelines or openness. You likely would not be required to join anyway.

Plumbers have it mostly sorted out though. Critical tech might demand higher pay but I love this story I read of a band doing a wedding and negotiating pay for a 4 hour reception. The planner and band can't come to an agreement so the band says to call the local plumbers union, ask what the cost is for 4 guys on a 4 hours job, and use that number with some drinks tossed in.

Why do you say you lose your negotiating power? The union will ensure that you have the same basic rights (and salary) that everyone else in the field. That doesn't mean you can't ask for a raise or a higher starting salary.

What typically happens with unions is the agreement will likely contain a salary guideline adhered to most of the time, which diminishes individual leverage.

Your overall leverage is increased through the union so you are more likely to get a fair compensation than before.

not if the union negotiates upper limits on compensation.

Or it negotiates yearly raise brackets.

You can negotiate better individually if you are good and there arent union enforced guidelines, if you're not, the union deal would work out better.

Professional athlete unions are a strong counter example. Unions do what their members want them to do.

Or it can do nothing of the sort, instead negotiating things like non-competes, options exercise window, etc. See screen writers or actors unions for examples.

Then your union is bad and you should work to improve it.

No wonder if US unions always end up so bad if apparently nobody is willing to fix things and let pancilpushers do it.

I'm in europe, unions are mandatory everywhere, some are good, some are not, average just do what the company wants them to, usually the 2-3% raise every year.

Unions don't really work for software, high demand, low supply of people, here you can negotiate better then without one, and if you are not happy, next job.

They aren't mandatory everywhere, atleast in germany.

You can join the union or not. If you don't join you can still take advantage of the union negotiated rates or not if you wish. If you think you can negotiate better than the union you're still free to do so.

Do you see yourself as becoming a top earner in your field?

Do you know if you earn more than your colleagues? If so, is this because of your negotiating skills?

I know I am compensated fairly and that puts me as top earner for my current country.

It is due to demand and offer for my technical skills... I switch or ask for a raise if I get a better offer, anyone can/should do that.

It's not due to unions. Here unions are mandatory and result is what I said earlier, that plus making it hard to fire incompetent people.

If there's any sort of competition for employees then you have to be ready to offer more than the guideline to keep/attract the best people.

The unions you are referring to are almost universally for blue collar workers. Most professional athletes are members of unions. Most highly paid actors are members of a union. Neither of those groups have decreased individual leverage. It's unlikely that a union for highly paid white collar workers would closely resemble a union for blue collar workers.

Programmers are much closer to electricians than they are professional football players, though. Athletes and actors have star power, and considerable individual leverage. Tom Cruise is definitely in the Screen Actor's Guild but when's the last time SAG did anything for him? They're there to make sure the lowest end gets their $2k/week.

I get your point and it's a good one, I just think when we're talking about literally 100-200 people negotiating 8 and 9-figure yearly contracts it's an outlier (to say the least).

> Neither of those groups have decreased individual leverage.

Huh? Sure they do. The MLB negotiated agreement is terrible for top performers, who are paid close to the league minimum salary for the first three years of their career, and an arbitration-determined salary for the next two.

As soon as the union-negotiated common salary time runs out, top players’ pay jumps several times.

What were equivalent players paid before the unions existed? Sports unions are responsible for the massive increase in pay over the years. Those top performers would have been making much less in the absence of a union, both at the start and in the peak of their careers. I personally don't view that as decreased individual leverage.

> As soon as the union-negotiated common salary time runs out, top players’ pay jumps several times.

That 'several times' level only exists because of the unions.

That's never been my experience with unions and wages. My salary has been based in what I negotiated but the union ensures that each year I get a raise that is at least in line with inflation so that I am not, in really terms, making less money each year. They also collectively bargain on my behalf for annual leave and provide the same function for me that HR provide for my employer.

I would love (seriously) to hear an example of a union that negotiates pay for its members but individuals successfully get additional raises or bonuses on top of that (not just for doing additional work). Teachers, pilots, public sector employees, all have pay contractually set. If you're a high school teacher and you ask your Principal or Vice Principal for a raise out of band you'll get laughed out of the room.

Most teachers work in public schools so even if the principal could give them a raise they wouldn't be able to but in private schools they absolutely could. Pilots are an interesting example because AFIK they negotiated terribly, i.e. they have all sorts of benefits and high salaries for the high-tenured pilots but new pilots are almost working for free. Student pilots have been told for years that there's an upcoming shortage of pilots but right now you're lucky to get a job anywhere in the world. If you're looking for examples then look at europe. In my country everyone has the right to negotiate their salary once a year even though most people are part of a union. Where I worked I would always be able to get a couple of % added to my salary.

SAG. The NFL Players Union. Just two examples.

But the NFLPA still hurts top performers. The joint negotiating in the NFL absolutely leads to the highest paid players being paid less than they would without a union. The revenue split, the franchise tag, the minimum salary, the rookie pay scale (arguable), and the veteran benefits all lead to less of the pie being available to the top tier players and less negotiating power. The salary escrow provision is a great example of an out-of-date rule that exists due to CBA negotiations and 100% hurts the top earners (while also providing zero actual benefits - it just existed because it has been there for decades and it's an effort to change anything when doing collective bargaining).

Not that I think any of this is bad since the NFL is brutal to its lowest earners, but it absolutely hurts the highest earners.

Yes, and democracy hurts the top aristocrats. But we don't tend to view antidemocratic aristocrats very kindly, even if maintaining antidemocratic systems are good for them.

Some people experience less optimal outcomes in a union. Those people are free to resist unionization. What I don't like is the claim that, because some specific high performers can no longer negotiate as well, everybody else should shut up about unionization.

Do you see yourself as becoming a top earner in your field?

Someone else brought these two up elsewhere in this thread. Are there no examples of regular people who aren't making tens of millions of dollars a year?

Unions have largely been crushed in the US so if you keep asking for more examples eventually things will run dry.

But the screenwriters guild is another example if you don't want to look for one where top performers are paid eight figure salaries.

I'll have to look into the writer's guild more, thanks!

This regularly happens at Siemens. IG Metall negotiates contracts and good engineers negotiate bonuses on top of the contract, or increases in pay grade.

Do you feel you are a top earner in your field? If not, do you think you will become a top earner in your field?

Do you know if you earn more than your colleagues?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com