Hacker News Reader

Comment by thesuitonym | Hacker News Reader

>tell me what the terms of the contract will be and I'll decide for myself.

Nobody can tell you what the contract will be because the contract won't be drawn up until the union exists and has enough members to bargain.

What you DO know is the current contract you have. You DO know that you have virtually no say in what is in that contract, "accept it or leave," is not having a say in that contract. You DO know that as a member of the union, you will have a vote in what employment contracts look like. You DO know that if you have an issue, you have someone outside the company that you can talk to about it--that is, you wont' get fired for bringing it up.

View on HN

Sounds like the cart before the horse. Tell me I'm signing up for something that I have no idea how it will turn out, and then present me with a take it or leave it contract months later. And I'm stuck.

Its funny to see someone argue for less control over their workplace because they're used to being handed take-it-or-leave it contracts because they've never had any power in the workplace other than to leave.

The feeling you're describing is called negotiation power. What if you and your coworkers like your job but are getting slavedriven for 80 hours a week and that just doesn't work out for you? Right now you have the following options: 1. Leave.

If you had a union you could: 1. Leave. 2. Decide to stop working along with other coworkers who are also pissed off until they agree to stop slavedriving you. 3. Decide to stop working along with other coworkers who are also pissed off until they agree to pay you more for being slavedriven.

I like the latter myself. Having people who care about an enterprise means you don't end up getting run entirely by a bunch of MBAs who listen to complaints while watching a spreadsheet of average tenure.

I (from the UK) don't understand: you don't have to join a union. Keep your current contract and don't have a say in Union representation and negotiation, if that's what you want.

It's 'take greater combined power against the corporation you work for' (and in things like representation of your industry before government) or stand on your own as you do now.

I don't understand how it's possible to lose?

You can even wimp out at the first call for solidarity of you want to.

In my current role there are 3 unions that are well represented in the work place, I chose one that seems best to represent my interests and that has members in industries I might move in to.

Benefits for me are currently advice seminars on career progression and work related issues (pensions!), and annual pay negotiations (which are quite weak, pressing for inflationary pay rises).

>Keep your current contract and don't have a say in Union representation and negotiation, if that's what you want.

Union contracts with the company typically bar the company from keeping or entering contracts with non-union workers that have different terms from those of the union.

In many (23) US states, when a union forms at a workplace, it can compel all non-union workers to pay fees to the union, weather they want to join or not.

I think most US workers would be for unions if they were presented as you described, where you can choose between different options or working without a union.

From TFA:

"Arranged as a members-only union, the new organization won’t seek collective bargaining rights to negotiate a new contract with the company. Instead, the Alphabet Workers Union will only represent employees who voluntarily join, as reported by the New York Times. That structure will also allow it to represent all employees who seek to participate — including temps, vendors, and contractors (known internally as TVCs) who would be excluded by labor law from conventional collective bargaining."

That sounds to me awfully like a voluntary union, though I'm not familiar with the laws allowing unions in various US states to compel non-members to join.

I was speaking to US unions in general. Your quote matches my understanding of the Alphabet Workers Union as well, which is essentially the same thing as a social club. It provides no legal protections, and Alphabet has legal obligation to recognize them.

That's not to say I don't like like the idea, which I prefer to traditional Unions where participation is forced.

That's not true though -- union membership is still legally protected even if a contract isn't negotiated.

That requires a vote of 50%+1 of all eligible employees (not just voters) though, to certify the union as the employee representative, followed by regular elections to union leadership. It's not like a few dozen people can just seize control over union dues and negotiation for the whole workplace.

Agreed, I was just explaining how union shops work he US. I am not aware of any significant "members-only" unions in the united states

> Union contracts with the company typically bar the company from keeping or entering contracts with non-union workers that have different terms from those of the union.

I believe that's incorrect. IIRC, the contracts apply the specific classes of workers at specific locations.

I have a friend who works in HR and I know for a fact that their company has different locations that do similar work: some are nonunion, some are union, and the union locations do not all have the same union.

That makes sense, although I would argue he parent post still holds true in that you may not be able to keep your contract and avoid union dues if your workplace forms a union

In a lot of cases, once there's a union you're either in it or unemployed. Unions have a lot of benefits and a lot of negatives. But voting to have one without knowing what _this specific one_ will have either way, knowing that you _must_ be part of it if it passes... that's not a clear decision.

In this case it would be me against a group of employee activists with goals I don't agree with plus the executive leadership. So now I'm powerless against two groups. Even from their announcement post it sounds like they're mostly in favor of political activism and not a single whiff of anything that would actually make my life any better.

This is not how most unions in America work. Usually the entire workforce is represented by (and pays dues to) the same union. Today's Google/Alphabet thing may be an exception to this.

Additionally to RHSeeger@'s note, in some countries even if you did not join the union, you still have to pay the dues, and take on the new contract.

> I (from the UK) don't understand: you don't have to join a union. Keep your current contract and don't have a say in Union representation and negotiation, if that's what you want.

That's not how American unions work. If you don't join the union, you can't work there.

> Sounds like the cart before the horse. Tell me I'm signing up for something that I have no idea how it will turn out, and then present me with a take it or leave it contract months later. And I'm stuck.

That's not a reasonable position, since you're basically asking for someone to predict the future for you (accurately, I hope). Not knowing "how it will turn out" is life, for instance have you ever hired someone new with the knowledge of how they'll perform over the next few years? The answer is no, because it's impossible.

You never know what a contract will be before you negotiate it, and you can always quit and work someplace else if you don't like it. Which is exactly what you probably have now, except your employer writes your contract unilaterally without your input or that of anyone like you.

> You never know what a contract will be before you negotiate it

False. What we can do is look at real life examples of how contracts in other unions have turned out. That is a good baseline for what we could expect from other union contracts.

And the actual, real life examples of other unions, shows me that I absolutely would not want to be in a union.

We do not get to just throw away and ignore the decades and decades of examples of union contracts. That is real evidence that we can look at. And the evidence shows me that I do not want to be in a union contract, based on what other union contracts commonly look like.

> False. What we can do is look at real life examples of how contracts in other unions have turned out. That is a good baseline for what we could expect from other union contracts.

Ok, then. There are a lot of "other unions," which ones are you thinking about? They're pretty diverse. I mean you have all the way from autoworkers, to the film industry, the public sector, to engineers (at Boeing for instance).

> And the actual, real life examples of other unions, shows me that I absolutely would not want to be in a union.

Then go find a non-union workplace, then? It's not like they're going to get banned or anything, and they currently consist of about 100% of software engineering workplaces in the US.

There's this weird vibe I get from some people that tech unions shouldn't exist at all because they personally don't like the idea of them. What about choice?

> Then go find a non-union workplace, then?

Or, instead of that, I could sabotage any efforts to create unions, thereby making it so I cannot be forced to join a union. That sounds way more productive.

> that tech unions shouldn't exist at all

I don't have any problem with a union existing, as long as they are not using labor laws to require people at a certain company to join that union, or require them to pay fees.

You can form whatever social club that you want, but the moment that you try to use the law to require me to pay your fees, or accept your contract, under penalty of losing my job, as per labor laws, then we have a problem, and I will fight your efforts to unionize.

> It's not like they're going to get banned or anything

A union shop would ban me from working at a company, if I don't join that union, or pay their fee. That is how it negatively impacts me.

> they currently consist of about 100% of software engineering workplaces in the US.

Yep! Anti union efforts are winning. And as long as union advocates are attempting to creation union shops, which use labor laws in this way, I hope that anti-union efforts continue to win.

> There are a lot of "other unions," which ones are you thinking about?

Yep! And there are problems with most of the ones that you brought up.

Any union that takes into account seniority, and negotiated based on that, is a union that I have a problem with.

Any union that puts up barrier to entry into the industry, by required certain standards, or doing the things that for example the film industry does, is a union that I have a problem with.

The film industry union, for example, has very serious barriers to entry, that make it difficult for new actors to join certain film productions.

Other examples of bad unions would be things like the pilots union. It might be fine for the piloting industry, but the problem with the pilot's union model is that it is literally entirely based on senority. If you leave Fedex, for example, and join Delta, then you start at the bottom, and lose all of your pay raises and benefits that are strictly determined by the union.

(And please don't even try to argue with me about this, regarding piloting unions. Both my parents work for fedex, and are in the pilot's union. I know how they work.)

This situation might be fine for the piloting industry, but I would absolutely hate it if I were defacto required to work at the same company for my entire career, in the tech industry.

> Or, instead of that, I could sabotage any efforts to create unions, thereby making it so I cannot be forced to join a union. That sounds way more productive.

Well, at least that's honest.

> Other examples of bad unions would be things like the pilots union. It might be fine for the piloting industry, but the problem with the pilot's union model is that it is literally entirely based on senority. If you leave Fedex, for example, and join Delta, then you start at the bottom, and lose all of your pay raises and benefits that are strictly determined by the union.

> (And please don't even try to argue with me about this, regarding piloting unions. Both my parents work for fedex, and are in the pilot's union. I know how they work.)

While I'm sure you disagree, that's some pretty fallacious reasoning. It's like arguing against the concept of for-profit corporations because you don't like some practice of, say, Accenture, because you falsely assume that practice must be replicated without any any reform to all other companies.

Most instances of things have flaws, often serious flaws, but a lot of people seem to hold unions to a weird standard where they should be rejected unless all instances are flawless.

Personally, I'd also have a problem with a union that "is literally entirely based on senority," but I think it makes more sense to reform the institution than reject it (and throw the baby out with the bathwater).

>> they currently consist of about 100% of software engineering workplaces in the US.

> Yep! Anti union efforts are winning. And as long as union advocates are attempting to creation union shops, which use labor laws in this way, I hope that anti-union efforts continue to win.

And anti-democracy efforts are also winning in China. I mean, CCTV has pretty clearly shown that they're so unstable, with weak incompetent leadership. Don't you hope those anti-democratic efforts continue? I know I prefer to live under a strong, competent leader like Xi.

Anti-union efforts are winning, but mainly because business has long been in a more powerful position than labor and has been more effective at propagandizing its position. IIRC, that propaganda mainly consists of creating a distorted picture based on selectively chosen truths.

> because you falsely assume that practice must be replicated without any any reform to all other companies.

You yourself asked me for some examples of problems that I had, lol! Why even ask me what problems I had with unions, if your response was just going to be "Well, we can't look at your real world example"?

Also, I do not accept any hypothetical union, that does not exist, as a justification as for why unions are good.

The only thing that I will accept is a real world example, of a real union, so that we can make judgements on that to see if it would be good for the tech industry or not.

> to a weird standard where they should be rejected unless all instances are flawless

It is not about being flawless. Instead it is that the actual, real world examples that I have of unions, very often include very serious problems.

> reform the institution

So now we are entering the world of fantasy land. If you cannot point to a real world example of a union that you like, then any argument that you are making right now is just a story that you made up in your head that is not backed up to fact.

I have already pointed to very serious problems in unions. That is valid evidence.

And the only response that I ever get, when I point out the very serious problems with real world unions is "Well, all the examples that you brought up don't counts, and no I don't have any examples of unions that I like! Instead, you should just believe me that things are going to be good, even though all the real world evidence proves otherwise".

If pro union people want the tech industry to get on board then they need to show us facts, evidence and real world examples, instead of making up a story that is not backed by anything.

That's not how collective bargaining works. A contract has to be negotiated between the union members and management. As a member, you would have a say in the contract that the union negotiates.

For example, I was a member of the organizing committee for the union at my last job where I worked as a software engineer. After the union was recognized, members held an election for all the union's leadership positions as well as for the members of the bargaining committee that negotiates the contract with management. Bargaining sessions between the union and management is completely open for any member of the union to attend. The committee publishes reports to the membership after each bargaining session on the items discussed. Presuming the union and management come agree to the terms that would go into a contract, that tentative agreement is sent to the members of the union to vote on and either accept the terms, or to reject them, in which case the union and management will continue to bargain a new tentative agreement.

What you're describing "tell me I'm signing up for something that I have no idea how it will turn out" is actually what happens when you accept any new job you take. When you accept a job offer, you know a few things, e.g., your salary and benefits, your manager, etc. But there's a lot you wouldn't typically know, e.g., how performance is evaluated and how promotions and raises are determined, what your workload would be and what protections you might have from overwork or excessive discipline or unfair termination.

What a union provides is not only a voice for everyone in the workplace, but for collectively bargaining and making clear the the conditions and treatment you can expect in your workplace.

You would have a part in shaping the contract, though. And if you don't like it, yeah, leave the union, you're no worse off than you were before.

If the new contract is worse, leaving the union isn't sufficient to get back to where you were, because the employer won't offer the old terms to non-union members and the new terms to union members.

You may or may not be better off. How will people that are/aren't part of a union be treated if some people are members? If majority is union and you are not, will you be shunned, denied same opportunities for promotion, etc? We can only guess.

The management have to find out you're in a union first, then ... why do they shun you, what's the play you're imagining here?

Don't you have employment contracts? People will, at least under rule of law, be treated according to their contracts and your country's employment law??

Does your company currently investigate who you've spoken to about your job and seek to punish you for representing your better interests?

I believe the person you're replying to was talking about how non-union members would be treated by union members. And, at least in the US, the answer is "horrible". The people in the unions are widely known for coming out hard and strong, with considerable bile, against anyone that so much as expresses the opinion that the union might not be the right choice for them. Rats, scabs, etc; pick your insulting name, they're called it.

And you have about as much leverage in shaping the union contract as you do in negotiating your individual employment contract, so where's the win?

The difference is in the incentives. The union tries to make it's members happy. The employer tries to avoid liability and make a profit.

One of those is more aligned with your interests than the other.

> if you don't like it, yeah, leave the union, you're no worse off than you were before.

Completely false. With the ways that union laws work, if the majority of workers at a company unionize, then I have no choice but to be subject to their contract and fees.

Most tech companies are not in right to work states, so I'd have to go along with the contract.

That is how I would be worse off.

No one is forcing you to work a union job in the same way that no one is forcing you to work a job you don't like.

> No one is forcing you to work a union job

The person asked if I was worse off or not. And I am. I am worse off in that I cannot stay at a job that becomes a union job, without having to pay the union.

That is how I am worse off.

Why is it bad to be forced to contribute to union dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits involuntarily (as all employees are in for-profit enterprises)?

Huh? Contributing to shareholder profits is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has shareholders.

Being forced to pay union dues when you've decided not to be a part of that union is literal theft.

Huh? Contributing to union dues is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has compulsory union membership.

Give whatever moral arguments that you want. I will repeat once again. The person who I was responding to said " you're no worse off than you were before".

This statement is not true, and I have explained exactly how I would be worse off.

I would be worse off in that now I have to give money to the union, and I now have to be represented by their deals, and I don't want that. That is how I am worse off.

I don't care about your moral arguments. Instead I care about what hurts or helps me.

But you're also worse off because your employment contributes to shareholder profits rather than your own wages.

Why don't you care about that? Particularly when these profits are likely far higher than any union dues.

I will repeat again. The person claimed that I would not be worse off. And that person was wrong. And I have described specifically how I would be worse off.

You keep trying to redirect to something that is not relevant. The relevant question was whether or not I would be worse off with a union. And the answer is that I have giving an exact answer as to how I would be worse off.

Glad that you agree that the original person was wrong, and that I was right on how I would be worse off.

Nothing that you said at all disagrees with me regarding this specific issue. You have made no statement that disagrees with the true fact that I would be worse off by having to be under the union contract."

This conversation is about whether or not people are harmed by unions in this way, and bringing up irrelevant stuff does not change that.

Nothing that you said is an actual convincing argument as for why unions do not harm me, when I have laid out specifically how it makes my situation worse.

I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues. Why not give a straight answer?

To address your better off vs worse off question: You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining.

> I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues

I said nothing of the sort. Instead I responded to someone who claimed that unions make me no worse off. And I have described how that is false.

That is the only thing that I have said. Please do not put words into my mouth or say that I said things, when I did not say them.

Can you please stop lying about me saying anything, when I have been extremely clear regarding my original statement?

It seems like you do not disagree with me that the original person is wrong though.

> You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining

Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job. There are many things in actual real life examples of union contracts that I would strongly oppose.

And no, I will not accept you talking about some hypothetical union contract that does not exist, where you claim that this non standard union contract, that has none of the bad things that I brought up, would help.

The only thing that I will accept as arguments, as for why unions are good or bad, is actual real life examples of contracts that have been enacted in the real world, because anything else is just a story that someone made up in their head.

And there are many examples of concrete real union contracts that I would absolutely not support.

> Why not give a straight answer?

A straight answer to things that you are lying about, that I did not say? I have already given you a straight answer about exactly what I believe, and that I have made no comments on any completely irreverent thing that do not disagree with what I said.

> I said nothing of the sort.

You don't need to say it directly. It's obvious from your tone that you're bothered.

> Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job.

You don't want higher pay?

> You don't want higher pay?

What I don't want is union contracts, which have many very significant drawbacks, in the real world, that have nothing to do with pay.

There are many real world examples of union contracts that have very serious issues, regarding many things not related to pay at all.

And yes, I get to point to the problems that I see in real world examples of union contracts, because anything else about some hypothetical that does not exist, is just a story that someone made up in their head.

Where are you that has laws constraining that you have to be a part of a particular union, sounds very Soviet (in the fascist, dictatorial sense).

Only 28 states have right-to-work laws. In the rest, unions can force you to join or not work at the company in question.

Why is it bad to be forced to be part of a union and contribute dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to your employer's profits involuntarily?

Wouldn't it be a win-win if the shareholders make a profit and I make a profit from my pay, vs. me being forced to pay union dues due to laws protecting unions bargaining power and ability to dictate who can and can't join a certain industry?

Thats how you were already, working under a contract you had no input in

Even if you think this, it is less preferable for me to be subject to two masters that I have little input on, then just 1.

That just makes the problem worse.

And my evidence is any actual real life example of a union contract, which has many things that I do not support in it.

>Most tech companies are not in right to work states, so I'd have to go along with the contract.

Most tech companies are located in California, which is a right to work state.

What? No it isn't. Smattering of links:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... https://legalbeagle.com/13720413-is-california-a-right-to-wo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#US_states_wi...

Some employers have a little flexibility in their contract (I got one of the probably not enforcable in California claims of ownership of work outside the office redlined on a support position).

If you're joining an employer with a negotiated contract, there's really no chance to change it when you're hired; it's accept it or leave. You generally aren't part of the bargaining if you're not a current employee.

Maybe the contract is better, but we'd have to see some to know. Maybe I don't want what the union wants and while I have a vote, it doesn't have significance unless my opinions are shared by others.

At least an idea of what they are trying to bargain for would be nice.

They have a website with a platform and priorities at https://alphabetworkersunion.org/power/why/

"We want to wield our power to ensure:

* Our working conditions are inclusive and fair,

* Perpetrators of harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation are held accountable,

* We have the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values,

* All workers, regardless of employment status, can enjoy the same benefits."

Their union seems to be more social justice focused than I'd be interested in joining, e.g. "achieve just outcomes, social and economic justice are paramount".

I'd be much more interested in tackling things like non-competes, employee ownership of side projects, better vesting schedules, better direction for the company, salaries, revisiting how many H1B visas there are, etc.

IMO Google's vesting schedule is one of (if not the) best out there. Basically the opposite of Amazon (who is something like 5-15-35-45)

My general point is that I'd be up for unionizing to make things better for employees. Not for social justice. Another big one would be moving to a 32 hour work week.

I want specific objectives that make life better for employees including me (although I don't work at Google, I mean hypothetically, if I did). I don't want generic platitudes.

You should read this https://organizing.work/2020/12/there-is-something-missing-f...

Our working conditions are inclusive and fair

How does one define "inclusive and fair". Who decides what is inclusive? The Union? I don't want to apply the fallacy of inclusion, but if someone wears a crucifix and that makes an atheist feel excluded, who is right? I know "the Union will decide" but tyranny of the majority is a real thing. See the ban on burkas/hijabs in many "inclusive" countries.

Also, if you are appealing to the public, saying that the working conditions at Google, where you are paid near the top 1% of the all workers and have free food etc, "working conditions" might not be the right term.

We have the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values

When do you declare your values? Is it always a moving target? To be a conscientious objector in the United States, there needs to be a demonstrable history of your objection. You can't get drafted and then suddenly find religion. How do you stop the inevitable abuse of this exclusion?

>When do you declare your values? Is it always a moving target? To be a conscientious objector in the United States, there needs to be a demonstrable history of your objection. You can't get drafted and then suddenly find religion. How do you stop the inevitable abuse of this exclusion?

Well, we're talking about working on software projects here. I work in defense and would have no qualms about the whole Project Maven thing. But if all they want is the freedom to decline to work on it, that seems pretty reasonable to me. They didn't sign up for that stuff, and Google isn't primarily a defense company.

The draft is (in theory) an emergency measure for the good of the nation. Just like the government can force you to pay taxes, they can force you to fight in the military. That's certainly not a power a private corporation should have.

> They didn't sign up for that stuff

I find this sentiment quite weird honestly. The "contract" between the employee and the employer is that the employee does what the employer asks of them, and in return gets paid for his work. If these employees do not desire to work on projects that Google is getting, then they should terminate the contract and find work elsewhere.

So, Actually. That's exactly what they signed up for.

It is bonkers to me that a employee does not work on what the employee wants to work on, within a company, and yet also expects the employer to keep paying them.

This honestly sounds like so much privilege. These workers are top 1% of the world, it sounds like "whining" when you are not in their position.

Is that "privilege"? Sure, it's power. It's a straightforward extension of the "take-it-or-leave-it" principle you describe.

I have the power to tell my boss "I'm not going to work on that", and they're free to keep paying me to do something else instead. It's the same power I use to negotiate my pay and benefits, and the entire reason I developed this skillset and work in this industry.

Using that power to form a union and wield it collectively is one aspect of the right to freely associate. If Alphabet workers want to use that collective power to negotiate a legal contract protecting their job if they refuse to work on a project, that's their right.

> and they're free to keep paying me to do something else instead

But I am guessing they're not free to fire you, right? So, it's not really "take-it-or-leave-it" but more "take-it-or-choose-something-else". There's not leaving involved.

> If Alphabet workers want to use that collective power to negotiate a legal contract protecting their job if they refuse to work on a project, that's their right.

This is what confuses me, and maybe you can help me understand.

1. Employee and Employer have a contract where Employee will work on what Employer wants and get paid in return.

2. Employee does not want to work on what Employer wants, yet wants to be paid i.e. wants the employer to honor their part of the contract while wanting to renege on their part.

Let's use another example.

Would one be supportive of employees wanting to only work FOSS while at Alphabet refusing to work on anything else, and still "protect their job" i.e. not be fired?

They're free to fire you whenever, for no reason, unless a (union?) contract says differently.

> The "contract" between the employee and the employer is that the employee does what the employer asks of them, and in return gets paid for his work. If these employees do not desire to work on projects that Google is getting, then they should terminate the contract and find work elsewhere.

Ah, okay. So if your current employer asked you and your coworkers to do something that was legal but highly unethical, you and every one of your coworkers would be financially secure enough to quit at the drop of a hat? Must be nice.

> you and every one of your coworkers would be financially secure enough to quit at the drop of a hat

If i worked at Google, where SWE's are earning above 120K at a graduate level. I would hope so. I don't earn that sort of money, nor have that level of a safety net, so therefore, I must compromise and continue to work.

What do you think negotiations are for? Google will decide if accepting these projects is worth keeping their workforce and the workers will decide what they can accept working on for money

> How does one define "inclusive and fair"

A union is a democratically run organization so the answer is the membership.

The answer is we have to place certain restrictions on what we can do, though tyranny of the majority is still better than tyranny of the majority

While not totally unreasonable, this does sound more politically motivated than many traditional unions.

I would say it's more culturally motivated than political. Google has accumulated a lot of idealists that have strong opinions about the direction of the company without being promoted to a level where they can actualize these opinions by themselves. Given the support previous walk-outs have received asking employees there seems to be at least a strong passive support for these opinions.

Part of this is from how outside leadership has been brought in that is accidentally trampling over unwritten rules and part of this is conflicts in the different interpretations the increasing number of employees have of these unwritten rules.

Banjo music and high school sports are cultural. Rules about empowerment are political. The word power is right in there.

I'll grant that there is support and perhaps increasing sentiment. I am not sure that there is consensus that those issues are paramount. I'm also not sure it's even enough for overwhelming majorities are sufficient to enact rules. There is such a thing as a democratic tyranny. But some sort of bill of rights might be interesting, depending.

Thank you for, at least, hypothesizing the benefits, so we can have a proper discussion.

The top two seem fine, but Google is one of the best places to work at on the planet. But I don't mind it being improved.

The fourth one is really just a compensation package. I don't agree that every job should have the same compensation/benefits.

The third one is what I oppose. If you don't want to work on a project, then don't. I don't want to work in a trash dump (oh the pay is great too), so I don't.

I'm also certain that the fourth one will be weaponized and use for deplatforming people.

Sounds political, which is the problem with unions. If I want to work I have to pay dues to a political organisation. Also, why should a company pay you when you refuse to work on a project?

because they value the work you do more than the money they pay you

> You DO know that you have virtually no say in what is in that contract, "accept it or leave," is not having a say in that contract.

Not only is "accept it or leave it" very much a form of "having a say" in your work parameters, it's a much more powerful way of exerting your preferences than voting.

If 100,000 people are voting on a contract your 1/100,000th share of the influence functionally rounds to zero. The contract will reflect your coworkers aggregate preferences, which will in general be completely orthogonal to your own preferences. On the other hand, when you shop around for a job you have unbounded freedom to decide where you want to apply to and what working conditions are you willing to accept. If you want more job stability and better working hours in exchange for lower pay, someone will be willing to offer it to you. If you want "fuck you, pay me", someone else will offer that too.

"Accept it or leave it" is a post-facto event: one accepts or rejects the contents of the contract. What the OP is referring to is participation ("having a say") in the drafting of the contract itself. By definition "accept it or leave it" is not having a say in it.

Having a say in the contract you end up signing (which may be at a variety of different companies) is more personally useful to the individual than having a say in the specific contract of a specific company. So the claim that unions give you more say in the employment conditions of a specific company is irrelevant because it's an optimization towards the wrong objective.

> If 100,000 people are voting on a contract your 1/100,000th share of the influence functionally rounds to zero.

Assuming that you make no effort to influence any of the hypothetical 100,000 people voting on the contract in any way.

> The contract will reflect your coworkers aggregate preferences, which will in general be completely orthogonal to your own preferences.

This is a fairly surprising assertion for me - I can't recall a time I've personally found this to be the case professionally. May I ask how you encountered this in your own professional experience?

> Assuming that you make no effort to influence any of the hypothetical 100,000 people voting on the contract in any way.

And if all 100k people all try to influence each other to different ends that ends up a wash.

> This is a fairly surprising assertion for me

Some people prefer better work life balance, other people prefer higher compensation. Some people want job security, others want higher risk and higher upside. Labour market mobility allows people to sort into the jobs that match their preferences, which is impossible to achieve through collective bargaining because the parts of the collective want different things.

>The contract will reflect your coworkers aggregate preferences, which will in general be completely orthogonal to your own preferences.

Can you elaborate on your thoughts here or cite evidence to support it? On first thought, it doesn’t ring true to me. E.g., most of the union contract conditions seem to benefit most individuals with the exception of some edge cases

Plenty of union contracts emphasize seniority when it comes to pay/benefits/promotions etc, which makes it harder both for younger employees to get pay increases and promotions out of turn and for people to job hop for career progression.

That’s a real concern in terms of meritocracy, but I don’t see how it makes your goals orthogonal to everyone else’s, unless you are always a young out-performer. Almost by default, if you’re not job hopping (presumably to get a raise) you won’t always be one of the younger employees. The out-performance piece is by definition an edge case.

The original comment seemed to lay claim that each individual will sacrifice for the collective to become a net negative. I think there’s a good case to be against seniority rules, but it’s almost impossible to claim they are against every individual self interest.

Most of these problems are industry wide, poor work life balance is the rule in tech jobs, and jobs that are better have such high competition almost nobody will actually be able to shop around.

Flexibility can be built into union contacts, and its unlikely each of the 100,000 people will have entirely different and opposed interested to you

Tech jobs have by far the best work life balance among any job where you can make well into six figures right out of college. How many hours do you think investment bankers, biglaw attorneys, management consultants, medical residents etc. work?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com