Hacker News Reader

Comment by tehjoker | Hacker News Reader

A great thing to unionize over. If you just quit your job eventually the equilibrium of the system will probably result in most jobs having this surveillance over time. You need to fight it directly with coordinated work stoppages.

The reason the system will equilibriate is that at first you'll have your pick of many more jobs. However, certain employers at the margins try it first, then more prestigious ones that keep their employees there with golden handcuffs. Then the rest follow the prestigious ones until there are few jobs without it and your individualist strategy has no where to turn.

View on HN

I disagree. This sort of thing costs the company money, opens them up to possible legal issues, and doesn't actually do anything to improve performance.

The companies that understand that "butts in seats" does not equate to performance will not use this, as such. If those aren't currently the most prestigious, they likely will become so, because they care about doing things that bring results, not merely make bad managers happy. Because of that, while there's an uptick right now, I don't see it lasting; I certainly don't see it taking over.

This is a "just so" story.

So is your parent post on how monitoring will take over if devs don't unionize.

Perhaps, but do you really think developers are different from every other kind of employee? While we are well paid, the overarching story has been to systematize the work and increase the number of workers in an effort to drive down costs and increase management control. I think it's naïve to think this trend will lead to companies making wise decisions that cede additional control to workers. After all, this isn't speculation, we're discussing an article where 1/3 of workers are already subject to it!

The main thing that has made our profession different is that the work is intellectually difficult and requires a lot of training. If you think similar knowledge work jobs aren't subject to such pressures, I know a doctor that is freaking out about how they are training nurse practitioners in online schools to take away hospitalist jobs.

No, but I think everyone being forced to work remotely due to a worldwide pandemic -is- unique. The switch was not a carefully considered bought into thing, and companies are reacting to it with what they think they need, not what they actually find they need.

You call out 1/3 of workers are already subject to it; I will call out that despite almost -every- company going from "I can see who is in the office, at their computer, and I can walk by and get an idea if they're just doomscrolling Facebook, or at least staring at an IDE" to "now I can't tell at all what they're doing", a full 2/3rds of companies, in the UK (a country that already has a culture of passive surveillance, with cameras on most urban street corners and the like) -haven't- instituted such measures.

As time goes on, will that 2/3rds of companies also buy in? Maybe, if they find they can't actually determine who is and isn't producing. But that has always been a challenge with knowledge workers, and the move to remote hasn't actually changed that calculus at all. What -is- certain is that increased monitoring, especially in countries that historically have objected to it (such as the US, which is also a leader in the industry when it comes to establishing trends), has a cost, both monetarily and in morale. If companies don't see a return on investment, the push for it will likely subside, and it becomes something to cut for the sake of budgets, if not also competitiveness in attracting talent.

I will also point out, pre-COVID, most companies didn't actually track time spent in office for knowledge workers. While blue collar employees would clock in and out to ensure they were putting in the hours, and service industry employees would, necessarily, have specific hours they worked, knowledge workers such as devs (a very different category of beast than doctor or nurse, who though knowledgeable and highly trained, are not actually knowledge workers. A nurse is not nursing if they're staring into space thinking about their patient. They are more like service industry in that regard, working well defined shifts that require manpower. Same doctors; there are appointments and scheduled events they have to attend and do. You can't replace a surgery, unlike many meetings, with an email) generally have had no such measures, despite it being no more difficult to institute them. Why? Because companies realized that attendance is not a proxy for performance. The fact a bunch of bad 'leaders', faced with the most singular workplace disruption of our lifetime (hopefully), reacted poorly in trying to pretend it is, doesn't tell us anything about long term trends.

The alternative to "butts in seats" is some kind of hard KPI. Uber doesn't need to pay for "butts in seats" because it can manage workers through discrete and easily monitored performance indicators.

For any job where performance is hard to measure, either a company needs to basically manage contracts (why not just go to Fiverr), or manage by a bad KPI (lines of code? feature points?) or pay for "butts on seats".

"Butts on seats" means "employees who are present, and hopefully intrinsically motivated (rather than driven by a bad KPI) to add value to the company in a way that's not fully specified by their manager."

They very existence of employment as a phenomena (rather than contracting, as it originally happened (IIRC a "factor" was a subcontractor who made goods at home, before it became better to employ them in a "factory" where they didn't need to be micromanaged by KPIs) is because employees are better (in a lot of ways) than management by "things that bring results".

You seem to make the assumption that employee productivity must be reducible to and quantifiable as one-dimensional measurable metrics.

I’m not saying it’s generally wrong to do so but just because it’s tricky for certain positions doesn’t make it a good idea to force it.

>> "Butts on seats" means "employees who are present, and hopefully intrinsically motivated (rather than driven by a bad KPI) to add value to the company in a way that's not fully specified by their manager."

Does the company gain value in employees being present? Sure, if the employee is a security guard. Not so much if it's a dev.

"Hopefully (something else happens)" feels like you're saying "we need a KPI, this is -a- KPI, ergo...". Hoping an easily measured KPI correlates with what you actually care about feels like a -really- bad choice of metric.

I'll also mention, pre-COVID, I've worked at places where attendance wasn't tracked; we had high performers we kept, and low performers we let go. I've never worked at a place that actually checked or cared about attendance, so I can't speak to that, but I can say highly effective workplaces didn't need it.

How did we determine low performers? Well, the tasks they were given didn't get done, nor did they raise up the fact they were stuck. When asked they got defensive. When it eventually was handed to someone else it was done quickly. When they were asked to work with someone else on something, the other person ended up doing all the work. Etc. None of those are "hard KPIs". They're all data points that indicate "this person is not actually moving the work forward".

> This sort of thing costs the company money

You underestimate how much are companies willing to sacrifice efficiency (total amount produced) for profit (extraction of value from labor to capitalist).

There was this book (I don't remember the name) that claimed that UAW unions wanted more worker autonomy to compete with Japanese, and it was more actually more efficient system, but the management killed it because it threatened their position.

> However, certain employers at the margins try it first, then more prestigious ones...

A slippery slope argument. The fact that there exists a gradient of willingness to monitor remotely isn't a sufficient (or even necessary) condition to guarantee that most workers will be monitored: equilibriums can be established at 0% or 100% or anything in between. If remote monitoring isn't tolerated by individuals, I don't think it would become a prevalent practice, even without coordinated collective action.

Apply your logic to pay. Some employers pay very low wages. Others pay high wages. If you just quit your job, will the system reach an equilibrium with low wages? No, in fact, we know that wages in tech are quite high.

You guys will do anything to avoid even considering collective action because you want to hope you don't have to do anything. Hope doesn't guarantee results.

> in fact, we know that wages in tech are quite high.

Are they? Compared to what a janitor makes or compared to what management makes? Compared to what they would be if they hadn't been held back by anti-poaching agreements in the bay area?

That guy, a vishal garg, who fired 900 employees, domestically and internationally --most of them were not developers/programmers, etc. Just run of the mill white collar workers --who presumably he had statistics on given he mentioned many "only worked two hours while claiming eight". So... like everyone who works using a computer then would have to be unionized?

Well, (a) management lies but it's possible and (b) bigger unions are better!

I don't know this story, but didn't they consider firing themselves or their one downs who led this state to exist, if it really did.

900 is not a huge number in Operations. Given a span of control of 10-20 per team per manager, and around 5-8 managers per senior manager, that's about 8 people for them to be managing directly, perhaps add 3-4 as heads of admin or automation functions with small teams then that's an incredibly typical Operations office, at least with boilerplate span of control recommendations that come out of McKinsey, BCG etc (indeed I have problems with these, but it is 'standard').

Was everyone lying to this Head? Did they create a culture of busywork? Did it become a dysfunctional closed shop impervious to supervision? Did the Head at least know their two-downs' names or ever have a chat, or the offer of one?

Just run of the mill white collar workers --who presumably he had statistics on given he mentioned many "only worked two hours while claiming eight".

He claimed that at the same time as firing 900 people. To me it sounded much more like his internal justification for his actions rather than something that was true. Essentially I believe he was mentally shifting the blame from his own failing to successfully run a company that could profitably utilise 900 people, to making it the workers fault that he had to fire them.

The fact that he doesn't appear to be replacing the workers shows there wasn't work to be done. Is it your fault if you do all the work required of you in 2 hours?

Can we just unionize against _this one topic_ and not the other baggage that unions bring?

I think you'll find that unions are defined as democratic organizations of workers and so they will be whatever you and your colleagues want them to be. There is also a legal framework established to keep labor peace, but you don't have to be peaceful (in the sense of not resisting) if you don't want to.

> I think you'll find that unions are... whatever you and your colleagues want them to be

This is not a realistic model at all. The kind of people who tend to accumulate power in unions, especially more white collar unions, do not tend to be the same kind of person or have the same personal or political goals as the people they nominally represent.

Fledgeling tech unions in particular seem terrible here; I don't get the sense that they represent my interests as a tech worker at all, but rather that they come with a ton of political baggage and they only want my membership as a pretense for demanding random crap that I don't care about and doesn't benefit me.

For example, the (unpopular) Alphabet Union "aims to stop Google from allowing its social media platforms such as YouTube to function as a hub for right-wing extremism and white supremacy". It has nothing to do with improving the material working conditions of union members.

I suspect that you and I disagree on the politics, but it sounds to me that the unions haven't found the right issue yet that is broadly appealing enough. This issue of surveillance might be one.

My non-political normative belief is that unions should represent the interests of their members in their capacity as an employee working under the union.

Stopping employers from spying on employees would definitely fall under this description. Again, I just haven't seen any tech unionization efforts in the US that legitimately seem to care about workers instead of using them as a pretense to accumulate power towards some other end.

Well, I do agree they should represent their members' interests. I will aver that fighting alongside your fellow workers builds class consciousness and progressive values, but that's up to you and your colleagues.

I used to be my company's union rep when I worked in Norway. I had zero need to fight for anything my coworkers did not want. Actually, I was very happy to do nothing until my coworkers complained and asked me to talk to management.

Not all unions are the same, if you think those others are bad you can make your own.

> Not all unions are the same

Which is why I very specifically called out tech unions. Plenty of unions seem to be doing the thing I said unions should do (attempt to improve the material working conditions of their members).

Unionization in the US is very different than in Norway.

Anti-Union bias in the US is well founded and rational due to the terrible union laws we have, combined with the terrible track record of US unions

Something that gets lost in the US is that the Union is made up of members. Many Americans appear to have the idea that the Union is the HR department for the employees. As a result, members often stop attending meetings, advocating for policies, etc. The unions devolve into a corrupt body because the lax democratic oversight allows a populist leader to provide just enough bread and circus to member while lining his or her own pocket.

The problem union advocates in America have is whenever things don't go their way, they immediately resort to calling the workers idiots. The workers aren't idiots. When they perceive that unions aren't listening to them, it's usually because that's true. The union corruption and contempt for workers is the cause, not the consequence, of workers giving up on unions.

But union heads are elected by union members, aka workers. If the latter consider the former to be corrupt, they have the power to change that.

Voting in a union like the teamsters might as well be pissing into the wind. The ability of any individual worker to change the way things work is academic at best, particularly in the big unions.

Practically speaking, the most choice a worker has is to vote against the union in their shop, since their shop is much smaller than the union itself. Suppose you've got a shop with a hundred workers, and a union representing a million workers wants you to join. In the initial vote of whether or not to join, each worker has a hundredth of the decision making power. After they join, each worker only has one millionth of the decision making power. The only meaningful choice is whether or not to join that union; after you join you're going along for the ride with no real input into it.

lol what do you think the bosses do when things don't go their way?

Nope. I'd much rather unionize for better wages, better conditions (that includes this topic), collective bargaining, and to wrench some of the power back to the people doing the actual work. Not every software developer is making six figures working for FAANG, some of them have to put up with some awful conditions, and the whole "just get another job, it's not that difficult" attitude is a bubble that a lot of HN lives in.

In short, I want democracy to extend to the workplace. The line we've drawn is artificial and one-sided.

It is people like you that drive high earners away from unions. Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class. If you cannot get enough high income workers to buy-in, then your plan is dead on arrival. Bernie will be proud.

Not everyone cares about the social justice issue du jour, most people just want more money. Ultimately, any union plan must show clear benefits and right now if you are earning more than 6 figures, unions are nothing but a waste of time and money. You have yet to demonstrate that an upper class union can go beyond crabs in a bucket gatekeeping.

> Single issue unionization is a lot more important for upper middle class.

It's just not particularly valuable.

The problem people have with unions is that many of them elevate the lower performers by pushing down the higher performers. The higher performers have leverage already without a union. Of course this only works when there are more positions open that benefit from high performers than there is supply of high performing workers. Many tech workers believe this will be the case for some time to come.

What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.

Many unions do exactly that. Every movie star in the US is represented by SAG-AFTRA, which is the same union that represents B-list infomercial actors. The union helps the stars negotiate multi-million dollar contracts, and the same union ensures actors you've never heard of are compensated and treated fairly. Same thing with professional athletes and their unions.

White collar unions usually negotiate a floor that individuals can up-negotiate from. Not only can you negotiate for better compensation, unions will happily represent you and help you get what you're asking for.

"many". No. Very few (in the USA) in fact act in that way. And a union for white collar workers would most certainly not.

A union for white collar workers would be closer to UAW or AFLCIO and would most certainly have fixed compensation packages

You understand unions are democratic, right? You can vote out the leaders if you disagree how they manage it.

Now of course, if you are in the minority, and still feel slighted (and under-appreciated), there is always an option to start your own business with like-minded people.

I do understand that. And it is one of the reason I do not support them. I am an individual, I support individualism not Majoritarianism

Direct democracy normally end badly because simple Majoritarianism is bad

This is way in most democratic nations the will of the majority is balanced by other means or controls.

OK.. You might as well be a solipsist.

Why do we even have the discussion, then? If you don't want to participate in society, just don't. It's not clear to me why I would support you being an individualist (and adopt any of your political positions), when (according to your philosophy) I get nothing back in turn.

You wouldn’t have to stand in line behind him at the hospital or wait for the fire department to put out the fire at his house first. Because as an individualist, this person can tend to such matters themselves.

That seems like a benefit to you.

lol, nothing could be further from the truth, I have to say though this is the first time I have been called an egotist for advocating for a voluntary, individualist society. That is a new one, I thought I had seen all the ways people that want collective control over society could manipulate my words so A+ for being able to surprise me at my old age.

>> If you don't want to participate in society, just don't.

Participation in society does not require an over aching organization either governments or collective body's to manage my participation for me. I participate just fine negotiating my own individual contracts, my own business deals, etc. I do not need a third party to inject them selves in the transaction. Looks up Voluntarism, and/or Georgism and you will get a since of my worldview, it is far from solipsist

>> when (according to your philosophy) I get nothing back in turn.

Then you have a very narrow world view. The best interactions are voluntary, I attend social events because I enjoy the conversation, I buy a new computer because a need to get X done, I work for my employer because I need income to do the other things, my employer pays me because they need my skills, knowledge, and labor to advance their mission. These are all voluntary exchange where we each get something from the other.

I don't think you're an egotist necessarily, but rather misguided. I mean, how do I know that you aren't egotist if your demand is to walk away from any deal on the basis that it is voluntary? If you reject any tool through which I (another party) can force you to follow the contract? You have to admit, it is very suspicious.

I am not clear how you imagine resolving conflicts in your society. That requires some sort of authority, and this authority being based on democratic vote seems to me like a decent solution. Especially if the conflict involves third parties - negative economic externalities for example. I think to try to understand the world (especially society and politics) as a series of two-party interactions is grossly reductionist.

Not to mention the distinction between parties is rather arbitrary. For example, let's say you consider joining a multinational company as an employee, and the company already has unions, but the legal contract you are having is with the local subsidiary of the large mother company. Then on what basis do you recognize who or what really constitutes the other party - the multinational, the local subsidiary, the multinational including the unions, your hiring manager, or some other combination? What about joining a worker cooperative, would you refuse to join on the principle, because it is internally democratic?

And if you, in this case, accept the legal definition of contracting party as the "other party", why do you have a problem accepting a legal concept of democratic constitution? Or any other law or regulation, for that matter?

Unions aren't democracy, though. They're seniority.

If you start at a company, it'll be harder to rise through the ranks.

And if you start a company, you'll be forced to go through union processes to remove bad fits.

Our industry and compensation as they exist today don't need the baggage. If Europe and emerging markets put price pressure on our jobs, then maybe we can reevaluate. As it stands, we don't even need pensions when we can FIRE in under a decade on existing comp arrangements.

There isn't one single type of union with one set of rules. Do Hollywood actors get paid by seniority?

Just when I was going to chime in that IATSE had seniority rules [1], I found that SAG-AFTRA does too!

[1] https://iatse99.org/job-referral-rules/

[2] https://www.opeiu537.org/Portals/local537/cbas/.SAG-AFTRA%20...

You can't escape it.

You’re leaving out the part where those who come to control the union also import their personal politics/agendas, bully others into silence, and abuse their position far more than company management. Look at any major union like the NEA - the leaders and their acolytes are weaponizing the power intended for collective bargaining to push ideological agendas and propagandize children at schools. Meanwhile they barely do their actual job and resist all accountability. So why is the authoritarian control of unions preferable to that of company management that just advances the company’s financials and leaves the rest out of it?

Regarding developers - you seem to be ignoring that most software developers outside of FAANG are just not very good at their job. They have to put up with conditions in part because of their low value and replaceability, but certainly no one is forcing them into one industry over another. Therefore they must see the compensation as a fair trade if they are choosing to remain in the industry. Given the lower quality of work, I also wonder why you think they’re doing the “actual work” and not their management or other job functions at the company.

Countries with high union participation rates have not seen nearly the divergence between wage growth and productivity growth over time that the US has. There's tons of data on this. Unions are good, union participation is good.

This statistic isn't enough to say whether unions are good or bad, even if you assume there's causation. How do you know they don't do that by slowing down productivity growth, rather than by speeding up wage growth?

An employer owns your productivity, not you for the 8 hours (or whatever logged time) you work a day.

"Owning people" in the classic sense (even during limited periods of working hours) is slavery, and that's not legal (any more, at least).

Through over 20 years of work in IT, I've learned that managers get this wrong far too often. Even performance reports are direct evidence of deep breaches of personal rights.

The model of employees not being able to use personal time as guaranteed by law, Surveillance tactics, hostile work environments, etc... have all been rampant in US culture forever.

If you're entry level you're a beast of burden, and deeply entrenched in proving yourself and solving critical problems, also at the mercy of accountability and almost always underpaid... At the "trusted top" they're playing golf on the clock and getting golden parachutes even if they under-perform... There is a better balance than this.

Now I'm not into a chaotic work protest as much as anyone else, but the truth is that even the poorest and least powerful masses can overwhelm and conquer any small handful of wealthy elites if they say "Let them eat cake" as history has shown...

We're facing a huge breakdown of everything that makes the world work unless people re-align their perspectives of equality and fairness in labor, and it's a lot bigger than just a few employees unionizing.

Employers own the productivity that employees agree to delivering, and if there is a performance issue, then there's already plenty of precedent to handle that. Expecting an employee to work every minute of an 8 hour day is insane, and not remotely realistic, even if they are a horse.

Employers adding surveillance to the mix only highlights the encroachment of the slave owner mentality in employment, and it could easily create a lawsuit over mis-use and abuse, and it probably will end up in court soon in a very public manner.

It's probably the USB "self-moving mouse" that created all this hype to be honest, but it's still a necessary move for many.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com