Hacker News Reader

Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

If there are downsides, do you ever try to change them?

Your argument seems to be you should be a good little employee and never complain and never do anything to improve your work life, because your sole choice is to let your bosses dictate things, or leave.

And it would seem you believe this so strongly that you want others to voluntarily reject legal opportunities they have to try and improve their work life.

It seems your approach would only work for people like you who are quite happy with their job, while making a lot more people miserable.

View on HN

Crab mentality is quite widespread in USA for some reason. "If you don't like it quit". Why not "If we don't like it then lets band together and unionize and get better terms on our deal" ?

I think it might also be the privilege of software engineers speaking. You can literally get another job, a permanent position with benefits, if you're unhappy with your current position. You probably just have to change your linkedin status, write a few former colleagues or tell it the world via twitter.

This is not possible if you're working in the kitchen or cleaning. Sucks for you, right? You must be in this situation because you've chosen it, you can just switch jobs otherwise.

In a world where you're only surrounded by tech workers your whole world might become tech with an occasional ring from the food delivery man the only contact with the outside world. I've never been in silicon valley but that's how I imagine it to be.

Not universal. Have received few job offers in the past ten years, and none in the last five, despite being one of the best devs at my current org.

I'd also bet most degree holding SWE's or engineers in the US in general have probably never worked a day in any form of service or physical labor, and likely have few close friends working non-degree jobs. I've run into dozens whose privilege is visible from a mile away with 0 sympathy or understanding of the material conditions of the rest of the US.

Quitting is better.

From an individual perspective, switching jobs is the simplest and most effective way to improve your situation, and will likely get you more money than a union could negotiate for.

From a group perspective, a culture where quitting is normalized generates similar benefits to unions. Employers will make concessions and raise salaries if they have too much trouble retaining good people.

The wildcat strike by teachers in West Virginia is a good example where simply quitting wasn't effective.

Your comment "get you more money" makes it seem like you think more money is the primary reason people join a union.

People also join a union to have better defense against capricious management decisions ("Give the superintendent's kid an A or I'll give you bad teaching assignments".)

People are also willing to take a lower salary for better job security.

Grievances can be mediated through a union rep, like the shop steward, who is more likely to be aligned with the employee than the company's HR rep or management.

In some companies, unions have right to have a member be present at board meetings.

> where quitting is normalized generates similar benefits to unions

That's somewhat tautological. The power of unions is based on people quitting. The point is the quitting together is more effective than quitting piecemeal, such that even the risk of having mass coordinated quitting can be an effective tool for the union.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com