Hacker News Reader

Comment by starbase | Hacker News Reader

Because unions tether the best employees' compensation to the worst, and because company ownership (generally prohibited for union members) is a large fraction of TC for many SWEs, and because an additional layer of management and bureaucracy has negative value to most SWEs, few to none of the best engineers would join.

As a result, the union would be known as a place that caters to midwits and incompetents.

View on HN

Counterpoint: SAG-AFTRA. Represents all the actors on set, ranging from the A-list celebrities getting paid millions down the unknown actors credited with "Gas Station Clerk #2" and getting some money to show up.

Your view of unions is the result of relentless propaganda in the US for the last hundred years, and at best is only somewhat indicative of unions representing extremely homogeneous, low-qualification workforces.

Speaking of "relentless propaganda" (quoting the parent post), ever notice that every time the example used by pro-union folks is the Screen Actors' Guild or sports teams union? It's almost as if its a canned talking point.

You might also notice how none of these posters can point to any engineering unions (there's barely any in the US and it takes much more smarts to get an engineering degree than become a coder) or have the guts to use technical workers' unions like the Communications Workers of America as their example? Think very hard about why that is.

Here is something I just found: https://www.gameworkersunite.org/

Please do let me know if those six unions would not be considered technical. And I'll try to keep looking. Perhaps we can find a good example of failing and a winning union (according to your definition) or get as close as possible, take the best of each, and build something better.

Oh, I agree with you; there are more examples if you look at the CWA and OPEIU. Look hard at those contracts and see what kind of deal you'd actually be getting. Doesn't seem much like what the SAG or sports unions offers, does it?

If you don't mind me sharing my opinion. I think that a union is just an entity that represents the workers. And not all unions of all trades have to work the same way. I think we should encourage entrepreneurship. But I also don't want the entire industry to keep on disregarding and overhiring (I see it as gambling on the economy with people) and then mass layoff workers. I'm not the best if tasked with such a question, I just do coding, I feel there must be a middle ground, and that's why I'm here :D What makes you less optimistic about it?

> I think that a union is just an entity that represents the workers.

In theory, yes. In practice, a union brings with it economic incentives to do more than just represent the workers. Many of its incentives are in conflict with the wellbeing of individual workers, the company, and the economic wellbeing of the jurisdiction in which they operate.

> What makes you less optimistic about it?

Corruption, bureaucracy, institutional inertia, incentives for rent seeking, and loss of agency for the individual worker.

Depends on the union and how it's organized and ran. Also, do you really think the corruption of the union will EVER outsize the corruption of the corporation? In most unions if I want to fire the head of the union, we just don't vote for them. I can't fire Zuckerberg for being a piece of shit.

You can't fire Zuck because he owns the company, same as I can't force you to let me drive your car because it's your car.

You are, however, free to work for yourself or any other company.

Maybe I have a case of "wishful thinking", but I think developers are smart enough, and kind enough to get something like this working without too much corruption, and bureaucracy (since you can never eliminate it completely).

I mean, look at us, we have OSS. And that might not sound like much for someone who's been industry long enough, but I feel like it's a statement of the freedom we all seek when we use our computers, the power we have (not me, I could stand to loose some mediocrity :P).

Speaking only for myself here, I feel more free when I have less organizational hierarchy (read: bosses) to deal with. Might be different for others.

I know of no union that would give me the flexibility I currently enjoy--flexibility to bill hourly on some projects, lump sum on others. Flexibility to invest my retirement savings as I wish. Flexibility to work 12 hours days 7 days a week for 6 weeks, then take two months off to travel. Flexibility to tell clients "this is how _I_ do it, full stop. Flexibility to choose my own wage and benefits and career trajectory. Flexibility to work for equity alone, or barter, when it makes sense.

That's my reality, and I have yet to see a union that offers anything close.

My thoughts are: Lets create it then! We can make Amazon, Google, tech giants, operating systems, large language models, Chrome, data processing engines... Why would we be incapable of creating a good system for ourselves. Not a perfect one, we can upgrade the version later (lol, Union 2.3.4, merge conflict). But I think we should all want some guarantees to make sure that Big Tech can't unilaterally screw half of us _on purpose_.

By all means, create a more perfect union. Until then, I can't get on board.

Seems like every historical instance of individuals ceding their rights to an organization goes rotten. Maybe this time will be different.

Consider the Minnesota Teachers Union:

> Minneapolis Public Schools defends policy to prioritize retaining educators of color when determining layoffs

> Effective in the spring of 2023, the contract provision states that teachers who are members of "populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the district" may be exempt from district-wide layoffs outside of seniority order, deviating from the traditional "last-in, first-out" system.

> The stipulation is a part of a recent collective bargaining agreement between the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) and MPS, which concluded a weekslong teachers' strike in March.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/minneapolis-public-schools-defends...

I can't wait til I'm targeted as a software engineer for being of the "wrong" group!

You're looking at this backwards. It's a matter of protecting the vulnerable. But sure, let's pretend you're the one being disadvantaged by society.

It's not about pretending. It's about a simple question and answer of whether the union has my back. As a prospective member that would be important to me?

If the point of a union is to protect me and my interest as a worker how does it do that by saying "you may be a higher performer but you're not the right <skin-color|religion|gender|sexual-orientation|etc>"?

> Because unions tether the best employees' compensation to the worst

Completely untrue

Your post indicates to me that you're not a member of a union, so what's your place of work's excuse for catering to you?

So much of what you've said is flatly untrue, and just more BS American anti-union propaganda. If you're on the west coast, I believe there are a lot of engineers at Boeing that would like to have a conversation with you.

> what's your place of work's excuse for catering to you?

I'm not sure I understand the question; can you rephrase?

> As a result, the union would be known as a place that caters to midwits and incompetents.

I suppose I provide value to clients on terms they're happy with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com