Hopefully next time the tech market is in an upswing, we can unionize?
As someone who actually knows something about unions and their history, it literally never works that way. OP is correct. You can't make moves when you don't have power.
>Nobody wants to join a union during a hot market.
That's what has to change. I'm not saying it will change, but it's the only way. If your union is dependent on temporary conditions, it's weak. Weak unions are usually worse than no union at all. There are no shortcuts.
Which is to say, it may not be the historically best time to unionize, but it also might be the best time that we'll see in the future, and the most critical time to do so.
Perceived or actual self-control of your own destiny.
—-
I worked as a unionized employee for the first part of my career and all it did was severely limit my pay and growth trajectory. I’m not going back to that.
I spent a lot of time in school, but eventually dropped out and became a union electrician — which is a much different mindset than tech talent possesses. There is no better way to get trained [than being paid to learn as a union brother] but eventually the fiscal reward for exceptional electrician talent isn't incentivized enough to retain top talent.
A reason I began my journey out of IBEW [and started my own electric shop] was when union dues raised almost 2x because too many retirees needed increased healthcare for their spouses; combined with the whack healthcare fees for a bachelor [same montly deduction for one man VS family with a dozen kids].
As for techbros: I think there are too many "aces" that negotiate well for themselves and have no incentive to foster the brotherly spirit [whether aspie or asspie].
I personally think that unions are a solution to many problems, but come with a set of tradeoffs and genuine issues. There I think it is unhelpful (and why I used the word patronizing) to assume that people who are not on board with unionization must either be a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" and/or the under the influence of some unseen force ("the industries").
This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). I think it particularly is applicable to mention as one of the biggest chicken-and-egg/catch-22 reasons that tech workers in general have many specific issues with the concept of unionization because it is often successful in strategies that break solidarity, because we tech workers still feel close to the VC seats of power and "recent/near" to massive wealth bubbles like the 90s dot-com boom.
I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them. You can't solve problems you intentionally leave in a blindspot.
I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them as well. I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want and assuming it is because they are misinformed or selfish is helpful.
> This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies).
Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
> The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich
I never said all. I said it is a common problem that is hard to solve. I said it was one complication among others, a complicated reason not necessarily "the" reason.
I also never said opposed to unions. I said it was a perception problem that often causes people to even overlook unions as a possible solution. I said it was a solidarity problem when people do try to unionize that can drive wedges into groups and send some people "back to the sidelines".
> I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want
I didn't offer a solution. I offered a problem that I don't know the solution for. I think it is a twisty, complicated problem.
> because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda
I didn't use the word misinformation. Not all PR/propaganda is misinformation (or at least not just misinformation). I specifically gave several reasons why for tech workers especially it is not just propaganda but facts about recent history (90s dot-com boom) and current prosperity (this site is VC-adjacent and many of us that comment here, myself often included, think we're one good idea from VC funding).
Again, you seem to think I'm making some sort of moral judgment here and are trying to put words into my mouth that I think this is a moral failing of some sort. There is nothing wrong with believing things like I'm one good OKR from having real ownership in my employer and being lightly rich, or I'm one good idea away from getting a lot of VC money to do something cool as an owner and a founder. I have these beliefs at times, personally.
If I think there is a solution to this problem I know it isn't telling people with this mindset they are wrong and are morally failing: it's in growing the common ground between tech workers of all classes (all of the actual classes, the perceived classes, and the dreamed/preferred/hoped for classes). It's in crossing that divide between "I think this is a good idea, but I don't see why I need to be involved" to "everyone should be involved, and here's empathetic reasons to and here's why even if it doesn't help you personally today or even tomorrow it's not just a good idea but something that you should be actively involved in at every stage". I don't have good enough ideas of how we do that. It's a collective problem that needs collective solutions and I mentioned the problem to work the problem.
I don't know why you are trying to put words in my mouth that I'm offering some sort of solution just calling people names and blaming their mindset for their problems.
> Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
Yes, but more specifically he pointed the finger at middle-class would-be-Communists that talked a good talk but never walked a good walk. They acted like they were in the game, but when the time came to put skin and real sweat into the game they were still on the sidelines. That thought Communism (and unions) were good ideas, but they engaged with it in only in salons/parties and as academic thought experiments.
I think it applies to a lot of Americans even given how specific the original context was. I think there are a lot of reasons it got paraphrased so strongly soon after it was written as a specific concept. But even if it doesn't apply that generally to all Americans, it certainly seems to apply to discussions like this one in places like HN where we talk about it a lot but aren't really actually trying to put skin into the game to work the problems and get caught up in ten dollar words like "ad hominem" and academic discussions about the "well, actually" specifics of important reading in the historical context and sometimes we believe that to be just as useful to working the problem.
If anything, it'd have to be a series of smaller, focused unions (say, infrastructure engineers, akin to pilots unions)