Developers Vs. Bigcorp | Hacker News Reader

Developers Vs. Bigcorp

techfounder.net

39 pointspytrin48 comments

I have no desire to join a union. You and I have plenty of bargaining power without one. Nor can a union represent this very diverse field.

Unions are fantastic when there is no bargaining power, horrible conditions and most critically no mobility. Coal Miners in a town in the middle of Pennsylvania come to mind.

You and I have plenty of mobility. Hell I have moved across the US three times for various jobs and can find work all over the world while sitting on my butt where I am.

If you are building on someone else's platform, you should know there is more to that then technical risk. There is business risk. Did Twitter pay you to develop against their API, did you have them sign an SLA when they return an fail whale?

Once you realize that you are tying your business lively hood to a transient non-binding agreement, you might think twice. Then you will use your mobility and go another direction.

Are external developers what make these tech companies great? Balmer got that one right. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643) But to suggest a union? Won't see me paying dues.

You as an individual have no bargaining power when "signing" Apple's or Twitters's developer agreement - it is take what they offer or leave it. If we banded together it might be possible to negotiate with big companies.

Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers.

> Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers.

Or by being told what they can do and how much they can make based on seniority, not skillset and talent.

Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that.

Wouldn't you like to have some kind of transparent review process for iPhone apps? Or an agreement that the Twitter API will be available for 5 years? Good luck negotiating that on your own.

> Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that.

Why not? Unions and union members are extremely rational. Are you suggesting that developers would be less rational?

I'm reasonably anti-union but I'd vote for seniority as a union member. It elevates my salary at the expense of people who don't get a vote (new people). It lets me slack off. And, for folks in the bottom half, it's a salary increase.

> Wouldn't you like to have some kind of transparent review process for iPhone apps?

That doesn't have anything to do with unions.

> Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that.

In other words, a developer's union would want to be a lot less like the United Auto Workers and a lot more like the Screen Actor's Guild.

I think you wildly missed my point, there is no requirement for me to develop for Apple or Twitter's platform. That right there is my mobility. I vote with my feet.

Speaking as a rather rabidly liberal software developer, allow me to respond to one point:

"Here's to hoping that the 21st century Jimmy Hoffa will be a developer."

Please, no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Prison_sentence. He was incredibly corrupt.

You are taking it too literally, I was referring of course to his influence on making the teamsters one of the strongest unions in American history, not wishing for a carbon copy of Jimmy Hoffa.

Second, not to slide off topic, but it's hard to know how much of that was fact and how much of it was because of the many political enemies he made during his ascent.

How about using César Chávez as your example, then?

Noted, and updated the article :)

Not a big history buff myself, always interesting to learn new things

Cesar Chavez was more Ballmer than Ghandi.

Besides, the other lesson of the UFW is that your labor can be replaced by a machine.

I'm curious as to US attitudes to unions. I get the feeling they are viewing more positively (although ambivalently in Europe/UK) whilst anti-union sentiment is more deeply ingrained in the US.

(The UK is probably an interesting middle-ground as it is in some other areas)

Most professions in the U.S have unions. The most publicized are their sport player unions, which have perfected the art of collective bargaining. Worker unions are a part of U.S culture.

Not true[1], and despite the current, small uptick in numbers, I suspect that union membership will continue to fall due to the rise right to work laws around the US[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-t...

Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.

What does that even mean?

A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training (Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that every doctor is a member in it.

Part of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.

I said professions, not professionals.

Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because they are/were the ruling class. [Edit: Professional Associations i believe were fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific profession.]

> Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes

Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had power.

Up until 1812 or so, I would agree with you. But the landed classes were forced into the professional ranks throughout the 19th C. "To makes ends meet." The Corn laws, ca1830 & ff.

Edit: If I may elaborate on this.

Also, i did not mean the political sense of "ruling class". I meant, strictly speaking, their status as economic agents. If you are a partner in a partnership, you have legal control rights. Same as if you are a material shareholder in a stock-company. You are not an "at-arms-lenght-employee" in other-words. So, the idea that you would need a union for what were in essence "company directors" just does not make logical sense. Again, that changes when (whatever the expertise) thes folks are forced to work for the state; they are then stripped of their control rights and take on a position more akin to Labour, structurally.

I must agree that I specified too short a time period before which the "ruling" class simply ruled and weren't strongly connected to professions and investment activities.

So thanks for posting.

The word 'profession' and the data are both leading you astray. In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% (Historically,"professions" were medecine, law, and accountaincy etc...as opposed to the "trades" It was only the trades which had unions. US, we have public sector unions (very large), including teachers, etc. Public sector = "Bureaucrats"!= professions.

Increasingly not, though. The US has always lagged behind other Western countries in union membership, and although most countries have seen a decline, in the US it's been particularly severe. Perhaps worse, that decline has been much stronger in the private sector: the only places unions really have seen any even moderate victories in recent decades is either public workers or in artificial markets created by the State (such as California's homecare workers).

Culturally there's a big difference, too. While in Europe unions and corporations tolerate and even co-operate with each other (German companies have, I believe, half of their board members controlled by labor unions), in the USA they are very antagonistic.

Either because of that or causing that, most unions in the USA are effectively nominal with no real power.

Maybe there is a simpler solution then a full-blown union.

A good start is simply a list of demands + a list of possible protest actions. Developers did it really well with Stop SOPA.

That's exactly what a union does, just on a full time basis. So you have an organization you can appeal to every time there's need for action.

How would a union negotiate API usage limits that Twitter places on 3rd party developers? Unions as a whole have become pretty detrimental to society, no matter how much they originally helped.

More importantly, think of something to build besides another damn Twitter client. If you can't, get a job like everyone else until you have a better idea you can execute.

I didn't offer any easy solutions, only the concept of a body that can represent many developers in order to have actual leverage against those companies. Twitter is just one example.

So a union would help workers negotiate things like wages, benefits, and overall treatment of workers. What you are proposing with this analogy is some kind of organization that would somehow have the power from outside of a given business to force that business to adopt practices preferred by third parties. Not really the same thing, not sure how you would go about forming such an entity, and frankly it sounds pretty terrible for the business climate as a whole.

A union doesn't have to necessarily regulate wages - just be a source for developer grievance against companies that generate value from their work. Also consider that you don't have to be a part of the union if you don't agree with its principles. The only power a union has is from his members willing to negotiate collectively, there's nothing more to it.

The fundamental difference remains: a union is for influencing an organization by employees for the employees (within). What you want is to influence on behalf third parties with no affiliation with the organization.

I'm not sure what is the 3rd party you are referring to. There are two sides here - individual developers or small dev companies, and giant tech companies - who should be working together to create a healthy ecosystem, but when one is in conflict with the other the giant companies do whatever they want. A union is a collection of individuals / small companies that together have enough leverage to negotiate on better terms with the giant companies.

First of all, I don't think you understand what a union is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat...

Second, I don't think that's a very realistic picture of how things work. There are businesses which have a) a plan for how to operate and make money b) employees whom they pay to perform services. Then there are outside parties who may interact with that business in some way. But the business is going to operate in the fashion that makes the most sense for the business.

So Twitter has decided that it is in it's own best interest to limit how outside parties interact with its service. You'll have to convince them otherwise if you want to reverse that. Similarly, Apple has decided that allowing outside parties to have a certain degree of free reign in developing for its products is best for its business. Hopefully the distinction is fairly clear, but I'll lay it out because it seems like maybe it isn't to you:

Apple makes most of its money selling devices like iPhones, iPads, and computers. Third parties developing software for those devices only serves to increase their sales.

Twitter, on the other hand, is still trying to nail down their business model for making money. Third parties developing software using Twitter's APIs really only serves to increase the load on their servers. Perhaps initially it helped drive traffic, generate interface ideas, and even offered a company or two for Twitter to buy and integrate, but they are beyond that need now. At best they may be interested in allowing outside parties to build software on top of their service IF you grant them a share of the money you make in doing so (hence the whole, "let's talk when you get over your token limit" stance).

Businesses exist to make money. So if you want Twitter to open up their service, you'll need to demonstrate how it makes them money. That's the bottom line.

I don't want to get bogged by the semantics of a labor union since that is really not what I meant (and I think you know that). I'm talking a body representing developers in ecosystems where they are a part of, regardless of what semantic name you want to give that organization.

Apple and Twitter, both depend greatly on developers adding value to their ecosystem. You may say Apple sells devices, but it makes a huge part of its revenue from selling apps on the (iOS / Mac) appstore. Developers build those apps, not Apple (who develops a very small subset of integral apps). Those apps not only generate revenue directly via commissions, but also make their devices useful and attractive to the general population. Without the apps, the iPhone is a glorified PDA.

If you think developers are meaningless to those both companies and are just 3rd parties who have no influence, it is you who do not have a realistic picture of the state of things. Obviously, individual developers or small companies have no leverage. But a body representing a large portion of the developers on either platform will have such leverage and could make those companies make some concessions in the way they treat developers.

If all developers flocked to Android, Apple stock would crash. If developers pulled the plug on all of their twitter apps, Twitter would feel the effect strongly. Despite what you want to claim, developers do effect the bottom line for both companies substantially.

Apples profit from App store sales are pretty minuscule when compared with the profit they generate by device sales: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-app-store-economics-ave... http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-apples-gross...

$538 million from app sales vs ~$60 billion from iphone sales and another ~$10 billion from ipad sales. I think the motivation for the app store is pretty clear based on that.

I'm not sure what you are basing your claim that Twitter would collapse without developers on, they manage their own in house Twitter clients now. You'll find that most users outside our little YC echo chamber use a) twitter.com b) one of the official Twitter clients

I really don't understand what you're saying. Are you denying how crucial the apps to the sales of the devices? do you think they could sell without the apps? in addition, do you think apple doesn't care about 500M$ in profits?

Also, are you saying that the twitter API and 3rd party apps have nothing to do with the success of twitter? I didn't say collapse, I said they would feel it strongly. Not sure what is your point, really.

Just recall the first iPhone: its presentation was met with a lot of scepticism, it was very limited feature wise, it had no apps ecosystem and still was a huge success.

My point isn't that Apple doesn't care about the money it makes from the app store, my point is that Apple has a vested monetary interest in keeping developers around going forward. iPhone sales pre-app store were pretty small; the app store drives a lot of their business.

Twitter, on the other hand, has no business interest in developers going forward. It's true they may not have gotten where they are without third party devs, but that need is gone now; they can move forward without them. You may lament that as being cruel in some manner, but that's business my friend. Twitter isn't going to collapse because they cut off third parties.

Developer work is too varied to have a single consistent voice. Drop the union idea, the word has too much baggage and becomes a huge people management issue. Turn it into what developers do best, build an app/api.

I'm not sure if this idea will make too much sense; I need to see if I can find some time to explore it a little more. I could see building an app/api which is a mixture of a news/issue aggregator and a remote config editor.

Figure out how to surface issues to developers in a consistent way. Then let developers decide which issues matter to them, and how to deliver updated configs. Then let developers decide how to use the api/config from there. Maybe some apps will decide to disable in-app purchases for some time period, maybe some will alter code-flows to use a competitor of a big company, maybe some app will praise some company for their stance on some issue. The developers need to be in full control at all times though. The api would let developers read the remote config from their apps.

Maybe it just turns into a remote config service, and the activism part gets lost... but it might work as a vehicle for this kind of activism too.

Perhaps "union" is too loaded of a word. My intentions was for a body that can collectively bargain on behalf of developers against companies that right now are treating them as they will since as individuals they have no leverage or recourse.

Unions originally worked because they could stop the flow of all labor (union or not) into a job site. Now there is a legal process that avoids the violent bits, but it doesn't really apply to the current situation.

Moreover,the equivalent to a picket line is what, a DDOS? Shit will get you sent to jail, yo.

The structure of desirable APIs <-> Developers makes collective bargaining not super useful.

No, it's much more simple than that. Developers can simply cut their apps from the ecosystem for a short while. Or move to another platform in large numbers. Just the threat of each action should cause those companies to consider some concessions.

You're missing the point. Individual workers or developers are replaceable, and at a serious power disadvantage. A union works by blocking all access to labor, and requiring the company to negotiate with the union alone. Unions used to do this by physically blocking non-union workers from going to job sites, today there are formal legal processes. There is no alternative to either method available to developers for closed platforms. If you opt out of developing for the more lucrative platforms, there are plenty of people willing to replace you.

I know it's more complicated than that and that there are exceptions, and that over time some places become hybridized. I'm still right.

My dad had his life threatened by union workers for working overtime on a job he was overseeing installation of (robotics engineer). They told him to stop working because he was making them look bad (he was working well into the night because he was away from home and had nothing better to do, plus that's just who he is).

He thought they were joking, ignored them. They came back with muscle and told him in no uncertain terms to put down his wrench or they would beat him.

This happened while he was working away from home when I was learning how to walk.

I run a business right now, and have run several others. I would rather shut the doors to my businesses than be strongarmed by union thugs. I know I'm not alone in this.

Ideologically, unionism isn't necessarily horrible. Practically, it involves all sorts of illegal activity that is forgiven because of labor relations. There are a ton of legal exemptions in place for unions in the US.

I don't know why I even got into this conversation, but I wanted to make it clear that there are plenty of business owners that would rather offer zero jobs and make less money themselves than offer a single job to a unionized worker.

You don't call it a union, silly. A union is for socialists.

You call it a Professional Association. The same way doctors and accountants do. It's essentially the same as a union, but it's for rich, conservative people.

An engineer working in a steel factory. Question: Can he carry a screwdriver. Answer: No. Reason: Union rules.

Please just drop shit you have no knowledge of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com