Hacker News Reader

Comment by cool_dude85 | Hacker News Reader

>What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally?

Aside from general job protection stuff, the general answer would be that they can ensure that some of the productivity gains go to employees rather than employers. Let's say the company has been so much more efficient thanks to AI that they earn an extra 100 million in revenue with the same level of spending. So, the union goes into contract negotiations asking for a 50 million increase in salaries per annum, and employees get part of that windfall.

View on HN

In a world where AI heavily disrupts software, a union striking over economics (to get an extra $50M paid out to union members every year) would immediately notice all the replacement tech workers (who were out of work due to AI disruption) streaming in to do the work.

It's really hard for me to imagine the conjunction of significant disruption from AI and effective union bargaining.

I said contract negotiations, you said strike. Even in this example, and there is an army of scabs outside the door, if a strike and its associated costs would cost the employer 75 million, it would be rational to give the union its 50.

Anyway, I agree with you that simultaneous productivity gains and deskilling as a result of AI efficiency, if it comes to pass, would work against labor power. The claim is that unions would hold no purpose under such an arrangement. I'd say if anything they'd be more important. The question is, would an employee rather have union protections if this comes to pass, or not?

Understanding the dynamics and likely limits of what those “union protections” would be critical to answering your last question.

Contract negotiations are back-stopped by strikes. If a union is asking for an extra $50M per year for their members, they’d better have a credible threat of a strike to back that.

I think most every employer would much rather fade a $75M strike expense than agree to the $50M every year expense. It breaks even in only 18 months on a cash basis, plus gives them additional union-undermining value in a very public display.

That same problem exists for factory workers, plumbers, machinists, etc and yet unions and strikes still work.

Isn't Wikimedia a non profit? Who exactly are the employers on the other side negotiating with the union here? They're higher on the hierarchical structure, but they're not actually stakeholders the same as there are in private for-profit companies.

Uh, non-profits absolutely may have unionized employees:

https://npeu.org/

I... wonder if you don't know what a non-profit corporation is or how they work?

The union is negotiating with management, i.e. those with hiring and firing authority who direct the work of others. Same as a for profit.

Some of the largest unions in the world are for teachers, police, and government employees. I’m not sure why you would think a for-profit company is uniquely subject to its staff unionizing?

I have similar questions about public service unions as well. The reason why it makes sense to me for private for-profit companies is because stakeholders have a profit incentive to exploit workers. If non-profit tech workers are especially vulnerable to exploitation, then I guess it makes sense too, but I'm having trouble finding evidence for that.

Are you under the impression that a non-profit's employees are volunteers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com