IT workers need a union
networkworld.com
networkworld.com
A link to the opposing viewpoint is cited at the end of the article.
Personally, I prefer to retain all of my bargaining control, rather than delegating it to another entity.
Furthermore, I do not understand the "us-vs-them" attitude that is pervasive in the pro-union mentality. I have stock in my company: I am them.
The last thing I want is to be considered a scab because I know what I'm worth and am willing to work for someone who recognizes that but doesn't recognize collective bargaining. It's not like technology positions require a huge capital investment, in things like factories or real estate (thus reducing worker mobility), and the workers are largely interchangeable cogs (we're not, no matter what management would wish). If a company wants to replace me with someone cheaper in order to save money, well, I'm not sure that's a place I want to work anyway. And if they can find someone just as good as me who is willing to takes less, well, that's just good business (meaning: I can't really fault them for doing the same thing I would) -- maybe then I'd need to sell myself better.
From the OP: In some cases it works out that way. But in many cases, years of 60-hour weeks and taking classes on your own dime to keep up with technology leave you in the unemployment line, after being laid off with no notice.
I don't know many technology workers who are laid off without notice for reasons other than the company being in dire straights anyway. And this is often bad management (yuck!), or an unsustainable business (equally bad).
Companies I've worked that had "continuing education" options were usually along the lines of certifications, which were mainly about being able to charge more for my work to clients because I was certified -- after all, they're running a business here, not putting people through school. And even if you are paying for taking classes out of your own pocket, they only serves to INCREASE your marketability if you get laid off, so taking classes or learning on your own is in your own best interest anyway. Paying for it yourself means you aren't beholden to the company either.
Admittedly, the OP is talking about contract work as the form of hourly work. How many people get hired for contract work that collective bargaining at a single company would make a difference? Contractors are usually in for temporary (time limited) work anyway, which is not "being fired" unexpectedly.
I was the ~100th employee, so to some extent I feel allegiance, but I'm also salaried well below market rate for my skillset (part of that going to work early for a company thing).
Also, regarding per-hour: The salaried people are often the ones "getting screwed"! I grabbed my work-life balance by the horns, but some of my coworkers were not as fortunate, and they rightly make the argument that if they were paid by the hour they'd be making 50-100% more per year than their salaried rate. One of the sweetest stories I know in this regard is a guy who went from helpdesk to system administration -- he refused to take the official title change so that he could stay salaried. He'd have to take a 30-40% pay cut to switch.
As it goes, I'd prefer to have even _more_ fine grained control over my destiny: If I could work 80% as much and make 70-80% of the salary, I'd think long and hard about it. A lot of other people might not want to make that choice. A coworker of mine would rather be on a half-time program with reduced or no benefits (and is brilliant enough to merit the inconvenience to the organization). We can't do that because of the inflexibility of the business world, but collectivism would play directly against that goal.
I do not know if that is true, but I do know that I absolutely do not want my services to be a commodity. I work hard to try to get into the upper echelons of a highly differentiated field, and I would seek to either differentiate myself or change fields to a more differentiated one if it began to appear that my services could easily be commoditized.
A is a bad idea. B shares the characteristics that make A a bad idea, therefore we should do B.
Wrong.
The fact that unions, govts and corps tend to go bad is not an argument for expanding any of them. It's an argument against expanding all three of them. The continued existings of broken {unions, corps, govts} is not an argument for creating new {unions, corps, govts}.
Interestingly enough, I've never had a corp tell me that I couldn't do biz with another corp, union, or govt. Unions, on the other hand, exist to keep me from doing biz with a corp.
Yes, govts are even more pervasive in their "you can't deal with" powers, but that's not much of an argument for unions.
Also, banks and insurance companies got far larger loans than the US auto industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#P...
The unions wanted to keep the auto workers employed and that's kind of hard to do when the companies go to shit (mainly because of management). It may sound anti-free-market to you, but then you have to consider the bansk got larger loans. How is that a free market? Why not just let them all fail?
So yeah, I would say the union works pretty well for auto industry workers. Unions never sit well with management because their business is to cut costs and maximize profit, employee welfare be damned.
In the IT world, a union could only be used for collective agreements so that the contracts don't include unacceptable clauses. Some people are afraid to say something about a contract because they're afraid they won't be hired or they're afraid they'll get fired if they're an employee.
Start a union that doesn't bring down or limit someone's advancement.
This is not a problem I have.
Is there way a union will specifically benefit me?
How about 3 examples that are more than 30 years old. (Unions tend to last as long as the host, which is a problem for the UAW.)
In other words, you don't know enough to support your position. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but ....
> In any case, that's irrelevant. What you're suggesting is that having an ideal and working towards it is a waste of time.
It's quite relevant. Unions have been tried many times and the end result has always had certain characteristics. If you're going to argue that this time will be different, you have to explain why and what you're going to do different.
And that's where background knowledge is required.
No, it's not enough to "believe" - Tinkerbelle logic doesn't work in the real world.
Not to mention the paternalistic relationship it implies. If I don't care for the terms of an employment contract, I won't work under it. If no business in my industry offers terms I consider favorable, I can start my own business. If that's impractical, or I'm unwilling to do it, I should change professions entirely.
Profitablility of a company is mainly tied to decisions made by management. A unionized company could be very well or badly run, depending on the management. It's the management that hires the workers and decide what they should be doing after all.
A union helps both the workers and the company because without the company, the workers (and the union) would no longer be needed. In the GM bailout, the UAW took some wage/benefits cuts so that GM wouldn't be completely down the shitter.
Not to mention the paternalistic relationship it implies. If I don't care for the terms of an employment contract, I won't work under it. If no business in my industry offers terms I consider favorable, I can start my own business. If that's impractical, or I'm unwilling to do it, I should change professions entirely.
Changing professions is sometimes impractical. What will you do and how will you live while you are training to join another profession?
Starting a business is difficult, you can ask all the people here how much work they have to put into it. What if you don't have the skills to manage a business or to market a product? Not only that, but where do you get the capital from? VCs? Banks? You have to beg them and do a song and dance to get any money from them. Then you have to keep doing that while you remain unprofitable so that the business keeps on running.
What if every employer offers contracts that are crappy in one way or another? What do you do then? Choose the lesser of a million evils? Why should you do that when you can bargain and possibly get a better contract?
A union is as paternalistic as the state or the corporation. So if you have no problem with those, groups of people co-operating to achieve something, then you shouldn't have a problem with a union. Maybe the word has a negative connotation for you, we can change that easily. Let's call it XYZ or some other word instead.