[baron816]

1) Unions in America don’t have the same culture as unions wherever you are. There isn’t the same amount of trust here, and that means each side is just trying to take as much as they can, even if that eventually leads to each other’s destruction.

2) Do you not see the flaw in the logic of “something worked before, so we should keep doing it regardless of changing circumstances.”

3) American tech workers make much more than tech workers everywhere else (except Switzerland I think). Most companies know its better to give us great benefits and perks, give us autonomy and control over our work, not overwork us, etc. some startups are run by people who don’t know what they’re doing. Employees there should leave if they can.

[djsumdog]

The amount of money a tech worker makes shouldn't really factor in. A personal example: Non-competes are banned in California. They're banned in Illinois .. if you make $13/hr or less. Why does your income change your rights?

I've never signed a non-compete and refuse to. In the past most companies that had them would just take them out. "Oh they're not enforceable anyway, so if it makes you uncomfortable we'll remove it for you." I still sign NDAs, waver of patent rights, waver of copyright, anti-poaching, agree to all IP transfers, etc. etc. I just refuse to sign things that say "For 6 months after your employment with x .. you have to ask us if you can work for y" (I've never even worked for a direct competitor of a previous company).

Lately it's been getting more and more difficult to fight for this right. It's getting to the point where I've considered moving back to California just because I know this right is protected by law.

Tech workers don't have unions. We don't collectively bargain. But a lot of us also don't fully read contracts and hold to certain labor standards.

And as a side note, if we had unions and they drove down wages a bit so everyone gets paid more fairly, wouldn't that help a lot in cities were rising wages drive a wedge into income inequality? People in Seattle and The Valley who run restaurants and Starbucks have to live pretty far away and commute 1 ~ 2 hours on a train/bus/car to be able to afford to live in cities where only a few decades ago, they could live and work easily within less than an hour bus commute.

If unions could drive wages more equal (even if they'd go down a bit with everyone getting paid more equal), wouldn't that be beneficial? Wouldn't it be nice if everyone's wage wasn't a secret? If you're a Junior or Senior or SA-I or SA-II, everyone with that tile gets paid the same so everyone knows what everyone makes and you make that same amount no matter if you're black, white, male, female or other?

[Eridrus]

Housing is largely a positional good, so for that Starbucks employee to live close by, someone else has to commute. Building more housing makes it less accute, but there will always be people willing to deal with long commutes, so that is the behaviour you see. I mean, I work at a company that pays very well in NYC and I have co-workers with 1hr+ commutes because they traded off commute time for a nicer home.

[taurath]

First mover problem - nobody wants to take a pay cut when the carrot of homeownership is close but still so out of reach.

[marricks]

I think your point 1) is just a fantastic illustration of how effective companies have been at villianizing and attacking unions.

For example, Walmart could stomach some unionized workers, but they straight up close down stores in retaliation, and I bet it's not just Walmart.

Those stories then get played as "unions destroy jobs" when it's really companies are so beholden to stock holders they wont let workers get any standing to bargain.

That's just one example, union busting and breaking is a business at this point and companies pay for advice and strategies.

I get you're probably not trying to seem biased, but it just shows how deeply the US culture has turned against what seems like such a reasonable thing, workers being able to lobby together for fair treatment. Otherwise it's really just letting companies set the rules and workers being forced to play by them.

[unethical_ban]

>2) Do you not see the flaw in the logic of “something worked before, so we should keep doing it regardless of changing circumstances.”

Do you not see the flaw in the logic "Something is imperfect, therefore discard it"?

I work at one of the most rewarding (financially) Information Security employers in the country, I believe, and I enjoy most parts of my job. Does that mean I should not be allowed to coordinate with my coworkers on fair pay and overtime conditions? At what point should I "suck it up" and who gets to say?

[baron816]

>Does that mean I should not be allowed to coordinate with my coworkers

Companies aren’t allowed to coordinate together to get what they consider to be “fair” prices. I think it’s crazy that you actually are, because it’s everyone else that loses out because of your collusion.

[coliveira]

A company already coordinates the salary of all their workers. It is only fair that workers also be allowed to look out for their collective interests.

[unethical_ban]

See my response to stickfigure. The relationship is not balanced.

[stickfigure]

You're somebody I pay for a job done. You could leave me at any time if somebody else offers you more money, and, statistically, you're probably going to in about 2 years. You don't even have to give me 2 week's notice; that's just a courtesy.

Employment is a voluntary relationship between two people. Sounds like you're trying to make it voluntary for you but not me.

[unethical_ban]

Just like we have a progressive tax structure, I believe most regulations regarding corporate obligations should be progressive.

Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future.

Maybe if your PTI is $100,000, and you're a local startup or a bar, or a small MSP, it's more reasonable that you need flexibility in staffing and can't support any "slack" in employee output.

But yes, it is absolutely asymmetrical, to the benefit of the party that has the power to withstand ending the relationship more. Which one is that?

[conanbatt]

> Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future.

This is such a spurious comparison. First, it compares the workers wealth to the employer's wealth in an attempt to make a redistributive argument.

Making it hard to fire people is not the way to tax the wealthy to help the less wealthy. There are much better measures for that.

The second is that it conflates what you think is right as a narrator of the argument but with other people's money. It's always so easy to make other people pay for things you believe in!

[cortesoft]

You know, I agree with you to an extent, and for certain people who work certain jobs, I think this logic makes sense. If you are a person with the skills in a field that is highly competitive, you can probably get a new job as soon as you decide to leave the previous one.

But for most people, this is not true; it might take anywhere from months to years to find a new job. Now, you can easily argue that this is the same for employers, and I would agree that you are correct; it can take months to years for an employer to find someone capable of doing a job.

So, it might logically seem like both parties are making an even trade, with equal risk for both. Either side can walk away from the deal at any time, and both sides have the risk of taking a while to find a replacement for the other.

However, if you think about it more, you see why the employer has a huge advantage over the employee, and why I think it is a bit simplistic to just say 'both sides enter and leave the agreement voluntarily, so we don't need any protections for anyone'

When a person loses their job, they are losing 100% of their earning power. That has a HUGE effect on the quality of life for that person. On the other hand, a company is only losing 1/n of their productive capacity. Even if you assume the person is worth 10 other people, any decently sized company is going to be able to absorb the loss pretty easily.

Now, I am not saying that we need super strict worker protections, but I don't think we can just wave away the concerns about the power imbalance between workers and employers.

Personally, I think good unemployment benefits is probably the best mitigation that maintains everyone's freedom while still mitigating the power imbalance somewhat.

[Eridrus]

Personally, I am massively in favor of providing things like unemployment benefits through the state, rather than unions.

[acct1771]

From another perspective, it sounds like you're trying to stop other workers from telling you to get bent if you treat their colleagues improperly! :)

[darpa_escapee]

You're aware that firms voluntarily sign contracts with unions, correct?

You are also misrepresenting the power imbalance a single worker who needs to eat has against a multibillion dollar company or industry.

Unions try to correct the power imbalance between labor and capital.

Edit: was beaten by a more elegant response 15min ago.

[coliveira]

Most of the so-called abuses of unions happen only because employers don't want to negotiate fair conditions. They prefer to drive conditions to a dead-end instead of working with union leaders to promote shared interests. This way, they can demonize unions and increase their power over workers.

[conanbatt]

That's usually not true. The strongest unions happen to be in the strongest jobs. This happens so because the strongest unions need to have the biggest funds, and the biggest funds come from the better paid workers.

Cause and effect mix the other way around in public opinion. This is why the weakest and most populous workers actually dont have strong unions, because there's not enough money to build one.

[rbobby]

> not overwork us,

This stuck out to me. More than a few companies require developers to put in a lot of unpaid overtime in order to finish a project close to the original schedule. There's even a lovely name for it.... crunch time. It is endemic in the game industry, and pretty common in regular IT organizations.

And don't a lot of startups, especially in the very early founding days, expect devs to put in long hours without additional compensation?

And I worry that this has knock on effects such that some folks are locked out of employment opportunities. Got a young family or starting a family? No need to apply. Older and wiser and not willing to trade quality of life so the company can meet a busted schedule? No need to apply.

At its core, unpaid overtime, is caused by management mistakes (unrealistic project schedule). And not often enough will managers face up to the consequences of their mistakes.