[utternerd]

I can negotiate my own salary, hours, and working conditions. I don't need someone to do it for me, and I certainly do not want to be forced into such an arrangement. Just because it's something you personally find advantageous doesn't mean others feel the same way, and no one should ever be forced into it.

[lenticular]

>I can negotiate my own salary, hours, and working conditions.

You can, and the company can choose to not hire you. There is a huge power imbalance between employers and employees. Right now, this is muted because the job market is so tight. This will not be true forever.

> Just because it's something you personally find advantageous doesn't mean others feel the same way, and no one should ever be forced into it.

As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

[jasode]

>This will not be true forever.

I noticed you've emphasized this twice. You have to admit that this pro-active idea of "join a union before you _really_ need the union" is not that compelling of a sales pitch to a lot of developers who already have good paying jobs. It's human nature.

>I never understand employees who don't want to unionize.

Do you really want to understand? I think the reasons are obvious: most programmers don't see any economic benefits to paying ~$500 (or whatever amount) annual union dues for very little gain.

If you can prove to developers that paying $X would return tangible benefits in excess of those fees, there would be an unstoppable movement. The proof isn't there yet.

As many programmers have testified, they already get excellent pay, benefits, work hours, etc without union representation. Yes, of course some programmers are suffering in terrible jobs but not enough of them (yet) outnumber the people who don't want to pay for a union.

I can easily understand why some programmers want a union. But it's a mystery why union supporters also can't see why some don't want it.

[zjaffee]

Virtually every other high paying profession has unions by another name, namely professional organizations who often are responsible for things like licensing, ethics enforcement, ect.

Should Software Engineers want to remain a part of the professional class over the long term, it would be ignorant to not push for these things and introduce further supply restrictions around who can and cannot be a software engineer just as how accountants, lawyers, actuaries, ect have all done before them.

[ivl]

The NCEES does offer a software engineering PE exam. But, that's meaningless when anyone can be a dev because there are no limits to who can be hired for what purpose in software, really.

[tracker1]

I'm someone is and has had very senior roles in software development without any formal education past high school, for the past 24 years. I'd rather not have a program that requires such in this area of work. There are already enough businesses that won't hire me for a give role because of their internal requirements for certain positions, I'd rather not.

[ivl]

I sympathize with that, and I was in no way advocating the PE exam for software development (although I could see it being of use in certain areas - it could be useful for roles involving risk similar to the risks that usually lead to other engineering disciplines having that requirement). But with how many CRUD apps are in existence, it's wholly unreasonable to expect all developers to get a 4 year degree and pass the PE exam.

[pseudalopex]

NCEES discontinued the software engineering exam.

[tracker1]

When unions were first starting, people were literally putting their lives on the line to protest and strike. State troops (in various states) were called, protesters were killed. Frankly, today isn't that bad for most people. Personally, I don't have a problem with unions existing as a protected option. But insisting they exist is akin to Communism imho.

[claudiawerner]

>But insisting they exist is akin to Communism imho.

This is funny for me to read, because you probably intended to imply that's a bad thing. I'd also question whether the forms of domination which the founders of the unions of old has decreased or just changed form - and even given that it has decreased, what is an acceptable level of exploitation? I would say none, and many union members would agree with that supposition.

Today not being that bad means that today is still bad.

[tracker1]

It should stop where the liberty eroded for anyone is greater than the good provided to someone else. Also, where is the exploitation? Are people locked into contracts and cannot leave their job? Most of these jobs are in states where non-competes are not enforceable.

It's a trade, one person trades their time, knowledge effort and skill, the other trades money and other compensation. As I said, I'm not even anti union. I would rather see a guild around software development over a union though, based on reputation over protecting the bad performers. It could be considered A union, but wouldn't act like a typical union in practice.

If you are more senior, and submit that a junior is ready to move into a journeyman role, your reputation is also at least partially on the line if they cannot do the work, or put in the effort to get there.

No person's wants should ever infringe on another's rights.

[claudiawerner]

>Also, where is the exploitation?

Some theorists define exploitation in capitalist society as unequal exchange of labour, see John Roemer for instance; other more traditional critiques see it similarly but it may apply individually (such as Marx's theory), and yet others see it as a class issue. Of these, they can be grouped into PECP (Profit-Exploitation Correspondence Principle) and CECP (Class-exploitation Correspondence Principle). There's a lot of talk and debate as to whether which of these, if any, is a viable or possible way to characterize modern relations of production.

>It's a trade, one person trades their time, knowledge effort and skill, the other trades money and other compensation.

In the employment relationship, this trade is assymetrical, hence the need for either strong labour laws, a rich union culture or both.

>No person's wants should ever infringe on another's rights.

The critique of capitalism begins with a critique of rights-based thinking. In short, some people don't believe that rights are a useful tool to characterise how society ought to look, since it is clear that despite universal rights, some are clearly more able to take advantage of them than others. The propertyless have right to property. So what? Where does that get them most of the time?

[egypturnash]

Try this:

Join a union so your kid doesn't have to direly need a union.

If you don't have kids, substitute an imaginary version of you who's growing up and falling in love with the same craft you did, except right now.

[sosborn]

I believe that the existence of unions is necessary. Without any unions worker rights would degrade pretty significantly. I also strongly believe that unions aren't the right answer in most situations.

One example - teachers. In the public sector, teachers are unionized yet underpaid, and in general terms, have unfavorable work conditions.

In the private sector, teachers get paid much better and have the freedom to actually run their classroom in the way they see fit.

The union isn't the cause of this disparity, but it clearly doesn't overcome it.

[pflats]

>In the private sector, teachers get paid much better and have the freedom to actually run their classroom in the way they see fit.

While this might be true wherever you are from, it is definitely not universal. Every US state I have lived in has been the opposite.

At a private school, the advantages to teachers are the student base is self-selected and can be expelled, and the school can teach things a public school cannot (often religious).

At a public school, pay, benefits, and job protections are much better.

Being able to "run your classroom the way they see fit" is a school-by-school work culture thing, but a teacher with more job protections would always have more leeway in how they ran their classroom. A teacher working at-will could never truly run their classroom the way they saw fit, because "do X or you're fired" is always a possible ultimatum.

[the-pigeon]

Honestly I think unions are redundant when you have properly functioning governments.

Ideally the government should have worker protections in place that do exactly what a union does.

Of course in reality you need groups to represent the workers to put pressure on the government to do that. But I'd rather give money to groups like the EFF who specifically push policy and lawsuits over a group like a union.

[egypturnash]

So in practice unions are never redundant?

[Rooster61]

> for a greater good

This is an assumption, and a logical fallacy. The whole problem of doing something "for the greater good" is that no one on Earth can definitively define what is good and what is not. Trying to do so is the bottomless rabbit hole we call ethics. OP is correctly pointing out that your view of unionizing being advantageous is subjective.

[lenticular]

>You are contradicting yourself. If a union could be a good or a bad thing, then one cannot use the argument that we do things for the greater good without presupposing that a union is a good thing. You are indeed assuming your own premise as true, which is indeed a logical fallacy.

No I'm not. In these comments I am arguing against the premise that a closed shop union is automatically invalid because the coercion would be wrong. The advantages that a union can have is not subjective under pretty much any reasonable ethical framework. If your ethical system can not produce judgments about public policy based on evidence, then it is useless.

Subjectivity is a different thing from uncertainty. The goal of ethical systems is to provide a way to make ethical decisions based on evidence. If we can agree on some ethical concepts, then objective decisions can be made given those concepts. The selection of an ethical system is subjective, but it's pretty obvious that it must allow for coercion.

[TaylorAlexander]

Your comment seems dismissive of the notion of ethical behavior. We can argue the finer points, but we can agree for example killing let’s say innocent people is bad. Feeding hungry people is good. The point of collective power is not to agree on everything, but to find enough in common agreement to organize around it. As a collective you can better negotiate for your common interests.

[Rooster61]

> We can argue the finer points, but we can agree for example killing let’s say innocent people is bad. Feeding hungry people is good.

This is simply moral relativism. That argument holds up only under specific, ad-hoc circumstances. A group of people can very easily come to a conclusion that an action should be taken because they agree on it, and find out later that the consequences of that action were detrimental.

[lenticular]

Yes, decisions must be made under uncertainty, because we don't ever know the exact outcome. Sometimes, even when acting rationally using available evidence, a decision winds up having negative consequences. Them's the breaks in our uncertain reality.

If a group of people collectively make a decision that is not consistent with evidence and their ethical system, then they are not making decisions correctly. I don't think anyone here is debating that decisions can be incorrect.

[yarrel]

Then you cannot argue that something is not for the greater good.

There are historical arguments for and against particular unions for particular people, and there are studies of the impact of union activity.

"That's subjective" is the start of a debate, not the end of it.

[lenticular]

>This is an assumption, and a logical fallacy.

No it's not. The poster was seemingly espousing a belief that because he didn't want a union, it is morally wrong to force one on him. That is inconsistent with a belief in the benefits that government coercion can sometimes be a good idea. A union could conceivably be a bad thing or a good thing, but to dismiss it with a rights-based argument simply doesn't make sense.

> The whole problem of doing something "for the greater good" is that no one on Earth can definitively define what is good and what is not.

All endeavors may fail. We make decisions based on probability of outcomes. This is the same for both individual and collective decisions. If we cannot make collective decisions under uncertainty, then there is no point to any government whatsoever. Also, if we cannot come up with a baseline of ethics to evaluate possible outcomes, then we can't make any collective decision either.

[Rooster61]

> No it's not.

> A union could conceivably be a bad thing or a good thing

> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

You are contradicting yourself. If a union could be a good or a bad thing, then one cannot use the argument that we do things for the greater good without presupposing that a union is a good thing. You are indeed assuming your own premise as true, which is indeed a logical fallacy.

[gdix]

> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

Is it hard to see why an individual might be against that?

[tivert]

>> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

> Is it hard to see why an individual might be against that?

It's not hard to see, but individuals who prioritize their own desires over the greater good of their community are often (rightly) regarded as selfish. It is hard to have much empathy for someone who has their selfishness thwarted.

[gdix]

Fair point, but applied to the original comment, is "not wanting to join a union" so selfish that one can't even understand how someone would have that position? I'd consider anyone who thinks so to be thoroughly ideologically possessed.

[icelancer]

> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

Of course we do. Doesn't make it a good idea all the time.

[Rebelgecko]

> I can negotiate my own salary, hours, and working conditions

I'm represented by a union at my job and I also negotiate these things myself (well, the union has a bargain for minimum working conditions, so I can't say "if you pay me $1000 I'll move my desk to the HVAC room"). The union comes into play more for things like health insurance and retirement benefits. I can't imagine an individual having much luck getting their insurance copays reduced, but the union seems to have a decent amount of success.

[TaylorAlexander]

I agree that no one should be forced. However without organized labor most people may be negotiating from a weaker position, and therefore free to negotiate their own (low) salary. Collectives do have real power.

I think a lot of people would be better off with a union, though really I more advocate cooperatives.

[diminoten]

This is exactly what Richard Sherman said about having an agent.

Turns out, you do need someone to do that for you, in fact you're almost always in better shape if you do get an advocate.

[rconti]

Actually, personally hiring an agent seems like a GREAT idea, and these things exist in all jobs, even if it's not common. Your incentives are quite closely aligned.

Having a collective agent is almost the polar opposite.

[moorhosj]

Can you explain how is it almost the polar opposite?

Things like retirement and health benefits are not negotiated at the individual level. having a personal representative likely wouldn’t help much in that area, but a union would.

[diminoten]

It's not the polar opposite at all! You know your agent, even if he's "personal" has other clients, right?

[rconti]

Sure, maybe "polar opposite" was a bit much, but there's a big difference between negotiating for a collective set of shared benefits vs specifically negotiating for your interests. Of course, your personal agent has other clients, but is not only negotiating for precisely what you ask for (of course you will not get everything you want!), but is also likely not even negotiating on behalf of anyone else against the same organization!

In the event that your personal agent is negotiating for you personally, but also for several teammates, of course there is then a conflict and your interests may be traded for the interests of another one of his clients, which is an issue.

This is still better than having your interests pooled together, but not as good as having ONLY your interests advocated for.

[diminoten]

It's far from certain that your interests get traded for someone else's; just as likely the opposite. Further, on some things you are in a much weaker position individually than you are collectively.

It's not objectively better to negotiate by yourself, stop pretending like it is.

[alkonaut]

I negotiate for myself too. But my negotiation starts from 5w paid vacation and I’m negotiating for a sixth. And that’s only because if unions. Only.