[ahelwer]

This current state of affairs gives employees a lot of power, as you observed, but it's important to realize it will not last. The downturn will come. The question is whether we want to use our current ephemeral labor power to protect ourselves when the downturn comes, because organization will be 100x more difficult when things go to shit and people don't think they have the luxury of risking their career to build a union.

[ben_jones]

There's a dichotomy in software development between the developers who represent single points of failure in an organization and the increasing number of "replaceable" developers i.e. developers versed only in popular frameworks or who hold introductory/recent-grad levels of domain knowledge with no desire to go further.

I think right now were in a "golden age" where the latter group still holds power and can command decent salary. I'm convinced this will start to change in 2-3 years and a lot of people who came in for that golden age are going to face a shocking reality that they aren't as privileged as they thought they were.

With the fall of the second group software companies will have much more leverage across the board and we'll see darker and darker patterns prosper.

[ahelwer]

This exists in all industries. It is called experience.

Developers convincing themselves that they're single points of failure is arrogance, IMO. 99.9% of the time if you leave then someone can step right up and take your place. Oh sure there will be costs, lost productivity, maybe an outage, but the world keeps turning. So go ahead and take that vacation.

[Balgair]

The OP here mentions that they can just go to another shop and get work if they do not like their current shop. That's fine, but the employers can do the same too. They can fire you and get another person as well. Granted, right now, the employee holds a lot more power in the market, but that will ebb over time, and it may even switch.

[ben_jones]

I don't know, on the one hand I agree that S.P.O.F. in the technical sense doesn't translate to the HR sense such that there will always be someone who can come in and learn everything needed to handle the job.

On the other hand its like a mediocre army doing a great job because of a great general. That general leaves/dies and the army falls apart or is reduced to a fraction of its former self.

Especially at smaller orgs with constrained resources, they may replace their technical lead but if the replacement flounders, and the replacement's replacement flounders, the whole org becomes FUBAR. In this sense that original technical lead becomes ipso-facto irreplaceable (IMO).

[spamizbad]

I think you're right. And we've had a "golden age" end twice already: first in the 1980s, which was double-whammied when they cracked-down on contractor labor practices, and again after the dot-com burst. Both times left a lot of carnage and a lot of bitter people who swore off the industry.

And both resulted in a labor shortage a few years later.

I suppose an argument could be made that unionization would increase the output of the technology sector by virtue of preserving the labor pool, along with all the expertise and domain that would normally evaporate, during down-cycles.

Also, lots of people seem to be equating unionizing to having some sort of fixed wage. In reality, it comes down to how the union decides to structure its contracts -- several unions simply dictate a minimum rate/wage, and leave room for negotiation. It's why SAG offers people minimum day and weekly rates and SAG movie star can negotiate a multi-million dollar contract.

[negamax]

I will share my thoughts. Happy to be challenged and discuss more.

I think instead of looking for a past era solution we should look for a completely new solution set. Why not work on creating open systems. May be instead of getting a leverage over employers, tech people should contribute and create parallel systems. Which instead of creating monopolies help anyone challenge the status quo easily. I think it already happens to a great degree with many engineers and even companies contributing their tooling, research and solutions to open source.

May be we just need to accelerate that trend?

We totally should walk away from zero sum view. So not employer vs us. But how do we make sure that engine for innovation and opportunities keeps on running and keep on creating new companies

[ahelwer]

The idea that unions exist only to get a larger slice of the static profits pie is, itself, a zero-sum view :)

When employees feel represented and empowered, when we have real ownership in the company - not just a few thousand $ in stock grants while billions are spent on dividends/stock buybacks, but an actual seat at the table where decision are made - then we want the company to succeed. We will work harder and become more invested in our product than any corporate morale-raising initiative could ever hope to achieve. This grows the pie.

[crimsonalucard]

I agree with you 100%. But to be unbiased I must also mention that it does leave room for some slackers who can take advantage of the system.

[saltminer]

Slackers exist whether there is a union or not. Whether it's an overburdened manager ignoring an employee, a nepotism hire, or an employee who gets lost in the payroll system and becomes their own manager, corporate waste is a very real thing.

[dlkf]

Do you have any supporting examples?

[ericd]

IIRC many (most? all?) German companies have labor representation on the board of directors.

[malvosenior]

If a downturn comes, it will be due to larger economic reasons. If firms aren't profitable and need to cut costs, having a union that makes that more difficult could actually exacerbate the downturn. I'd rather have to lay off under performers and keep the company in business, than go out of business and have everyone lose their jobs.

[ahelwer]

Corporations are run so they suck as many profits out of the company as possible during the boom times, then "cut costs" (aka dump overboard the workers who created those profits) at the slightest change of the economic winds. Unions change that equation; corporations won't be able to run that strategy, and will maintain a cushion to get through the inevitable downturn.

[malvosenior]

I have never in 20+ years of experience seen a company dump high performing engineers just to lower costs. It's those very engineers that engendered the success the company enjoys. I have seen good teams cut but that's only when macro issues have made it necessary.

[Apocryphon]

You must have worked at places with exceedingly good management, or not at startups.

[FrozenTuna]

If a company has experienced both boom times and recessive economic times, I think its "startup" status is arguable, depending on a few other factors.

[Apocryphon]

A startup can easily experience its own financial downturns and be forced to downsize, and make questionable personnel cuts during those times.

[Animats]

IBM since 2000. HP since Fiorina.

[crimsonalucard]

What you say is true, however these things can be negotiated with a union.

All a union does is give centralized power to the employees. If employees need to be cut for survival or salaries need to be lowered temporarily than these are things that an employer can provide proof of to the union and together with employees as a union work something out.

A union prevents the laying off of employees as a profit boosting measure even when it IS'NT required for survival. That is wrong on every count.

The employees are a greater part of the company than shareholders, board members, owners and C-level executives combined. Employees are not sheep to be herded and they deserve a centralized voice.

[malvosenior]

Someone else made this point elsewhere in the thread but I think it's a good one: As engineers, we have the opportunity to move into management and become entrepreneurs at a rate much greater than traditional industries. I've moved between high level IC and senior management a lot in my career. I've also started my own company. I don't think that profile is unusual for senior people in our industry. As such I'm likely to look at solving problems from all sides and negotiating with a union to "prove" that I need to lay people off sounds extremely troubling from an operational and efficiency standpoint. As a high performing IC I'm never at risk of being laid off unless the company really is in existential danger. As a manager I need to be able to let under performers go or lower costs as needed.

[crimsonalucard]

> I don't think that profile is unusual for senior people in our industry.

This doesn't make much sense from a numbers perspective. If entrepreneurs and managers manage more than one person then at the very least there should be double the amount of engineers then there are leaders, meaning at best your statements apply to only a third of all software employees if managers all manage 2 people.

Usually this isn't the case. Managers manage up to 5 people so your statements apply to on average 1/6th of all employees.

>As such I'm likely to look at solving problems from all sides and negotiating with a union to "prove" that I need to lay people off sounds extremely troubling from an operational and efficiency standpoint.

The efficiency standpoint is equivalent to the corporate standpoint. There's an additional standpoint you failed to consider. The moral standpoint. A 47 year old father of 3 kids depends on his job as an engineer to support his kids then you come along and fire him to replace him with a kid fresh out of stanford because this kid knows reactjs and will code 12 hour days for half pay.

There is no question, the scenario above is more efficient but it is also ethically wrong. Managers need to take steps to help the employee improve and managers should have their power limited so they cannot fire a father of three just because they don't get along or the kid straight out of stanford is his cousin.

Engineers make up the majority and backbone of a company they are not sheep for you to herd, hire and slaughter based off of operational efficiency.

>As a high performing IC I'm never at risk of being laid off unless the company really is in existential danger.

Good for you. I admire managers who care about the people they employ over managers who are efficient. The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great.

[malvosenior]

Honestly this is a pretty naive view of management. The moral solution is to do what's best for the team. It's also not ethical to keep someone due to their demographics. If someone is performing well, you keep them if you can afford them (and reward them well!). If they're not doing good, you let them go. That's the same if the employee is 21 or 51. Game theory plays a huge role in successful operations. Even from a ethical perspective, it's bad to make everyone suffer (or lose their jobs) just to save one poorly performing person.

> The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great.

In my experience (successfully managing a large amount of people) you can't really turn around underperformers in most cases and expending the energy to do so is harmful to the rest of the team. You should focus on your best employees and let the underperformers go asap. As an IC I also appreciate this strategy as I strive to be a top performer.

[wry_discontent]

> As engineers, we have the opportunity to move into management and become entrepreneurs at a rate much greater than traditional industries.

I've observed this to be true myself, but don't really have a good understanding of _why_ that might be. Do you have any insights?

[malvosenior]

I think it's because technology is incredibly powerful and code + hardware can act as not only organizational structure but as a sort of pseudo employee. When you code you are often designing and implementing business rules, thus acting in a managerial or executive capacity. Software also scales incredibly well. One person may be responsible for building a system that generates immense value (extreme example: Linux and Git both initially created by one person).

The level of responsibility and authority you have as the person responsible for a $10M system can be leveraged to move to different leadership career tracks. I think this bleeds out into the industry at large so VCs recognize that smart engineers make good financial bets.

[diN0bot]

My hypothesis is that this is a function of white collar office work, where one often works closely with management/leadership/mentors, and can build relationships, knowledge and skills that increase one's opportunities the further one progresses in their career, not only in terms of entering management, but also starting a small business or startup.

Unions historically stem from segregation between labor and bosses along multiple dimensions such as skills, day-to-day experience and class.

[lonelappde]

Because it's a professional job despite not needing a formal degree, a and professionals can start their own own businesses.