[jenny91]

I agree, too strict labor regulations around e.g. firing/letting employess go certainly would hinder some of the innovation hapening in the US and especially tech. Though maybe there is a flavor of unions that recognizes this and pushes for other things e.g. proper treatment of contractors, or osme slight input in direction, etc?

I think the US is screwed for unions mostly because to unionize you basically have to join one of the existing huge unions none of which are run very democratically or transparently; as well as the huge anti-union sentiment and misrepresentation of what unions could be. But those things are nigh impossible to change...

[jcims]

If everyone promoting unions in the US would have your very pragmatic take on the current situation, it might actually change. Admitting it's a risk to the business and developing a strategy to try to align as many incentives as possible and iterate where its not working might help create the success stories required to fix their reputation in the states.

As it stands right now, the most vocal advocates I see for unionization can't seem to help but slather their speech with the collectivist twang that turns so many off.

[sclv]

I don't think any of this is impossible to change. There was just a Labor Notes conference this weekend where thousands of people pushing for more democratic and rank and file run unions showed up. And examples like the ALU show that going through existing unions isn't the only way possible. And beyond that, even organizing with a major union can still give you a local you have power over - workers at the the times tech guild, amazon, kickstarter, etc have all organized with existing larger unions, and are starting to see more control over their conditions, more rights, and more respect already.

And I disagree that job protections would "hinder some of the innovation" happening -- if anything, more comfortable and safe employees are more free to innovate. I think it would just hinder employers giving us impossible deadlines to do underspecified or ill-specified things to tick some useless checkbox, or to deliver a feature they already sold without it having been written yet.

[jenny91]

You're kind of right: I'm generally pretty pessimistic about systemic change in big systems where I'm merely a pawn. Though it definitely happens regularly! So hopefully the existing unions change and things move forward!

I am not saying that job protections hinder all innovation. But the "liquidity" of labor most certainly gives companies more control and an easier time making changes in many ways. I think that has an undeniable upside for instance with startups who want to push growth to the max without worrying much about possible troubles later.

And I think safety and comfort in tech doesn't come from the particular employer but rather how sought after tech employees currently are.

Anyway, I'm talking specifically about tech and tech innovation here: for other industries things are again slightly different. And I do really think that job protections definitely drive innovation in established and stable organizations!

[nraynaud]

there is this deeply unsettling thing about innovation: it's historically been driven by people who did not need to work and had free time to explore.

That means that innovators probably come with slackers, because they are secure in their standing.