[QwertyPi]

> If remote work truly is equal to or superior to in office work then you should be able to out compete in the long term using this competitive advantage.

Or they'll just buy you out. Competitive advantage doesn't work too well when your competitors have large moats of cash that you don't have access to.

Honestly, people just need to organize unions. That's the only effective counter to policy like this.

[sonicanatidae]

I agree. It's hard to wade through the headwinds of Scrooge McDuck piles of money working counter to you.

[fishtoaster]

You say "buy out" like it's a bad thing. Presumably that's a huge win for you if you started (or have equity in) the company - and if not, you can just... not accept the buyout offer?

[the_svd_doctor]

Yes but the idea is that competition should help the economy in surfacing "good ideas". If competition leads to acquisition all the time, then really there isn't much benefit to the overall economy.

[QwertyPi]

> Presumably that's a huge win for you if you started (or have equity in) the company - and if not, you can just... not accept the buyout offer?

The issue is that this will not raise the working standards of the workers already working for the abusive employer, not that this can't be leveraged by a privileged few.

[gwright]

> Honestly, people just need to organize unions. That's the only effective counter to policy like this.

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. You seem to be suggesting that unions magically understand the best way to organize each and every workplace and that every employer should be required to organize its efforts according to the wisdom of "the union".

How about each company runs its business as it sees fit and each person decides on their own who they want to work for or perhaps just work for themselves? Systems that work thrive, systems that don't work wither away. Build in some social support for people to be able to move to new jobs or create new jobs/companies with as little friction as possible. For example:

ensure that substantial changes to a work arrangement must have a notice/grace period (no unforeseeable changes) * make health insurance independent from your employer * reduce occupational licensing regulations and require states to accept licenses from other states * simplify and streamline the creation and overhead of small/all companies (incorporation, taxes, reporting, etc.) * allow employers and employees/contractors to define the relationship that works for them without the ambiguous and irregularly enforced employee/contractor distinction in the tax code

[QwertyPi]

> You seem to be suggesting that unions magically understand the best way to organize each and every workplace

Yes, it's called "representing the needs of the worker".

> every employer should be required to organize its efforts according to the wisdom of "the union".

No, it's always a fight. The company is perfectly capable of using the piss-poor labor protections in this country to fight back.

[maerF0x0]

> they'll just buy you out

That would require you to sell. And if one is confident they can win in the marketplace then why sell to them when you can eventually flip the scenario and have them asking to be acquired?

Fully granted that in my experience, in the USA for the past long time, it's felt like Corporatism has made this scenario far less likely. But, perhaps that's more of a sign to start your company elsewhere. Perhaps America is no longer a good place to start a company.

[deadeye]

Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to).

I'm not saying they are a bad thing necessarily, but they don't make sense in competitive markets.

[fragmede]

Or for people that want better for themselves and their coworkers.

Listen, I know as SWEs, we're supposed to reject unions because we're paid so well, and listening to a lifetime of anti-union propaganda that leads to hilarious conclusions like the above. But reading some of the other threads complaining about work conditions that it sounds like a majority would like to avoid, not to mention some of the horror stories out of, eg, video game development studios, getting people to understand that, no, a union could be useful is, for some reason, an unhill battle. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to try and do deep work in an open office floor plan? if there were more conference rooms? If RTO wasn't a thing? If there was no deathmarch to make the upcoming release?

Because people, including those that can compete on skill, could still band together and say "we're not putting up with open office floor plans".

[dragonwriter]

> Unions are for people who can't compete on skill (or no longer wish to).

I mean, the “on skill” part is superfluous, but, yes, it is definitionally true that a union is for workers that no longer wish primarily to compete with each other, and who realize that such competition is a race to the bottom that works against them and for the benefit of their employers.

All organized groups are rejections on some level of competition among the members in favor of cooperation for joint advantage.

[ako]

There are many situations where employers are not interested in skills, they’re just looking to fill a position with the cheapest (licensed) person. There’s very little ROI in upgrading your skills in this situation.

[deadeye]

I think we're saying the same thing. If that's what employers do then employees can't compete on skill.

[ako]

Agreed, just wanted to stress the point that it is often not even an option for a potential employee to try and compete on skills.

[Scarblac]

Developers don't really compete on skill much.

Most importantly because companies have no good way of judging skill of developers.

And also because, in most companies writing business software, good enough is good enough.

[deadeye]

That is the exact opposite of my experience.

[bugglebeetle]

Yeah, that’s why NBA players have them. Because they can’t compete on skill.

[deadeye]

I suppose that's a union by name. But for the millions of people in a real union, it isn't recognizable as one.

Most unions function to keep an established order where seniority matters more than capability and performance.

Besides sports unions, actors guilds, and other small examples, unions exist to provide a framework for collectivising unskilled labor into a unit of power, where individually they have none.

[Ironchefpython]

Yeah, you handwave some of the most visible and effective unions in the United States (SAG-AFTRA, WGA), you're also ignoring education unions, healthcare unions, and many other careers where pay is not just about seniority, but also education, certification, specialization, and other factors.

Even unions in industries with legitimately undifferentiated labor will have shift differentials built into their contracts.

[bugglebeetle]

No, it’s recognizable and sports unions often refuse to break picket lines for low wage workers:

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/20/inter-...

What you’re doing is trying to craft a special definition of a union that excludes the most analogous unions to the one that software engineers could form and ignores the real examples of solidarity between professional class and other types of workers. See also the solidarity strikes against Tesla in Sweden. I won’t speak to your motivations in attempting to do so, but it doesn’t correspond to how labor organizing is actually practiced.

[jmopp]

I would put a hypothetical software engineer's union in the same category as a sports union/actor's guild. Just as an actor has brand recognition and can leverage this or start their own productions, so can a skilled software engineer start their own company/be recognised in their craft. And beyond that, can you imagine what would happen if software engineers decided to strike? It has the potential to have a far greater impact than pretty much any other industrial action. If factory workers down tools for a week, production is delayed. If Google SREs down tools for a week, it might break the internet.