[thom__]

Awesome to see something like this on HN. As we keep working for less pay, more hours, the constant threat of layoffs, and business leaders frothing at the mouth to replace us all with AI, it's important to remember that we aren't powerless as workers. It's also important to remember that your relationship to the higher-ups is adversarial. They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible. It's not because they're evil, it's just good business. Organizing helps protect us as things get worse.

I see a lot of my colleagues resigned to the reality we live in and just hoping they get lucky enough to come out on the right side of the meat grinder by making a few bucks at a startup. I've worked in a couple industries, and tech workers seem to lack solidarity in a way I haven't seen elsewhere. I survived three rounds of layoffs at a startup, and every time the attitude among some of my colleagues was that we "trimmed the fat." I somewhat agreed and got caught up in that culture until I got picked up in the fourth round of layoffs at a time when I felt I was doing my best work. We need each other as workers to get through a future that looks gloomy for technology developers. As the saying goes: "united we bargain, divided we beg." A better world is possible!

[bluefirebrand]

> It's not because they're evil, it's just good business

Almost everything I have ever heard described as "good business" is pretty evil

You never hear "Oh we should give everyone a raise, that's just good business"

It's always stuff like "we put 10000 orphans through a meat grinder to make 10 cents, it wasn't personal it was just good business"

Edit: of course that is an exaggeration

But more realistic examples include things like "we laid off 200 people the week before Christmas so we hit our targets for the next year. Not personal, just good business"

Frankly, maybe if companies need to make such "good business" tradeoffs frequently, it shows that the people running them aren't actually good at business in the first place

[SR2Z]

> You never hear "Oh we should give everyone a raise, that's just good business"

Lots of big tech companies give people raises automatically when they think they're too underpaid.

> Frankly, maybe if companies need to make such "good business" tradeoffs frequently, it shows that the people running them aren't actually good at business in the first place

I really, really don't get this. Sometimes companies overhire. Sometimes it's even their own fault that they've overhired.

Either way, clearly IT HAPPENS and sometimes companies will need to lay off workers when it becomes clear they're not useful enough to justify their pay.

It's not inherently a reflection on the workers or the company; most of the time it's a reflection of interest rates and nothing more.

[bluefirebrand]

> most of the time it's a reflection of interest rates and nothing more

Yeah that's basically what I'm saying

Unsustainably over-hiring to take advantage of low interest rates is viewed as a smart business decision. It may actually be a smart business decision, but it is still evil

[BriggyDwiggs42]

>good business is evil

Yes (often)

[billy99k]

Startups are risky and unionizing won't force them to keep you employed. In fact, it will create an environment of less startups and more large companies with less choices for the employee.

Union heavy countries like Sweden have almost no startup scene and wages are normalized (ie: almost all the same across white collar industries).

[snowAbstraction]

Why do you think that Sweden has almost no start up scene?

According to this crunchbase data [1] it has a lot per capita.

[1] https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/countries-most-startup-...

[try_the_bass]

This just sounds like you and your colleagues work for shitty companies.

This doesn't generalize to all companies! After all, if you started a company, certainly you'd do things differently... Right?

[paulcole]

> They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible

It’s only adversarial because you want to get as much pay as possible out of them for as little productivity as possible.

> I somewhat agreed and got caught up in that culture until I got picked up in the fourth round of layoffs at a time when I felt I was doing my best work.

Did everyone feel that way?

[kortex]

> It’s only adversarial because you want to get as much pay as possible out of them for as little productivity as possible.

And the employer wants to pay the employee as little as possible for as much productivity as possible.

In a perfect world with perfect information and rational actors on a level playing field, this is great: we expect supply and demand to converge, this is econ 101.

But it's not a perfect playing field, one side is coercive, holds most/all the cards, calls all the shots, treats people with lives and experiences as "resources", and seeks profit over all other objective functions. This is class dynamics 101.

[paulcole]

> And the employer wants to pay the employee as little as possible for as much productivity as possible.

Yes, this is literally what I replied to in the first place.

Both sides want to get the most for the least.

It doesn’t matter how tilted the playing field is or is not, both sides have the same goal.

I never said that both sides have equal chances to get their goal.

[itsgrimetime]

> It’s only adversarial because you want to get as much pay as possible out of them for as little productivity as possible.

Or maybe pay that’s proportional to the value we provide

[paulcole]

It’s always proportional to the value you provide. You just don’t like the proportion lol.

What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

[ever1337]

The workers will decide and they will dictate it to you as you have done unto them.

[paulcole]

So as a worker, what specific proportion do you believe is fair to dictate?

[ever1337]

It's not at all a matter of fairness. It is a matter of might.

[saagarjha]

I mean, the same question can be asked of my employer.

[paulcole]

Yes, but right now I’m asking the person who said they wanted a proportional amount of value.

Either they can/will answer the question or they can’t/won’t.

[saagarjha]

Maybe they didn’t feel answering your question would give them a proportional amount of value.

[bradlys]

In a capitalist market, it is explicitly not proportional to the amount of value you provide. That is the underlaying principle of capitalism…

Read up a bit, man. Even a capitalist would agree with this.

[paulcole]

I can assure you it is.

You get paid X. You deliver Y value. The proportion is X / Y. Sometimes that proportion is very high, sometimes it is very low. Sometimes it is negative. Sometimes you get a divide by zero error.

And again, the questions.

What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

[fwip]

I don't think you understand what "proportional" means. It doesn't mean "there are two numbers."

It means that when looking at all employees, compensation is strongly linearly correlated to provided value.

[bradlys]

Jesus Christ. That’s not how it works!

Capitalism is explicitly not about that. Holy shit this is insane that you think that’s how capitalism works on a website that’s literally about venture capital. What the fuck.

[krainboltgreene]

Yes but they do that without doing any of the labour.