[gitremote]

> I’m all for taking action. I just don’t know what action best suits my needs, other than finding a new job or starting my own business and hoping I don’t become one of the greedy ones too.

Tech workers shouldn't punch down against unions. We should be pro-union in general.

[ryandrake]

For some reason, too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 1% of tech workers, captains of their industry, and master negotiators: Each of them are a unicorn worker that unions couldn't possibly help.

[bpt3]

US style unions generally require the above average workers to give up some form of compensation to benefit the below average workers.

While you could argue "too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 50% of tech workers" and be correct, that is very different than claiming unions help everyone but the top 1%.

[clayhacks]

What sources do you have for that?

Unionized employees make more than their non-unionized counterparts [0]. Even if the top earners to bottom earners gap shrank in relative terms, in absolute terms both would likely be higher.

[0]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/weekly-earnings-of-nonunio...

[bpt3]

The gap is much smaller for private sector workers, and it's somewhat self-selecting by the fields where a union exists at all.

If I'm one of many types of service worker, sure I very well might join a union because I'm pretty replaceable and my income has little to do with my individual performance. I'll do better by forcing my employer to collectively bargain on terms that are relatively favorable to me by law.

That doesn't mean that all tech workers should support unions entering their field.

[Henchman21]

I think you may have misread this: For some reason, too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 1% of tech workers

They’re saying too many erroneously believe they are part of the top 1% of their field. They’re thinking they’re better than they actually are. And so, mistakenly, it follows that unions are of no use to these top performers.

[bpt3]

I did not misread it. My point is that you can fall well below the top 1% and still fail to benefit from a union.

[Henchman21]

I’ve been in several unions in the US. Generally they’re positive experiences and not something I’d denigrate. After having read your other comments in this thread, it would seem you and I would at best disagree. You give me the impression you’re a total mercenary with no other obligations other than enriching yourself. I am and know plenty of people who actually want to build community, build the commons, etc. Not saying that isn’t you, just saying from this thread I don’t have that impression.

You’re right of course, that super high performers don’t always benefit from a union. But the rest of us do when those folks have a sense of obligation to others.

[bpt3]

I work to make money. My obligation there is to ethically make as much money as possible for my company, myself, and my employees.

I build community/commons/etc. in my personal time (which also includes some overlap since I do have some social relationships with work colleagues).

The amount of money I make at my job allows me dedicate more resources to those efforts, rather than intentionally docking my own pay to benefit some random person who happens to be performing a similar job to me much less effectively and would stand to benefit from being in a union.

[UncleMeat]

It is true that unions often have a leveling effect on wages across workers. But you are missing a big part of it. They also take a larger share of the pot from the owners. So while a particularly strong engineer might be giving up some earnings to less skilled engineers, the pot is larger to start with.

[bpt3]

And because the stronger engineers are giving up some earnings to the less skilled engineers, the larger pot doesn't matter to them.

Unions basically buy job security for a fixed duration of time for their members by offering concessions related to compensation. Competent workers in a non-declining field (i.e. pretty much all of tech) already have job security via their skills, and don't need to explicitly guarantee it by giving up some compensation to offset that risk for the employer.

It makes even less sense for software development since it can be moved overseas so easily in most cases.

[UncleMeat]

What if the pot is very large.

I am paid very well. But my employer makes so much in profit that any loss to other engineers would be vastly outweighed by the amount won from the bosses.

Unions are not just about job security. They can fight for compensation and benefits. And job security is not some meaningless thing, even for competent workers. Getting laid off still sucks even if you can find another job. If you are here on a work visa that's going to be stressful as all hell even if you are a massively in-demand engineer. We can also see what happens when there are coordinated layoffs by the bosses. It is definitely not the case that all competent engineers are having fast turnarounds to get another job right now.

[gitremote]

The leveling effect is because poor negotiators, people without powerful networks, and people in disadvantaged positions have people negotiating on their behalf from a position of strength, not because people who are paid less on average (women and racial minorities) are mostly shit workers.

[UncleMeat]

I agree with you, but I'm trying to accept the framing from the comment above to get them to see the benefits of unions even if they cannot be disabused of the idea that existing pay is meritocratic.

[gitremote]

Unions help level racial and gender pay gaps. The framing that this is because high skilled workers are compensating low skilled workers, that the current situation is meritocratic and white men are naturally superior, is implicitly white supremacist and misogynist. We didn't push back on this, because we tried to find common ground with the other side who never had anyone or any social obstacle challenge this framing of natural hierarchies. However, the consequence now is that fascism is mainstream and part of the government, which thinks DEI is about hiring low quality people.

[bpt3]

Why? Assuming you're talking about a standard US union and not something like a guild, it would ultimately suppress wages for the top talent to provide job security to the other end of the bell curve.

[gitremote]

Why do you think this, other than "unions = communism"?

[bpt3]

I have no problem with unions as a concept and if people want to join them that's fine with me.

However, unions in practice enforce mediocrity while also becoming an institution that exists to support itself (aka its leaders) rather than its members once it reaches a large enough size (which is not unique to unions at all).

Unions makes no sense for a top performer in a field where an individual can outperform other workers performing similar tasks by orders of magnitude. Software development is one of those fields.

What part of that do you take issue with?

[Twistyfiasco]

A top performer is not immune to exploitation by capital.

[bpt3]

Sure, no one is. However, a top performer is much less likely to be exploited and much more likely to have their pay reduced by collective bargaining.