[DesiLurker]

As a non gaming engineer, I dont want a union, what I really want is solid (really, harsh) enforcement of basic common sense labor rules for exempt workers like weekly working hour limits, no after hours scheduling or minimum notice/severance period for layoffs & many other abuses. Problem is tech industry does not wants to give an inch and workers don't complain because of higher pay and 'lottery ticket' effect.

I fear the time for fixing this is passing fast. Its because within a decade AI will have enough of labor displacement that labor wont have any negotiating leverage against capital. If this happens with union, so be it.

[unionmember99]

OK, so if you don't want a union, but you want to achieve goals which are typically fought for by unions, what exactly is the alternative mechanism you propose for achieving these goals?

This sounds to me like "I don't want memory protection, what I really want is for my computer to solidly enforce common sense memory barriers", or "I don't want defense attorneys, what I really want is courts to provide common sense advocacy for defendants". Somebody has to do the work, and you're naming the component of the system which provides the features you want.

The universe maximizes entropy, not common sense. The tech industry doesn't want to give an inch for the same reason a dropped object falls to earth: there is no force suggesting it do anything else.

[DesiLurker]

Did you miss the last sentence or had your mind made up already by then?

the reason I don't want a typical union is because they work out well where there is a clear separation of labor & capital. labor get paid wages & capital makes money off the invested assets. problem with tech is that in a tech ventures labor is a part owner and capital too (engineer equity). introducing a 3rd party (unions & union leadership) in these situations will likely have the worst effect on the capital portion of labor & possibly eroding the incentives altogether. Imagine having a set of union rules to follow when distributing equity to early stage engineers? how do you decide equitable when by definition you are on cutting edge of tech & innovation. & if you think that wont happen you are mistaken, that is where the biggest pie is and unions arent exactly 'shining beacon of honesty and integrity' either. Look all I want is just some basic labor laws are followed and tech employees dont feel the panic when they hear slack-chime on a weekend night.

there are other mechanisms like state level enforcement of labor laws and punitive fines. you know the good old law enforcement. its really not so hard if you actually want to do it.

[salawat]

So you walk in to negotiate with your capitalist overlords with an equivalent number of lawyers that they can field? Oh, they don't pay you enough to do that? Oh, you need to be working while doing this? Oh, you just got replaced because the default T&C's weren't good enough for you?

You are not a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire/billionaire.

[unionmember99]

> Did you miss the last sentence or had your mind made up already by then?

Is the first sentence of your comment not your thesis? Or am I to read this as you changing your own mind during this comment? I'm confused. You literally started your comment with "I don't want a union".

> they work out well where there is a clear separation of labor & capital

Citation needed. I've studied a bit of labor history, and this is the first I've heard of such a claim. Unions work poorly when they are corrupt -- the same as any democratic system. I'm not aware of other categorical failures of collective bargaining. Please enlighten me.

> Imagine having a set of union rules to follow when distributing equity to early stage engineers? how do you decide equitable when by definition you are on cutting edge of tech & innovation.

I'm not sure what problem you think the union would create here. Equity is simply another form of compensation, and unions have dealt with non-salary compensation for decades (licensing, branding, likeness, etc). It's really not a problem.

If there are union rules that must be followed, then that would be your answer: you follow those rules. Isn't that strictly better than not having any rules, and simply getting whatever the CEOs/VCs give you? Historically, workers do much better in a union than without.

Union rules are created and voted on by its members. If the workers don't want rules regarding equity, they won't create any. If they do, then they would be worse off without a union to help enforce them.

> unions arent exactly 'shining beacon of honesty and integrity' either

They're democratic representation for workers, no more, no less. (Every time there's an election result someone doesn't like, I see "Ha, democracy isn't perfect, either!" comments from other countries. Yeah, zing, you got us.) Unions have proven to be a shining beacon compared to billionaire CEOs, for sure.

> Look all I want is just some basic labor laws are followed [...] you know the good old law enforcement. its really not so hard if you actually want to do it.

You're using generic "you" here as a linguistic trick. Workers want labor laws followed, but they're not the same people working in "good old law enforcement". Unions are the mechanism by which workers are effective at getting labor laws followed, and new laws passed.

You still have not proposed any alternative mechanism besides suggesting that people who have no incentive to do a thing should start doing a thing. You claim it's not hard. That may be the single hardest thing to do in this world.

[vablings]

I feel like you said you don't want a union and proceeded to describe exactly what a union is supposed to be.

You are 100% a software engineer lol

[t0mas88]

Those things can also be part of law, see Europe.

The challenge with having good worker protection laws and high minimum wage is that at some point local labour becomes less competitive with foreign low cost options. Then you'll need tariffs or other import rules to keep your local industries alive.

[gagik_co]

Many European labor laws came to existence thanks to their workers movements, which were primarily driven by, ehm, unions.

[t0mas88]

Because it happend much longer ago. If the US wanted they could leapfrog that step and go straight to federal laws covering the same things. It's just that there is no majority that wants it.