I've often thought there should be a union in tech, similar to the way the directors guild and screen actors guild operate. Not to set maximums on compensation, but to set humane minimums and provide continuity and health insurance in a pooled way, perhaps.
Also to lobby (e.g. in favour of trust busting, copyright/IP reform) and to provide a legal heavyweight that can take on systemic abuse like the wage fixing cartel from a few years ago.
Some of those guilds set minimums in part to provide barriers to entry. They're not solely acting in the interests of compassion and kindness. We do nobody any favors by pretending there's no economic logic at work.
Some of those guilds set minimums in part to provide barriers to entry.
What you call a "barrier to entry", others might call "certification of some base level of quality". Yeah, if you sling spaghetti Javascript, we're not letting you in, or summat. I'm not saying it always does, or even will, work out that way, but it is one option.
To the extent that guilds are active in ensuring a base level of quality, you're absolutely correct! Certainly I am not interested in writing - or hiring people who write - truly terrible code.
It's just perhaps possible that not every currently existing and active guild that enforces minimum rates is also ensuring a minimum level of quality. This suggests that, in some times and some places, there can be a gap between what's possible and what's realized.
You're completely right. Guilds can ensure quality!
I would really like to have something like that, but we currently lack a baseline curriculum that defines this "base level of quality". Stuff that won't change over the course of a programmer's career. Most conventional wisdoms in our craft are little more than fads at this point. Just look at how many colleges teach object-oriented programming with Java, while many professionals declare OOP dead, a thing of the past, only to be found in legacy monstrosities.
As an additional wrinkle, any baseline curriculum that involves any reasonable amount of computing theory will put a lot of self-taught professional software engineers on the outside. That seems like it might be a hurdle to getting buy-in.
I would also like such a guild to remove people from the guild for intentionally performing law breaking(or unethical) behavior- such so that individual workers can say "I can't do that, my guild will oust me" and will take the heat off themselves. I'm not sure if actor/director guilds do this, though, I've only seen it in licensing orgs.
There is a problem with that is how do you define what is "law breaking" / "unethical" - its not a Unions job to be judge an jury here also it would make it hard to recruit widely.
And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations.
> And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations.
Some actively call themselves guilds today - Writers Guild, Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild of America, etc. Should we not use their word of choice?
Its problematic for a number of reasons the history of trade unions in the USA and also some of the historical functions of "guilds" run counter to the aims of modern trade unions.
19th century trade union cosplay isn't going to organise professionals in the 21st century or anyone else for that matter - I am sure even Keith Flett would agree with me.
Interesting idea to incentivize startups to invite the union in. I wouldn't be against joining a union (and paying reasonable dues) if it means that I also have healthcare.
Does that mean if I decide to start a venture, my venture will have healthcare from day 0? If so, that's a pretty neat idea.
EDIT: I just also thought that the interests of a union of startup developers and union of enterprise/large-co developers are quite different. Does this mean there are two different unions?
In the case of DGA/SGA, it means that you get your healthcare from the union, not your employer. So as long as you're a union member in good standing (and the dues are substantial, just to be clear), you have healthcare coverage through them.
Well, healthcare costs are substantial. It's probably preferable that we offer employers the ability to either a) completely cover dues, or b) pay for the healthcare costs.
My main gripe with Unions are the huge costs and the major lack of benefits people receive. I'd also prefer to join a Union that isn't hugely centralized and falls to the ills of bureaucracy.
Game Developers. Around $30-40k per year to live and work for 80 to 100 hours a week in locations where the cost of living is higher than average. Toss in a lack of job security (regular layoffs as projects complete and a ready supply of raw recruits) and it fits my definition of inhumane.
This may not be the venue to get good answers but what are the likely costs of unionization in software? How would management respond to organized tech labor? What would be the economic impacts?
Not looking for pro- or anti-union sloganeering, but real impacts. The economics of the tech sector would change dramatically with organized labor in computing, and I'm interested in how those changes would manifest.
As someone who is ready to join a tech union, I would advocate for legislation that allows for you to remain in the US on your H1B during a labor dispute.
If you're on an H-1b and your union goes on strike
You are still employed, you're just not getting paid. There are laws that state, in effect, that you cannot get fired for going on strike as part of a lawful strike. Well, if you aren't fired, then you must be employed, right?
You are still employed while striking. I don't know why this would affect a visa. There are edge cases however where sometimes employees are not under contract during negotiations but the general provision for this is that the existing contract terms stay in place until a new contract is done.
I think we can look at the recent google walkout for that, as I belive the organizers specifically interacted with and took advisement of labor union organizers in order to have a successful walkout. Google was forced to respond to their workforce's demands, however how much real change will remain to be seen. So at the very least we know somewhat how management responds to organized tech labor for one example. The economics of such likely remains to be seen.
I don't have any useful answers, but you could explore how tech workers have unionized in other countries and what the results have been. In France for example, tech workers are organized under so-called "Conventions Collectives" (= "collective agreement" in English).
I think it would depend on what form the unions take. There is a range from "you can't fire anybody even if they're terrible" to "professional organization that holds its own members to high standards of quality, but assuming they meet that standard, protects them 100%".
Tricky to say, as software engineering is a somewhat unique profession.
Going by what happens in other industries, you'd reasonably expect a flattening of wages (both inter and intra firm) and an increase in the average wage. You'd also expect entry into the field to become harder, and exit from the field (both voluntary and involuntary) to become rarer. Fewer workers would be employed overall, though per capita productivity would increase; the overall effect would probably mean more money allocated to labor, less to capital holders, and higher costs for consumers. Work rules would increase, e.g. no one allowed to be on call for more than X hours a year, or a SWE not being allowed/required to take on job responsibilities outside the scope of the initial job offer except as facilitated by formal processes.
Many of these effects will disproportionately benefit women and racial minorities (this is a rare case where "racial minorities" includes Asians of various sorts, as they're paid less than white people in the field, though that's in large part to the power employers have over visa holders).
Hopefully you circle back to your comments and see this some day.
This was a great answer I've read several times as I consider organized labor in software development regularly. Thanks for giving me targets for research.
Intentional code obfuscation in combination with strike action would likely be the threat tactic of choice for developers.
Employers will likely react I a counter productive manner to this threat - e.g. mandating 100% unit test coverage which would be achieved with cryptic tests that actually make the code even harder to work with.
This could lead to a decline in overall software quality in America if the relationship between developers/ops and management really sours.
The real impact is that offshoring would get even bigger. Those guilds only work if all of the best talent is a part of it. (i.e. the Directors Guild, SAG, WGA.) however top talent in software write their own ticket anyway so what would be their incentive? Convincing some startup to become signatory to a guild would be a non-starter for most. If they were to become signatory to a guild, are the founders going to be forced to pay themselves union scale for a side project that doesn’t yet have traction?
You'd be paying union dues for one thing. I have to imagine there would be a lot of in-fighting between those looking to restrict the number of H1-Bs, etc., and those supporting them.
Software engineers would have extreme (maybe unprecedented?) striking power. It's an industry where the workers are needed for both interviewing and training, so hiring scabs would be extremely hard.
Management knows that already, so they'll do whatever they can to stop unionization. Retaliating against attempts to unionize are illegal, but internal anti-union propaganda campaigns are common in other industries, and I think you can expect not just what already exists, but better-funded campaigns and targeted to people more like you.
Management would also try other methods to get around the union. More outsourcing, contracting entire projects out and requesting documentation or support contracts. These don't work well - they always cost more than expected, take longer than expected, and are a pain to maintain - but they do work some, so with unions raising wages that'd move the bar towards a little more outsourcing. I'd also expect it to take management a while to relearn that outsourcing doesn't work very well, since it's been a while. Many companies will be willing to pay more for outsourced labor than union labor, because strong unions are a long-term threat to the investor class. If the union covers multiple companies it'll be more resistant to all of this and generally more effective.
The effects on the workers depends on the union's goals and determination. The biggest test is its first strike; how many employees actually go through with it and how long can they last. That depends a lot on the strike fund; even though we're a wealthy industry that should be able to make a strong strike fund, I'd expect a lot of programmers to be suspicious about it (then again I've heard more union talk this year than I have in the rest of my career combined, so maybe they're coming around). I expect the union will achieve all of its goals, as software engineers will drastically underestimate how much striking power they have. Judging by conversations I've had, I'd expect priorities to be: major commitments to privacy/security/ethics/maintainability, improved working conditions (less dense open offices, maybe an end to open offices), and maybe more vacation time. Increased pay seems to be a low priority among workers I've talked to.
I haven't read the paper and I probably won't, but it seems suspicious to me that the 1940 to 1970 timeframe mentioned just happens to coincide with WW2 and the aftermath and recovery. If you aren't prepared to systematically destroy foreign cities and industry I don't think you can recreate those conditions.
These were also the years where the soviet union was at its most threatening and keeping workers happy to reduce the attraction of communism was at the highest. After that threat vanished the gains in productivity have been used to reward investors rather than workers.
How does this correlate with the mass exodus of members of the communist party in America in the 1930s after hearing about the conditions in Stalin’s Russia?
I don’t think that had much to do with it. There was a lot of conflicting propaganda at the time and conditions in Soviet Russia in the late 1920s were good. Regardless, communists weren’t so easily persuaded.
The exodus was partly a reaction to poor conditions in Russia and the fact that Stalin, as opposed to Lenin before him, did not believe in pursuing worldwide revolutions. Stalin withdrew efforts to support communist parties worldwide.
But the main thing that encouraged withdrawal from the communist party was The New Deal.
Generally, inequality increases during times of growth; it's a general rule that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer.
It's during times of decline that you normally expect inequality to decline. After all, the rich collect the profits while the poor collect wages. Wages are relatively fixed while profits vary wildly.
This was a different situation. The union organizing was mostly done in the 30s, alongside voting FDR into office, then the war happened. When veterans came home with the VI Bill a lot of them went to college and got involved with the new science money (military industrial complex, etc.). In addition to the Kaynesian New Deal investments, America was just on top of the world and happened to upon the closest thing it had ever known to socialism.
US GDP growth continued after 1970 and reached pretty high levels in the 90s. You seem to be dismissing that because you already made up your mind without reading the article (or the multiple studies it mentions).
To put it a different way, which year are we allowed to start measuring without it being tainted by WWII?
Unions were great at stifling innovation and destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very wealthy Detroit. The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota Lean Production system in, as then you would need fewer workers. So in not allowing innovation, the unions were key factors in destroying entire industries which have now been built elsewhere.
If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.
That’s fair. But the countries he’s talking about aren’t freer by any reasonable definition of freedom.
Edit: and the countries he’s talking about didn’t take manufacturing by being more innovative, they did it through cheap brutal labor practices and environmental destruction of their ecosystems.
My point is simply that places that embrace innovation will outperform places that don't. The Unions in the US do not embrace innovation. Look at what the Teacher's union in California has done to education here. If the US did not have the Unions destroy innovation in the car industry, perhaps the US would have the best and most reliable cars in the world. Japan embraced innovation as part of the DNA of how they work, and they make incredibly good cars.
The question to ask is: who is the customer of the Union in the US? There is a conflict of interest between the Union in the US and the customers of the products created by unionized companies. In Japan, the focus is on the customer and creating the best product. In the US, the focus is on being in the Union hierarchy, "saving jobs", getting money for the Union, etc. It has nothing to do with making great cars.
The construction Union in New York destroyed new modular appraoches to building in the late 60's (I worked for the architect who tried to bring that innovation in). Even today, if you want to bring modules not build in NYC in to town, it won't happen. There is a conflict of interest between the union and the construction companies' customers.
This is quite apparent in California where the Teacher's union is in a conflict of interest with the students being taught, which is why the Union has destroyed the product of public education consistently for decades.
I’d argue that executive incentives focused on short term stock price and golden parachutes is a greater hindrance to innovation. Another data point, there has been no correlation between exploding executive pay and company performance. The obsession with unions seems misplaced to me.
If sounds like what you're arguing is that the cost of innovation can be partly measured in human suffering. I disagree -- there are innovative, unionized companies (someone else mentioned Toyota).
But even if I did agree that worker rights and wellbeing decrease innovation, then it sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff.
See I sort of think historically, US unions were reactions to strongly abusive management at some point in company history. After they become entrenched, I agree that worker management relations can end up confrontational, and likely less efficient. But it's a two way relationship at the root there.
But this isn't a forgone conclusion, for example worker relations seem to work fine in general in Germany which has actually institutionalized worker representation at a fairly high level in corporations.
> destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive - see what's left of former very wealthy Detroit
And what destroyed the textile mills of North and South Carolina, which were barely organized at all? They were and still are the states with the lowest unionization rates in the country.
The difference is Michigan union activists like Larry Page's grandfather sent his son to college, and then his son writes a search engine while doing his doctorate.
Meanwhile, the profits of Carolina textile mills went elsewhere, and the people in those towns are worse off than ever.
> Unions were great at stifling innovation and destroying some of our former industries such as Steel and Automotive
The local manifestations of those industries were destroyed by globalization (which unions fought tooth and nail), not unions.
Those industries simply weren't where America's comparative advantage was in a globalized marketplace.
> The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota Lean Production system in,
The UAW did, in fact, let TPS in—not some loose copy, but the actual thing itself—at NUMMI.
GM had trouble copying the parts some of its leadership wanted of TPS for its own internal use, but those included massive resistance from their own internal managers as well as labor. And it probably wouldn't have worked for GM because of path dependence; TPS is a system relying on a substantial degree of mutual trust between labor and management, but while a new relationship can start with a clean slate, a strong established history is hard to erase.
The golden age of unions brought profits to companies and home ownership to single income families. There has to be balance it else we devolve to a two class society like Saudi Arabia.
The title "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" does the topic a great injustice, obfuscating the origins of many modern labor unions (including the AFL-CIO) as functional white supremacist organizations.
If you were Chinese or Indian, unions were directly responsible for your deportation. If you were Japanese, unions were directly responsible for your family's forced internment. If you were Puerto Rican, unions were responsible for the genocide that was committed against your mother, wife, and daughter. The AFL wan't shy in the least about its intentions. If you read the contemporary writings of its leaders, as well as the mass media that they produced (flyers, pamphlets, etc.), they were very blatant about their desire to protect jobs for white members by stripping naturalized Americans of Asian descent of their citizenship and deporting them. The language that was used to describe Chinese workers mirrors the exact same dehumanizing comparisons to animals that were later used by the Nazis[0].
If you dislike the current US visa system, with its draconian system of per-country quotas, you have labor unions from the 1950s to thank for that as well.
It's highly unpopular to talk about this, and so I fully expect to take a hit for bringing this up, but it needs to be said.
I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making. Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.
> I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making.
It's not true that lobbying the government to enact explicitly white supremacist legislation is "a property the entire society had at the time".
> Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.
It's disingenuous at best for the HN headline to read "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" when unions systematically discriminated against working-class Americans of Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and Japanese descent.
Society at the time was dominated by views we would now call white supremacist. That is enough to explain why the unions behaved as you describe.
Since you asked above, I think this might be where the feeling of "bad faith" comes in. You're pushing this point harder than it can support and more harshly than you need to. That creates a feeling in the reader of something being off. That's too bad, because it's a good point. I found the information interesting, but because of this extra torque you're putting on it, one ends up responding more to that "off" feeling than to the informative parts of your comment.
Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights. But you're happy to use arguments about race relations or civil rights in order to attack unions – any stick will do to beat a dog. And as we saw in the 2016 Democratic primaries, identity politics, as a legitimately left-wing concern, are a very effective tool for right wingers attacking people promoting left-wing economic policies because they can be used to divide the base.
It's possible that you are highly idiosyncratic politically and you actually do sincerely care about both of those things, but that's not the way to bet.
> But you're happy to use arguments about race relations or civil rights in order to attack unions – any stick will do to beat a dog.
If you are so committed to the belief that unions are inherently good that you will out-of-hand dismiss anyone pointing out the ways that they have advanced white supremacist structures historically, and accuse them of false-flag concern trolling, you don't get to pretend that you care about "race relations" (ie, racism).
> Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights.
Thanks for this absurd conclusion, I appreciated the laugh.
Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It damages the container here, regardless of how right you are or how wrong someone else is.
I'm not sure I understand - what do you mean by flamewar-style in this case?
If you're referring to my tone, I understand that this might sound frustrated. At the same time, I was pointing out and explaining why the HN title specifically (not the article title, as they were different) is offensive to people of several ethnic backgrounds, including my own. And in response, I was met with one person accusing me of speaking in bad faith (with no further comment on what they meant) and another accusing me of being racist and disingenuous for explaining why the submitted title was offensive. So if I sound frustrated by the end and deflect the personal attacks levied at me, please understand it's not a reaction that comes out of nowhere.
It's more than tone. I'm talking about snark, aggression, and using the threads for smiting enemies instead of good conversation. This old quote of pg's expresses it: Comments should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side.
Sure there are things to be frustrated about, but making an internet forum more acidic does no good about any of those, and it damages the container here considerably. People are mimetic. Others start to react in the same way and soon we end up in a Hobbesian hell. So could you please follow the site guidelines, even when frustrated? I know it's not easy, but it's no more than we ask of anyone.
As for the title, it matched the Bloomberg article when I saw it and still does, though they took out the word "American" for some reason. It's still in the URL though.
Not sure why downvoted. While I object to "everything I don't like is racist" bullshit, this one is actually true--unions are not only xenophibic, by misogynistic. The union my Dad was a member of bragged about how it ran women out, usually via overt sexual harassment.
Everyone thinks unions are some great system but they suck in actual practice. The absolutely suck--it's just more egos and personalities in the way of you making a living. The best thing about tech is the low barriers to entry--that is populist, not unions. If you are good you succeed, if you are not good, you become an architect or a manager or leave.
> . The union my Dad was a member of bragged about how it ran women out, usually via overt sexual harassment.
Yeah, the AFL-CIO didn't allow women to join either. Sexual harassment is a huge problem within unions, because harassers (as members, and oftentimes members with power within the union) are able to use their power to silence victims' complaints. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chica...
The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think:
> [Freeman and Medoff] showed that contrary to popular belief, unions actually decreased racial wage disparities.
> A recent paper by economists Henry Farber, Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko and Suresh Naidu concludes that unions were an important force reducing inequality in the U.S. [...] The authors find that as unionization rises, inequality tends to fall, and vice versa. Nor is this effect driven by greater skills and education on the part of union workers; during the era from 1940 through 1970, when unionization rose and inequality fell, union workers tended to be less educated than others. In other words, unions lifted the workers at the bottom of the distribution. Black workers, and other nonwhite workers, tended to benefit the most from the union boost.
> The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think:
First, the claim that this benefited "black and other nonwhite workers" is completely unsubstantiated by the actual Farber paper.
But secondly, that is not "addressing racial injustice". The people who weren't deported and didn't have their land forcibly seized by union members[0] benefited economically, yes, but that was never the question. And pretending it is misses the entire point.
[0] which was permitted under California law, after the Exclusion act
Disclaimer: I work for an automaker with union representation. These are solely my own opinions.
Yes, Unions did great things in the past, but I have the feeling that what got you here won't get you there. There's a whole heap of politics in this subject, but besides that, there just aren't a lot of clear cut wins anymore.
I can think of a lot of things that would make things better for somebody, but they are things that would span multiple employers, something that current unions do not really address.
I am convinced that unions would have a positive impact even on high-paying and in-demand jobs like software-engineering. From vacations, protection against unfair practices (for example unfairy formulated shares in startups as compensations) to protection agains high-stress burnout-inducing enviroments, there is still a lot to do.
It's just not really pressing because everything is good enough, so that's why it's not happenning (in my opinion).
He mentions the impact of globalization, but I think that it's a much bigger deal than he makes of it. For work that can easily be offshored (manufacturing, software dev, phone/online support, creative work, etc.) the obvious corporate response to unionization it to move shop. OTOH, for professions that can't easily be offshored (medical, local services such as fire/police/utilities, education, etc.), many are still heavily unionized. Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages).
OTOH, software is already being offshored at a rapid pace (I really doubt whether I'd recommend that my children go into the profession), and I think that labor organization would only serve to accelerate that. Having said that, it probably could prevent some of the more egregious benefit erosions that plague our industry ("unlimited" vacation, anyone?) ... which would be nice while it lasted.
> Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages).
None of this is true.
The AMA does not control training in the medical profession. That's determined by the number of residency positions available, which is capped by the AAMC, not the AMA. However, removing the cap wouldn't increase the number of positions, because those are funded by Medicare. The AMA does not control who can practice the profession either; only 25% of practicing physicians even belong to the AMA.
(The AMA is also not a union because it does not invoke a monopoly claim over the members of a bargaining unit, which is something that basically every union in the US does - and conversely, something which basically no unions outside the US claim - but that's all a separate matter).
> That's determined by the number of residency positions available, which is capped by the AAMC, not the AMA.
The number of Medicare-funded residency positions available is capped by the AAMC. Nothing but an unwillingness to do so is stopping more institutions from opening non-Medicare-funded residency billets.
> The number of Medicare-funded residency positions available is capped by the AAMC. Nothing but an unwillingness to do so is stopping more institutions from opening non-Medicare-funded residency billets.
Yes, except the fact that it's unprofitable to do so. Residency positions, contrary to popular belief, generally lose money, which is why the government subsidizes 75% of their costs in the first place.
The reason we don't have more doctors is because the funding isn't there. It has nothing to do with the AMA, as OP claimed.
> The AMA might not control it directly, but like any good union, they are politically active and have members on the relevant controlling bodies...
The first article you link claims (with no basis) that the AMA was responsible for the current funding shortfall. The second article doesn't mention the AMA at all.
I'm not an economist, so I'm genuinely curious: does capitalism require treating unions and companies differently? Couldn't a union be considered a service company? Is there a reason beyond legal definitions and requirements?
In Germany unions ensure that Workers get a fair share of the profits - and they understand that the company must be profitable in order for that to happen. But in the UK unions just want to destroy companies in an effort to smash capitalism, they exploit Workers even more than bosses do. It’s probably too late but we need German style unions here, then people would join.
There is definitely something missing in the current management/employee relationship.
For example, the Wells Fargo account fraud issue. Where they had thousands of new accounts being opened without customer authorization. Caused by ratcheting sales mandates and mid level management pushing employees to open accounts fraudulently and firing those who objected. It showed an obvious lack of ability for the branch level employees to push back, and everyone involved being worse off for it. A more organized group of employees could have pushed back effectively and prevented a costly situation for Wells. This benefits more than just the workers. It's not like the shareholders were better off after having a bunch of fraudulent accounts opened to game sales metrics.
In my opinion there are many business instances where a small problem becomes a large one because acknowledging a small problem would offset this quarters goals, or embarrass someone who has enough authority to prevent acknowledging it.
This missing piece certainly looks union-shaped, but the problem is that any union strong enough to push back against bad policy is also strong enough to push back against good policy. Unions are also not immune to the same power dynamics where small problems can go unacknowledged.
Rather than rehash the 1930s, what would a well coordinated 21st century organization look like? One that resists small numbers of managers risking the business just to make a bonus target, or pad their resumes? Yet is also able to take advantage of new efficiencies and market opportunities without employee revolt. Are there existing models that work that we could grow to cover other industries?
Not really. Worker co-ops. Otherwise, the union just needs to implement the right policies as they do in Europe. The problem with unions in the US was largely that the big ones were often very integrated with the government and company owners; not a project so much of the workers.
There needs to be a balance between the powers of employers, employees and government (as a regulator and moderator between the other two parties). I think any reasonable comparison of this power balance between the US and other successful democracies would show that employers have more power in the US than most places.
I believe the US system of political clientelism has been especially unfavorable for US workers since the mid-nineties. Globalization has taken away their bargaining power, and politics have been taken over by business interests.
I think this shift in the power structure is the major reason for the continued worsening of inequality-measures (e.g GINI-coefficient) in the US, to a level now only comparable to third world and less democratic countries.
I don't like corporations in politics. Successful businesses have done a lot of good, but they need to stay out of politics. (Read: And as long as they are in politics the unions have to be, too.)
109 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] threadWhat you call a "barrier to entry", others might call "certification of some base level of quality". Yeah, if you sling spaghetti Javascript, we're not letting you in, or summat. I'm not saying it always does, or even will, work out that way, but it is one option.
It's just perhaps possible that not every currently existing and active guild that enforces minimum rates is also ensuring a minimum level of quality. This suggests that, in some times and some places, there can be a gap between what's possible and what's realized.
You're completely right. Guilds can ensure quality!
And can we not use the term guild in TU history has some very negative connotations.
Some actively call themselves guilds today - Writers Guild, Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild of America, etc. Should we not use their word of choice?
19th century trade union cosplay isn't going to organise professionals in the 21st century or anyone else for that matter - I am sure even Keith Flett would agree with me.
Does that mean if I decide to start a venture, my venture will have healthcare from day 0? If so, that's a pretty neat idea.
EDIT: I just also thought that the interests of a union of startup developers and union of enterprise/large-co developers are quite different. Does this mean there are two different unions?
My main gripe with Unions are the huge costs and the major lack of benefits people receive. I'd also prefer to join a Union that isn't hugely centralized and falls to the ills of bureaucracy.
I really appreciate the benefits I could enjoy thanks to their work.
Additionally in countries where being an Informatics Engineer is a proper certified title, the college also helps in some negotiations.
Certainly not in the SF bay area, but I'm not located there.
Not looking for pro- or anti-union sloganeering, but real impacts. The economics of the tech sector would change dramatically with organized labor in computing, and I'm interested in how those changes would manifest.
Afaik you’re allowed to stay in the country as ling as you are employed by the employer on your visa regardless of whether you are working or not.
Can you be fired for going on strike?
You are still employed, you're just not getting paid. There are laws that state, in effect, that you cannot get fired for going on strike as part of a lawful strike. Well, if you aren't fired, then you must be employed, right?
Going by what happens in other industries, you'd reasonably expect a flattening of wages (both inter and intra firm) and an increase in the average wage. You'd also expect entry into the field to become harder, and exit from the field (both voluntary and involuntary) to become rarer. Fewer workers would be employed overall, though per capita productivity would increase; the overall effect would probably mean more money allocated to labor, less to capital holders, and higher costs for consumers. Work rules would increase, e.g. no one allowed to be on call for more than X hours a year, or a SWE not being allowed/required to take on job responsibilities outside the scope of the initial job offer except as facilitated by formal processes.
Many of these effects will disproportionately benefit women and racial minorities (this is a rare case where "racial minorities" includes Asians of various sorts, as they're paid less than white people in the field, though that's in large part to the power employers have over visa holders).
This was a great answer I've read several times as I consider organized labor in software development regularly. Thanks for giving me targets for research.
Employers will likely react I a counter productive manner to this threat - e.g. mandating 100% unit test coverage which would be achieved with cryptic tests that actually make the code even harder to work with.
This could lead to a decline in overall software quality in America if the relationship between developers/ops and management really sours.
Management knows that already, so they'll do whatever they can to stop unionization. Retaliating against attempts to unionize are illegal, but internal anti-union propaganda campaigns are common in other industries, and I think you can expect not just what already exists, but better-funded campaigns and targeted to people more like you.
Management would also try other methods to get around the union. More outsourcing, contracting entire projects out and requesting documentation or support contracts. These don't work well - they always cost more than expected, take longer than expected, and are a pain to maintain - but they do work some, so with unions raising wages that'd move the bar towards a little more outsourcing. I'd also expect it to take management a while to relearn that outsourcing doesn't work very well, since it's been a while. Many companies will be willing to pay more for outsourced labor than union labor, because strong unions are a long-term threat to the investor class. If the union covers multiple companies it'll be more resistant to all of this and generally more effective.
The effects on the workers depends on the union's goals and determination. The biggest test is its first strike; how many employees actually go through with it and how long can they last. That depends a lot on the strike fund; even though we're a wealthy industry that should be able to make a strong strike fund, I'd expect a lot of programmers to be suspicious about it (then again I've heard more union talk this year than I have in the rest of my career combined, so maybe they're coming around). I expect the union will achieve all of its goals, as software engineers will drastically underestimate how much striking power they have. Judging by conversations I've had, I'd expect priorities to be: major commitments to privacy/security/ethics/maintainability, improved working conditions (less dense open offices, maybe an end to open offices), and maybe more vacation time. Increased pay seems to be a low priority among workers I've talked to.
The exodus was partly a reaction to poor conditions in Russia and the fact that Stalin, as opposed to Lenin before him, did not believe in pursuing worldwide revolutions. Stalin withdrew efforts to support communist parties worldwide.
But the main thing that encouraged withdrawal from the communist party was The New Deal.
It's during times of decline that you normally expect inequality to decline. After all, the rich collect the profits while the poor collect wages. Wages are relatively fixed while profits vary wildly.
To put it a different way, which year are we allowed to start measuring without it being tainted by WWII?
If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.
Edit: and the countries he’s talking about didn’t take manufacturing by being more innovative, they did it through cheap brutal labor practices and environmental destruction of their ecosystems.
The question to ask is: who is the customer of the Union in the US? There is a conflict of interest between the Union in the US and the customers of the products created by unionized companies. In Japan, the focus is on the customer and creating the best product. In the US, the focus is on being in the Union hierarchy, "saving jobs", getting money for the Union, etc. It has nothing to do with making great cars.
The construction Union in New York destroyed new modular appraoches to building in the late 60's (I worked for the architect who tried to bring that innovation in). Even today, if you want to bring modules not build in NYC in to town, it won't happen. There is a conflict of interest between the union and the construction companies' customers.
This is quite apparent in California where the Teacher's union is in a conflict of interest with the students being taught, which is why the Union has destroyed the product of public education consistently for decades.
But even if I did agree that worker rights and wellbeing decrease innovation, then it sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff.
But this isn't a forgone conclusion, for example worker relations seem to work fine in general in Germany which has actually institutionalized worker representation at a fairly high level in corporations.
1950 = 1000 thousand tonnes, 2018 = 4000 thousand tonnes
And what destroyed the textile mills of North and South Carolina, which were barely organized at all? They were and still are the states with the lowest unionization rates in the country.
The difference is Michigan union activists like Larry Page's grandfather sent his son to college, and then his son writes a search engine while doing his doctorate.
Meanwhile, the profits of Carolina textile mills went elsewhere, and the people in those towns are worse off than ever.
Not saying those things you describe didn't happen.
However, one should wonder why almost the entire rest of the world manages to do this just fine.
The local manifestations of those industries were destroyed by globalization (which unions fought tooth and nail), not unions.
Those industries simply weren't where America's comparative advantage was in a globalized marketplace.
> The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota Lean Production system in,
The UAW did, in fact, let TPS in—not some loose copy, but the actual thing itself—at NUMMI.
GM had trouble copying the parts some of its leadership wanted of TPS for its own internal use, but those included massive resistance from their own internal managers as well as labor. And it probably wouldn't have worked for GM because of path dependence; TPS is a system relying on a substantial degree of mutual trust between labor and management, but while a new relationship can start with a clean slate, a strong established history is hard to erase.
Why is it ok to blame the workers who were trying improve their lives when it was the greedy Capitalist who moved it elsewhere?
It's a shame grassroots attempts to address exploitation usually turn into another form of exploitation if not out and out gangsterism.
See: the communist revolution, the origins of the Italian Mafia, some cartels in Mexico.
In the US unions did much good for society in general. But now we are saddled with things like public sector unions which do very much the opposite.
If you were Chinese or Indian, unions were directly responsible for your deportation. If you were Japanese, unions were directly responsible for your family's forced internment. If you were Puerto Rican, unions were responsible for the genocide that was committed against your mother, wife, and daughter. The AFL wan't shy in the least about its intentions. If you read the contemporary writings of its leaders, as well as the mass media that they produced (flyers, pamphlets, etc.), they were very blatant about their desire to protect jobs for white members by stripping naturalized Americans of Asian descent of their citizenship and deporting them. The language that was used to describe Chinese workers mirrors the exact same dehumanizing comparisons to animals that were later used by the Nazis[0].
If you dislike the current US visa system, with its draconian system of per-country quotas, you have labor unions from the 1950s to thank for that as well.
It's highly unpopular to talk about this, and so I fully expect to take a hit for bringing this up, but it needs to be said.
[0] They even published a pamphlet which referred to the Chinese as a "race question" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)
I don't even know what this accusation is supposed to mean. Could you spell out what "bad faith" you are imputing here?
It's not true that lobbying the government to enact explicitly white supremacist legislation is "a property the entire society had at the time".
> Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.
It's disingenuous at best for the HN headline to read "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" when unions systematically discriminated against working-class Americans of Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and Japanese descent.
Since you asked above, I think this might be where the feeling of "bad faith" comes in. You're pushing this point harder than it can support and more harshly than you need to. That creates a feeling in the reader of something being off. That's too bad, because it's a good point. I found the information interesting, but because of this extra torque you're putting on it, one ends up responding more to that "off" feeling than to the informative parts of your comment.
It's possible that you are highly idiosyncratic politically and you actually do sincerely care about both of those things, but that's not the way to bet.
If you are so committed to the belief that unions are inherently good that you will out-of-hand dismiss anyone pointing out the ways that they have advanced white supremacist structures historically, and accuse them of false-flag concern trolling, you don't get to pretend that you care about "race relations" (ie, racism).
> Since you're arguing against unions, we can assume that you are right-wing, politically. As such, you probably don't, actually, care very much about race relations or civil rights.
Thanks for this absurd conclusion, I appreciated the laugh.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you're referring to my tone, I understand that this might sound frustrated. At the same time, I was pointing out and explaining why the HN title specifically (not the article title, as they were different) is offensive to people of several ethnic backgrounds, including my own. And in response, I was met with one person accusing me of speaking in bad faith (with no further comment on what they meant) and another accusing me of being racist and disingenuous for explaining why the submitted title was offensive. So if I sound frustrated by the end and deflect the personal attacks levied at me, please understand it's not a reaction that comes out of nowhere.
As for the title, it matched the Bloomberg article when I saw it and still does, though they took out the word "American" for some reason. It's still in the URL though.
Everyone thinks unions are some great system but they suck in actual practice. The absolutely suck--it's just more egos and personalities in the way of you making a living. The best thing about tech is the low barriers to entry--that is populist, not unions. If you are good you succeed, if you are not good, you become an architect or a manager or leave.
Yeah, the AFL-CIO didn't allow women to join either. Sexual harassment is a huge problem within unions, because harassers (as members, and oftentimes members with power within the union) are able to use their power to silence victims' complaints. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chica...
> [Freeman and Medoff] showed that contrary to popular belief, unions actually decreased racial wage disparities.
> A recent paper by economists Henry Farber, Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko and Suresh Naidu concludes that unions were an important force reducing inequality in the U.S. [...] The authors find that as unionization rises, inequality tends to fall, and vice versa. Nor is this effect driven by greater skills and education on the part of union workers; during the era from 1940 through 1970, when unionization rose and inequality fell, union workers tended to be less educated than others. In other words, unions lifted the workers at the bottom of the distribution. Black workers, and other nonwhite workers, tended to benefit the most from the union boost.
First, the claim that this benefited "black and other nonwhite workers" is completely unsubstantiated by the actual Farber paper.
But secondly, that is not "addressing racial injustice". The people who weren't deported and didn't have their land forcibly seized by union members[0] benefited economically, yes, but that was never the question. And pretending it is misses the entire point.
[0] which was permitted under California law, after the Exclusion act
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/24/us/politics/d...
Yes, Unions did great things in the past, but I have the feeling that what got you here won't get you there. There's a whole heap of politics in this subject, but besides that, there just aren't a lot of clear cut wins anymore.
I can think of a lot of things that would make things better for somebody, but they are things that would span multiple employers, something that current unions do not really address.
It's just not really pressing because everything is good enough, so that's why it's not happenning (in my opinion).
OTOH, software is already being offshored at a rapid pace (I really doubt whether I'd recommend that my children go into the profession), and I think that labor organization would only serve to accelerate that. Having said that, it probably could prevent some of the more egregious benefit erosions that plague our industry ("unlimited" vacation, anyone?) ... which would be nice while it lasted.
None of this is true.
The AMA does not control training in the medical profession. That's determined by the number of residency positions available, which is capped by the AAMC, not the AMA. However, removing the cap wouldn't increase the number of positions, because those are funded by Medicare. The AMA does not control who can practice the profession either; only 25% of practicing physicians even belong to the AMA.
(The AMA is also not a union because it does not invoke a monopoly claim over the members of a bargaining unit, which is something that basically every union in the US does - and conversely, something which basically no unions outside the US claim - but that's all a separate matter).
The number of Medicare-funded residency positions available is capped by the AAMC. Nothing but an unwillingness to do so is stopping more institutions from opening non-Medicare-funded residency billets.
Yes, except the fact that it's unprofitable to do so. Residency positions, contrary to popular belief, generally lose money, which is why the government subsidizes 75% of their costs in the first place.
The reason we don't have more doctors is because the funding isn't there. It has nothing to do with the AMA, as OP claimed.
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-associati...
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/its-doctors-w...
When both Forbes and MotherJones can agree on something (maybe this is the only thing :) ), there must be some truth to it.
The first article you link claims (with no basis) that the AMA was responsible for the current funding shortfall. The second article doesn't mention the AMA at all.
In reality, the AMA has been pretty clear and consistent in advocating to increase funding for GME. https://www.ama-assn.org/education/gme-funding/save-graduate...
For example, the Wells Fargo account fraud issue. Where they had thousands of new accounts being opened without customer authorization. Caused by ratcheting sales mandates and mid level management pushing employees to open accounts fraudulently and firing those who objected. It showed an obvious lack of ability for the branch level employees to push back, and everyone involved being worse off for it. A more organized group of employees could have pushed back effectively and prevented a costly situation for Wells. This benefits more than just the workers. It's not like the shareholders were better off after having a bunch of fraudulent accounts opened to game sales metrics.
In my opinion there are many business instances where a small problem becomes a large one because acknowledging a small problem would offset this quarters goals, or embarrass someone who has enough authority to prevent acknowledging it.
This missing piece certainly looks union-shaped, but the problem is that any union strong enough to push back against bad policy is also strong enough to push back against good policy. Unions are also not immune to the same power dynamics where small problems can go unacknowledged.
Rather than rehash the 1930s, what would a well coordinated 21st century organization look like? One that resists small numbers of managers risking the business just to make a bonus target, or pad their resumes? Yet is also able to take advantage of new efficiencies and market opportunities without employee revolt. Are there existing models that work that we could grow to cover other industries?
I believe the US system of political clientelism has been especially unfavorable for US workers since the mid-nineties. Globalization has taken away their bargaining power, and politics have been taken over by business interests.
I think this shift in the power structure is the major reason for the continued worsening of inequality-measures (e.g GINI-coefficient) in the US, to a level now only comparable to third world and less democratic countries.