Unions?

15 points by julian-a-avar-c ↗ HN
Almost want to send this as anonymous since I don't want to get banned from Amazon :P.

But I am curious as to what you all think (professionals and otherwise) of a software engineering union? I mean, salary is not exactly a problem for (most of) us. But we've had companies coordinating to lower salaries, and we've had companies coordinating to mass fire employees strategically.

So what do you all think of workers coordinating to prevent those scenarios? I mean the last beginning of the year mass layoff had substantial cause for concern for many of us. Just curious.

Edit: Honestly, still kind of scared s**less I might get flagged red by every job board on the planet after this.

32 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 87.8 ms ] thread
Im pro union, but i live live in a country that has good unions, labor laws and judges.
Tech workers have desperately needed a union for years now.

And now look at how many well paid tech workers are being laid off or fired and now tech companies are re-hiring the same tech workers at a lower wage or as a contract worker with no benefits.

"Tech salaries dropped 3 percent year over year, from $161,000 to $156,000. Adjusted for inflation, salaries decreased 9 percent, from $141,000 in 2022 to $129,000 in mid-202"

In 6 months they've already managed to depress tech wages by almost 10%

It's sad to think that being a W2 employee is becoming a real perk. A privledge that only the best connected techies seem to get.

But don't worry! Your wages may be going down, and your co-workers may have been laid off, but your "opportunity" is going up right now! You can work twice as hard!

That's it. Just more work. Same/less pay.

We won't commit to anything if you work hard though, just vaguely hint that it's an opportunity.

But isn't that after wages went up by like 50%? Sure in the past 6 months we're down but if you look at the past 5 years we're up a ton
Because unions tether the best employees' compensation to the worst, and because company ownership (generally prohibited for union members) is a large fraction of TC for many SWEs, and because an additional layer of management and bureaucracy has negative value to most SWEs, few to none of the best engineers would join.

As a result, the union would be known as a place that caters to midwits and incompetents.

If you don't mind me sharing my opinion. I think that a union is just an entity that represents the workers. And not all unions of all trades have to work the same way. I think we should encourage entrepreneurship. But I also don't want the entire industry to keep on disregarding and overhiring (I see it as gambling on the economy with people) and then mass layoff workers. I'm not the best if tasked with such a question, I just do coding, I feel there must be a middle ground, and that's why I'm here :D What makes you less optimistic about it?
> I think that a union is just an entity that represents the workers.

In theory, yes. In practice, a union brings with it economic incentives to do more than just represent the workers. Many of its incentives are in conflict with the wellbeing of individual workers, the company, and the economic wellbeing of the jurisdiction in which they operate.

> What makes you less optimistic about it?

Corruption, bureaucracy, institutional inertia, incentives for rent seeking, and loss of agency for the individual worker.

Depends on the union and how it's organized and ran. Also, do you really think the corruption of the union will EVER outsize the corruption of the corporation? In most unions if I want to fire the head of the union, we just don't vote for them. I can't fire Zuckerberg for being a piece of shit.
You can't fire Zuck because he owns the company, same as I can't force you to let me drive your car because it's your car.

You are, however, free to work for yourself or any other company.

Maybe I have a case of "wishful thinking", but I think developers are smart enough, and kind enough to get something like this working without too much corruption, and bureaucracy (since you can never eliminate it completely).

I mean, look at us, we have OSS. And that might not sound like much for someone who's been industry long enough, but I feel like it's a statement of the freedom we all seek when we use our computers, the power we have (not me, I could stand to loose some mediocrity :P).

Speaking only for myself here, I feel more free when I have less organizational hierarchy (read: bosses) to deal with. Might be different for others.

I know of no union that would give me the flexibility I currently enjoy--flexibility to bill hourly on some projects, lump sum on others. Flexibility to invest my retirement savings as I wish. Flexibility to work 12 hours days 7 days a week for 6 weeks, then take two months off to travel. Flexibility to tell clients "this is how _I_ do it, full stop. Flexibility to choose my own wage and benefits and career trajectory. Flexibility to work for equity alone, or barter, when it makes sense.

That's my reality, and I have yet to see a union that offers anything close.

My thoughts are: Lets create it then! We can make Amazon, Google, tech giants, operating systems, large language models, Chrome, data processing engines... Why would we be incapable of creating a good system for ourselves. Not a perfect one, we can upgrade the version later (lol, Union 2.3.4, merge conflict). But I think we should all want some guarantees to make sure that Big Tech can't unilaterally screw half of us _on purpose_.
By all means, create a more perfect union. Until then, I can't get on board.

Seems like every historical instance of individuals ceding their rights to an organization goes rotten. Maybe this time will be different.

Consider the Minnesota Teachers Union:

> Minneapolis Public Schools defends policy to prioritize retaining educators of color when determining layoffs

> Effective in the spring of 2023, the contract provision states that teachers who are members of "populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the district" may be exempt from district-wide layoffs outside of seniority order, deviating from the traditional "last-in, first-out" system.

> The stipulation is a part of a recent collective bargaining agreement between the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) and MPS, which concluded a weekslong teachers' strike in March.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/minneapolis-public-schools-defends...

I can't wait til I'm targeted as a software engineer for being of the "wrong" group!

You're looking at this backwards. It's a matter of protecting the vulnerable. But sure, let's pretend you're the one being disadvantaged by society.
It's not about pretending. It's about a simple question and answer of whether the union has my back. As a prospective member that would be important to me?

If the point of a union is to protect me and my interest as a worker how does it do that by saying "you may be a higher performer but you're not the right <skin-color|religion|gender|sexual-orientation|etc>"?

> Because unions tether the best employees' compensation to the worst

Completely untrue

Your post indicates to me that you're not a member of a union, so what's your place of work's excuse for catering to you?

So much of what you've said is flatly untrue, and just more BS American anti-union propaganda. If you're on the west coast, I believe there are a lot of engineers at Boeing that would like to have a conversation with you.

> what's your place of work's excuse for catering to you?

I'm not sure I understand the question; can you rephrase?

> As a result, the union would be known as a place that caters to midwits and incompetents.
I suppose I provide value to clients on terms they're happy with.
Counterpoint: SAG-AFTRA. Represents all the actors on set, ranging from the A-list celebrities getting paid millions down the unknown actors credited with "Gas Station Clerk #2" and getting some money to show up.

Your view of unions is the result of relentless propaganda in the US for the last hundred years, and at best is only somewhat indicative of unions representing extremely homogeneous, low-qualification workforces.

Speaking of "relentless propaganda" (quoting the parent post), ever notice that every time the example used by pro-union folks is the Screen Actors' Guild or sports teams union? It's almost as if its a canned talking point.

You might also notice how none of these posters can point to any engineering unions (there's barely any in the US and it takes much more smarts to get an engineering degree than become a coder) or have the guts to use technical workers' unions like the Communications Workers of America as their example? Think very hard about why that is.

Here is something I just found: https://www.gameworkersunite.org/

Please do let me know if those six unions would not be considered technical. And I'll try to keep looking. Perhaps we can find a good example of failing and a winning union (according to your definition) or get as close as possible, take the best of each, and build something better.

Oh, I agree with you; there are more examples if you look at the CWA and OPEIU. Look hard at those contracts and see what kind of deal you'd actually be getting. Doesn't seem much like what the SAG or sports unions offers, does it?
I am all for people to join a union, but I am personally against it, I don't want to be part of something like this, it's contrary to my personal beliefs.

Also, no, I don't think you will get red flagged everywhere for such a question.

You have no idea how grateful I am to hear someone say that last part. God, curiosity can be such a nerve wreck.
Software unions are a good idea. Many SWEs don't need collective bargaining to command high salaries, so the value of unions is in providing better job security.

Forming a union at a software company is likely to be an uphill battle though. There is a lot of misinformation about unions, like the assumption that unions _must_ govern comp. And years of high salaries have enabled many SWEs to make investments or purchases such that they no longer depend upon a salary for their living; they're no longer working-class and unions hold no benefit for them.

A thing I’ve considered: tying a Union mission to open source contribution.

Remember when all those companies had free lunch and 20% contribution time? Then over the years those lunches got harder to find and slowly that 20% time got turned into 0% time. I could leave the lunches, but would love for a larger org that can help fight to build up the contributor pipeline and sustain maintainers.

Would that interest you? What types of education or open source perks might?

This is very interesting food for thought imo. I mean, I've mentioned that the only thing I want is for large companies not to do deals behind our back that might affect us negatively on purpose.

But let's talk about my ideal world. I think allowing developers to work on open source (or eat a second lunch if they prefer) would be a tremendously good idea, not just for all the mental freedom it would give to developers, but also because it would help propel the _entire_ industry forward. Imagine if _half of every single dev_ did OSS during that time.

What a world that would be.

Unions are about digging in and fixing terms between management and labor.

Our industry is different than any other. The factory floor we work on is in our editors. The man on the assembly line building cars is a part of the machine. We are the people that builds the machine.

We don’t want to lock terms between management and labor, because as we’ve built up our tooling, we’ve changed the game repeatedly.

When I got started, I was writing c/c++/assembly. I had to write my own standard library for every project. I was allocating and freeing all my buffers. I had a qa guy, an ops guy, a dba supporting me.

Then I was a Java guy. We realized the DBA wasn’t needed anymore. I didn’t have to allocate and free. I could now use other people’s software through packages. I got way more productive. Made more money for the company, and I got paid more for it.

Then I was a python guy. We realized all this OO crap was a waste of time. We realized the QA guy could be replaced with better tooling and monitoring. The dev ops and cloud revolutions replaced my ops guy with APIs I could manage. I got way more productive. Made the company more money, and I got well paid for it.

Now we stand in front of the AI revolution. I don’t know what my job will look like. But it won’t look like what I’m doing now. I’m using copilot a lot, and I’m way more productive. I can turn around UI for the first time! I’m hoping these new Ai features we’ll make my company a lot of money. I should get some of it.

I’ve seen a lot of people age out when the technology changed. I’ve seen a lot of people make good money for their work. What scares me more than the next technology pushing me out, is an industry that stagnates around “the way we do it”. Today we are on the road to infinity. But if we stop moving forward we are on the road to stagnation.