Change.org workers form a union(text.npr.org)
text.npr.org
Change.org workers form a union
https://text.npr.org/1011387838
164 comments
Change.org lets users pay to "promote petitions", which gives them more advertising on Change.org. I believe this is how the recommended petitions you're shown after signing one are selected.
See https://help.change.org/s/article/Promoted-Petitions-FAQs?la...
See https://help.change.org/s/article/Promoted-Petitions-FAQs?la...
I work in politics. We used to buy data from them. You would build a petition, they would promote, and then you got the data from signers on a /per basis. Was pretty expensive I don't remember but I think on the range of $1 or something.
BUT they don't do that anymore.
So maybe their revenue is now just advertising or % of donation processing?
BUT they don't do that anymore.
So maybe their revenue is now just advertising or % of donation processing?
They have this shady practice where you can donate to causes (like GoFundMe) and they take a cut. Well I guess it is the petition organizers who are shady, they are not always involved in the cause or obligated to do anything. Change.org just let's them do it.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/10/21286385/change-org-georg...
In a Medium post on Tuesday, more than 90 former Change.org employees called on the company to donate any related funds to Floyd’s family and organizers rather than using the funds to promote the campaign itself.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/10/21286385/change-org-georg...
In a Medium post on Tuesday, more than 90 former Change.org employees called on the company to donate any related funds to Floyd’s family and organizers rather than using the funds to promote the campaign itself.
They don't take a cut, they take the whole thing. The money goes straight to the company, and in return they promise to display the petition more prominently within the website itself. (They also occasionally use it to fund advertising to the website itself, as in the case of George Floyd.)
According to wikipedia: The majority of the company's revenue is advertising - individuals and organisations who start or sign petitions then chip in to promote those petitions to other site visitors.
> "I live in New York City," she said. "[50k] doesn't go a long way."
Sorry, but is living in the center of a high-end megacity tourist magnet a human right now?
I want to live in the center of Monaco then, please.
I‘ll take that blue yacht over there, thanks.
Sorry, but is living in the center of a high-end megacity tourist magnet a human right now?
I want to live in the center of Monaco then, please.
I‘ll take that blue yacht over there, thanks.
I wonder if this effort will have the impact of a change.org petition
Does that mean that their change.org petitions dont work? oh my
I don’t have much experience with unions. Here in Norway they seem to be common and a couple of my colleagues are union members. Employment is not “at-will” and so employees already have a lot of rights. From what I understand, the benefits of joining a union are more for salary negotiation, housing loans, and other life benefits. I’d be interested to learn more from anyone who has experience with unions in Norway.
> the benefits of joining a union are more for salary negotiation,
USA has no unions and the highest pay for software engineers.
USA has no unions and the highest pay for software engineers.
Correlation != causation.
American actors and athletes have unions. American actors and athletes are among the highest paid in the world.
American actors and athletes have unions. American actors and athletes are among the highest paid in the world.
I wasn't implying that lack of unions is the cause of high pay, just that unions are not a prerequisite.
There are slim pickings for anyone who doesn't happen to be a skilled profession such as a software engineer.
The exception that proves the rule
Pay isn’t everything. There is also sick leave, payed vacation time, parental leave, job safety and security, privacy guarantees etc.
USA software engineers are lacking in all of these. Many countries in Europe have those labor benefits as national law and unions are more about enforcing these rights, and protecting the workers from violation of them.
USA software engineers are lacking in all of these. Many countries in Europe have those labor benefits as national law and unions are more about enforcing these rights, and protecting the workers from violation of them.
> USA software engineers are lacking in all of these.
My last two companies gave me 6 months each for parental leave. I also took a lot of sick time. Agree with vacation time though, could be better.
> job safety and security,
Job market in USA for engineers has been really good. Most software engineers i know have 'job safety' in a sense that they can find a job in a couple of weeks or couple of months at most. But randomly getting fired isn't super common from what i've seen.
My last two companies gave me 6 months each for parental leave. I also took a lot of sick time. Agree with vacation time though, could be better.
> job safety and security,
Job market in USA for engineers has been really good. Most software engineers i know have 'job safety' in a sense that they can find a job in a couple of weeks or couple of months at most. But randomly getting fired isn't super common from what i've seen.
One aspect that is often overlooked is the possibility of having labor represented at the executive level. The people doing the work have good idea about how to improve the product or what changes will be bad for the product. I always heard that unions leads to greater quality and I think it is because that greater voice lets you push back when management askes you to cut corners.
[deleted]
> Employment is not “at-will” and so employees already have a lot of rights
"at-will" employment is exceedingly rare in developed countries outside of the US.
Not having "at-will" does not automatically guarantees "a lot of rights".
"at-will" employment is exceedingly rare in developed countries outside of the US.
Not having "at-will" does not automatically guarantees "a lot of rights".
Good point.
Many low paid employees of change.org are likely involved in some kind of censorship program. To filter out the nasty.
217 is an astonishing number of employees to operate what appears to be a moderately-complex Wordpress install.
This was my first thought also. How is this not just a few people doing this as a hobby or second job. How much really goes into daily operations? I would think they are big enough to be known by most internet savvy people that they don't need marketing.
I also don't understand this "Radha Nath, 30, a product designer at the company, said she is paid $16,000 less than she was at her last employer. The union will fight to bring wages across the company to the industry standard, she said." So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right?
I also don't understand this "Radha Nath, 30, a product designer at the company, said she is paid $16,000 less than she was at her last employer. The union will fight to bring wages across the company to the industry standard, she said." So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right?
> So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right?
Isn't that true of every person working somewhere who then votes to unionize?
Isn't that true of every person working somewhere who then votes to unionize?
I think they mean that she voluntarily took a pay cut relative to her former place of employment.
Which, in my opinion is an interesting take. Many people take pay cuts to work at start ups and it would be irresponsible to think that a 10 or even 200 person company could pay like FAANG. Salaries aren’t static across the industry.
Which, in my opinion is an interesting take. Many people take pay cuts to work at start ups and it would be irresponsible to think that a 10 or even 200 person company could pay like FAANG. Salaries aren’t static across the industry.
It doesn't say she left her previous employment in order to take on a job for less money, it simply says it paid less than her previous employment. For all we know she could have been out of work for a year between, trying to get a job.
Saying someone accepted a job at a miserly rate doesn't make the rate acceptable. We don't think paying immigrants a fraction of the minimum wage is acceptable, we don't (any more) think that expecting years of unpaid internships is acceptable, and we don't think that the jobs the factory workers first started to unionize against, with terrible wages and unsafe conditions were acceptable, despite all those people "voluntarily" accepting the jobs.
Having a job isn't just "voluntary" for most people. The pressure to have one in order to survive, plus the difficulties, costs and risks associated with switching, gives the employer power over the employees.
Saying someone accepted a job at a miserly rate doesn't make the rate acceptable. We don't think paying immigrants a fraction of the minimum wage is acceptable, we don't (any more) think that expecting years of unpaid internships is acceptable, and we don't think that the jobs the factory workers first started to unionize against, with terrible wages and unsafe conditions were acceptable, despite all those people "voluntarily" accepting the jobs.
Having a job isn't just "voluntary" for most people. The pressure to have one in order to survive, plus the difficulties, costs and risks associated with switching, gives the employer power over the employees.
There's a lot we don't know though. We don't know how long ago that was or what she was told to expect as far as salary increases go. Plus, Change.org is 14 years old now so I wouldn't really call it a startup anymore.
You are right that it's not a startup, but a ~200 person company is far from Google or Apple and you can't really compare them. Change.org is about social justice as I would say their major goal is not profits so the pay will be lower than a publicly traded company.
okay.. then unionizing and negotiating will reach a fair agreement. I dont understand how this is remotely an argument against unionizing.
How is it not currently a fair agreement? They knew the pay going into the job...that's not fair?
Underpaid workers generally know the pay going into a job. I don't think that makes it fair or unfair.
I'm not saying necessarily it was unfair, I'm saying that unionizing can only make it more fair - there's no downside to unionizing.
The power imbalance ensures it's never fair.
Perhaps the most amazing part is them having enough revenue to pay that many people. Even if only a fraction of those are FTEs that's a fair amount of cashflow to sustain.
I always thought Change.org was mostly known for being a nexus of naiveté and impotence so it's surprising to see enough people willing to pay into it to sustain that kind of headcount.
I always thought Change.org was mostly known for being a nexus of naiveté and impotence so it's surprising to see enough people willing to pay into it to sustain that kind of headcount.
I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual?
The headcount is justified by the fact that it's a multimillion dollar for-profit corporation.
The multimillion dollar aspect seems to be due to a number of factors, but a large part seems to be the absolutely-scammy "chip-in" request, where they ask petition-signers for money, clearly designed to make them feel like they are donating to the cause, but instead it's simply a promise to display the petition more prominently within the change.org website.
I think it's basically a scam.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-ge...
The multimillion dollar aspect seems to be due to a number of factors, but a large part seems to be the absolutely-scammy "chip-in" request, where they ask petition-signers for money, clearly designed to make them feel like they are donating to the cause, but instead it's simply a promise to display the petition more prominently within the change.org website.
I think it's basically a scam.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-ge...
> Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual
This isn't my experience. Yes, if you're using a Change.org petition to lobby POTUS, that's dumb. But for local politicos? University administrators? In other words, people sensitive to being publicly embarrassed? I've seen it work.
This isn't my experience. Yes, if you're using a Change.org petition to lobby POTUS, that's dumb. But for local politicos? University administrators? In other words, people sensitive to being publicly embarrassed? I've seen it work.
The issue with niche change.org petitions is that the numbers mean nothing. There's no way to prove that the signers are from the key population.
Of course. But the people who are publicly shamed and those surrounding them might not be aware of that.
> I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual?
In our world of capitalism, the only justification a product needs is that it sells. And sometimes things that don't work or don't work well are superior products, because then customers keep coming back for more to get their desired results.
In our world of capitalism, the only justification a product needs is that it sells. And sometimes things that don't work or don't work well are superior products, because then customers keep coming back for more to get their desired results.
Why do you assume all that work is engineering? I mean you’re probably right that comparatively the number of people who actually work on the site itself are teeny tiny. But then there’s the whole rest of the business — admin, finance, accounting, sales, marketing, design, support.
Like $15m ARR and a $300m valuation isn’t “a website.”
Like $15m ARR and a $300m valuation isn’t “a website.”
Looking at the skill they're looking for on their hiring page: https://careers.change.org/
Seems like it's a Ruby/React stack on AWS. Looks like they're trying to grow internationally (hiring "campaigners" in Japan).
Seems like it's a Ruby/React stack on AWS. Looks like they're trying to grow internationally (hiring "campaigners" in Japan).
Right on cue, HN armchair experts underestimating the complexity of real world businesses.
Lots of companies overhire for empire building purposes and for tasks that offer marginal or zero value to the company.
I'm sure plenty of people here can attest to the cascade of overhiring that happens to startups all the time.
I'm sure plenty of people here can attest to the cascade of overhiring that happens to startups all the time.
And that’s fine, every company finds their balance. Usually a year down the road they’ll have a round of layoffs and get closer to their equilibrium.
It seems to take a headcount increase of at least an order of magnitude to turn a product into a business and I have a hard time understanding that.
For example, when Instagram was purchased by Facebook they only had 13 employees and now they have something like 500.
For example, when Instagram was purchased by Facebook they only had 13 employees and now they have something like 500.
Having been down this path several times (small company to acquisition to growth), if you actually sit down during the startup phase and list all of the features/processes that would make your product fully mature, you're looking at a massive project with a lot of people involved. By 'fully mature' I mean it meets the needs of the average customer in your target market.
The sweet spot for a startup is if you can look at that big mess of features and find something actually do-able by a small team that can still meet the needs of some portion of your target market.
When you've achieved that, you can then start filling in the rest of the features that will fill the needs of the rest of your market. This is where the headcount can grow significantly, because even small line items in the feature set could involve a big project, yet still be justified because you have enough potential or actual revenue to justify the team growth. Once you're in this phase, the communication overhead of adding people and teams also forces the creation of meta-teams to support the rest of the teams...and there you have it, you now have a lot of people.
The sweet spot for a startup is if you can look at that big mess of features and find something actually do-able by a small team that can still meet the needs of some portion of your target market.
When you've achieved that, you can then start filling in the rest of the features that will fill the needs of the rest of your market. This is where the headcount can grow significantly, because even small line items in the feature set could involve a big project, yet still be justified because you have enough potential or actual revenue to justify the team growth. Once you're in this phase, the communication overhead of adding people and teams also forces the creation of meta-teams to support the rest of the teams...and there you have it, you now have a lot of people.
> it meets the needs of the average customer in your target market
In most markets, the average customer is a minority of customers. There is a lot of variety in each niche's demand. Maturity is having market coverage of those niches. Whether that coverage needs to be done by a single company is another question.
In most markets, the average customer is a minority of customers. There is a lot of variety in each niche's demand. Maturity is having market coverage of those niches. Whether that coverage needs to be done by a single company is another question.
Inflating headcount is a topic often discussed by economists. It causes huge inefficiencies but also benefits a bunch of people:
- manages get promoted
- CEOs justify increasing their salaries and bonuses
- allows taking away valuable employees from [potential] competitors
- when the headcount is big enough, companies acquire serious political weight
- often a branch or even an entire company can be used as training/proving ground to select the best employees to work on more valuable projects
- manages get promoted
- CEOs justify increasing their salaries and bonuses
- allows taking away valuable employees from [potential] competitors
- when the headcount is big enough, companies acquire serious political weight
- often a branch or even an entire company can be used as training/proving ground to select the best employees to work on more valuable projects
they only had 13 employees and now they have something like 500
They are not all engineers. I’ll bet most are account managers looking after big advertising spenders.
They are not all engineers. I’ll bet most are account managers looking after big advertising spenders.
I'm amazed Instagram has only 500. I assume that's because a lot of things like operations, infra, payroll, IT, facilities, and HR are shared with FB?
How do you feel about them having only 13 employees in 2012 when none of the things you listed were shared with FB?
Instagram is a huge, huge product. Hiring 500 people to chase diminishing returns does sound reasonable.
They were also a lot smaller in 2012. And with 13 employees, you can get away with outsourcing a lot of those things.
Or maybe they built a product that could apply filters and share photos and that only took 13 people to make.
Obviously. But even in a company with just 13 people building filters, the employees need to get paid, get health insurance, desks, chairs and computers. Engineers need servers, databases, monitoring, pagers. That's the part that they outsourced then, and now FB manages for them.
Yes but don't underestimate the number of wastefully run businesses either.
[deleted]
IDK, I mean, people are employed. That's a good thing right?
Not really unless it is gainful employment. Toll booth worker is employment, but it isn't gainful employment. It's mindless soul crushing work.
I'm certain there's at least one toll both worker that loves their job.
Unionized work sounds pretty gainful. Less chance of getting screwed over.
Anyways, I'd agree that gainful is ideal, but I think most humans prefer to be employed and occupied over having nothing to do.
Anyways, I'd agree that gainful is ideal, but I think most humans prefer to be employed and occupied over having nothing to do.
What business?
It's a common question for sure.
I wouldn't necessarily pull out "armchair experts" type comments for someone expressing curiosity / wondering what they're all up to.
I wouldn't necessarily pull out "armchair experts" type comments for someone expressing curiosity / wondering what they're all up to.
What was the question even? It was just pure snark. Nothing about their site indicates a Wordpress blog for that matter.
Curiosity / wondering what they're all up to.
that’s why they formed a union
change.org is pointless. there are official ways to petition governments. actually, change.org may be worse than pointless because it tricks people to think they actually did something by signing and prevents them from looking for better ways to address the issue
I don't get this:
> I live in New York City," she said. "That doesn't go a long way.
So you live in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and then complain when you aren't making enough to live in said city. Either quit the low paying position and find a better paying job or move to somewhere cheaper.
> I live in New York City," she said. "That doesn't go a long way.
So you live in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and then complain when you aren't making enough to live in said city. Either quit the low paying position and find a better paying job or move to somewhere cheaper.
I agree with personal responsibility here. But I don't think that negates critiques about living wages, especially from a self-billed progressive organization.
It looks like some positions are required in person - does anyone work there on HN? There is only one NY specific list on their jobs page right now that says remote/NY, but a lot others list specific cities, like San Fran which is expensive too - they say "San Francisco (remote for now)"
I think this combo of Stimi, lack of/expensive childcare, and new automatic child support payments, has forced the debate on where the baseline of a living wage is.
We're pushing past $15 minimum for even Burger King in some places right now. But employers are logically still loathe to pay more, they would rather pay signup bonus' than higher wages.
If wages outpace inflation I'm all for it.
It looks like some positions are required in person - does anyone work there on HN? There is only one NY specific list on their jobs page right now that says remote/NY, but a lot others list specific cities, like San Fran which is expensive too - they say "San Francisco (remote for now)"
I think this combo of Stimi, lack of/expensive childcare, and new automatic child support payments, has forced the debate on where the baseline of a living wage is.
We're pushing past $15 minimum for even Burger King in some places right now. But employers are logically still loathe to pay more, they would rather pay signup bonus' than higher wages.
If wages outpace inflation I'm all for it.
Presumably that means they have offices in New York. If that's the case, they should pay a livable wage for people living in that city.
[deleted]
Capitalists vastly overestimate the mobility of labor. Maybe she has reasons keeping her there that are none of your business. The "just move" or "just get a better job" refrain is hopelessly ignorant.
I couldn't disagree more with that statement. Mostly everyone I know from close family and friends have moved out of the bay area as its too expensive in the past 3 years. I also moved and me and my Wife are in tech and make great money, alot of the people I know are not in that situation. We all left as cost of living is stupidly high and I don't want to spend every penny I make on housing and other high costs that only exist there. Everyone is free to make their own choices of where to live and work and live with those consequences.
So your position is that people who want a mission-driven job, and are willing to accept lower pay because they believe in the work... do not deserve to live in NYC? They should either give up their passions, or move away from their lives, possibly away from their friends and family?
Harsh.
Harsh.
I don't think moving to a different area is something easy to do as a person generally. (May be necessary, but still a hard and painful decision.) Maybe the person, even with all the city's faults, still have some affection towards her NYC neighborhood. She might have some friends important to her in the area that she doesn't want to be apart. Why should we assume the person would want to leave in the cold calculation of money and capital, ripping her off from what invaluable relationships she had in the area? People are not atomized rational machines hyper-optimizing for cost, they are in close relationship to the surrounding world and feel a sense of agency for being in such a relationship. And sometimes people will stay in their area even if the economic conditions aren't optimal, because they have something even more important to lose by moving away.
onthedownlow(1)
I honestly don't understand why tech workers want unions.
We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes like forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k contribution, ...
I want to get promoted because I work hard, not because of seniority. I want to be able to switch jobs or positions and not have to start at the bottom of the ladder.
Why would we want this?
Edit:
Unions will put pressure on the United States' ability to compete with Europe and other nations. Labor will be less flexible, and it's likely that top talent will be paid much less. Costs, however, will increase and the entire US tech industry will suffer.
We'll switch from nimble meritocracy to a regulated and calcified follower. The rest of the world will catch up. I don't get how that's good for the US.
Also, seeing all of the Europeans in here commenting about an American issue is odd.
We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes like forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k contribution, ...
I want to get promoted because I work hard, not because of seniority. I want to be able to switch jobs or positions and not have to start at the bottom of the ladder.
Why would we want this?
Edit:
Unions will put pressure on the United States' ability to compete with Europe and other nations. Labor will be less flexible, and it's likely that top talent will be paid much less. Costs, however, will increase and the entire US tech industry will suffer.
We'll switch from nimble meritocracy to a regulated and calcified follower. The rest of the world will catch up. I don't get how that's good for the US.
Also, seeing all of the Europeans in here commenting about an American issue is odd.
Unions are nothing more than a way to negotiate with capital as a single entity. There's more to negotiating as a union than wringing more bennies out of the employer. Things like "hey is sustained 60 hours a week really acceptable" "why do I have to put work email on my phone and be responsive 24/7" and "it's been 7 years boss and we haven't gotten new workstations" are all things that are up for bargaining. It's about negotiating things as a group that would get you laughed at or demoted if you were to do it by yourself.
Unions do not preclude promotions from merit. Unions do not preclude hiring people at the middle of the pay scale. Don't construct a straw man of the worst things you can think of, and package them up as the average union, because it isn't.
Unions do not preclude promotions from merit. Unions do not preclude hiring people at the middle of the pay scale. Don't construct a straw man of the worst things you can think of, and package them up as the average union, because it isn't.
> Things like "hey is sustained 60 hours a week really acceptable" "why do I have to put work email on my phone and be responsive 24/7" and "it's been 7 years boss and we haven't gotten new workstations" are all things that are up for bargaining.
Do SWEs in the US actually have any of these problems? Maybe I'm spoiled by my FAANG job but I find it hard to imagine these kinds of work conditions even at a non-FAANG tech company.
Do SWEs in the US actually have any of these problems? Maybe I'm spoiled by my FAANG job but I find it hard to imagine these kinds of work conditions even at a non-FAANG tech company.
That's the thing, you have to fight these things even when they're not happening because over time they will happen. Everyone was surprised when Google and Apple came back hard against remote working but that's just what big businesses do.
As software is increasingly commoditized over the next 5 decades we'll see a huge degradation in employee compensation even as profits for these companies continue to grow.
As software is increasingly commoditized over the next 5 decades we'll see a huge degradation in employee compensation even as profits for these companies continue to grow.
How does one fight against things that aren't happening? "Hell no, boss; I won't do that thing that you're not even asking me to do! No; I don't have any idea what I'm yelling about either!"
You're kidding right? Pre-planning for future events, like havesting food for the winter, is society 101.
You're conflating "fighting" with "preparing for".
Google is allowing remote work, after a long period of being non-committal. Not sure what you mean when you say they "came back hard against [it]".
Ex-Amazon here: burnout due to stressful work and on-call duties is the n. 1 reason for attrition.
It's very well known that people leave FAANGs in general due to stress.
It's very well known that people leave FAANGs in general due to stress.
Sorry to hear it. I guess FAANGs aren't interchangeable. I'm at Google - have been on 4 or 5 teams in 10 years - and that's unthinkable. Thanks for the data point, anyway.
> and that's unthinkable
Google seems to be better in some ways, but I met plenty of ex-Googlers complaining about the stress and the competitive environment.
Google seems to be better in some ways, but I met plenty of ex-Googlers complaining about the stress and the competitive environment.
Pretty much all SWEs in Silicon Valley have had to work in open offices, which is a common grievance.
Oh sure, I don't like open offices, but that's not the same as 60 hour weeks and 24/7 oncall.
I tend to bring up open offices in unionization discussions as a very simple example of how SWEs, despite high demand and compensation, don’t nearly have as much leverage as we claim to do (lack of WFH, pre-COVID, is a more impactful variant.) Despite near universal worker complaint, it’s simply something that industry management has embraced and no amount of tweeting, blogging, or even studies (https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-truth-about-open-offices) will make a difference.
Does that mean a union should be built solely to put pressure to end open offices? No, but it does indicate that there are near-universal issues in the industry that such a union or professional association can address. Because without any organizing, management will just continue the status quo. There’s not even the added competition of some firms deciding to offer personal offices or at least cubicles as an alternative to woo candidates.
It’s an example of something in industry that everyone complains about but no one can successfully challenge.
Does that mean a union should be built solely to put pressure to end open offices? No, but it does indicate that there are near-universal issues in the industry that such a union or professional association can address. Because without any organizing, management will just continue the status quo. There’s not even the added competition of some firms deciding to offer personal offices or at least cubicles as an alternative to woo candidates.
It’s an example of something in industry that everyone complains about but no one can successfully challenge.
This happens all the time at non-FAANG companies.
I think, by definition, having a FAANG job is being spoiled, but yes, the software industry has some pretty terrible practices. Look up, for example, the story of EA Spouse. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-...
> Unions are nothing more than a way to negotiate with capital as a single entity
Depends on the union and how long it's been in operation and their goals. Some unions demand and get ridiculous perks. You may have heard of the "rubber room" - a.k.a. paying employees not to work. That happened.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114118143005186163
Depends on the union and how long it's been in operation and their goals. Some unions demand and get ridiculous perks. You may have heard of the "rubber room" - a.k.a. paying employees not to work. That happened.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114118143005186163
Well, so they're still nothing more than a way to negotiate collectively, even if the employer is a weak negotiator, or if the union reps make poor judgement.
As long as the employer consents, and the union reps consent, and the majority of the union approves a bargain, then I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with getting paid to not work.
As long as the employer consents, and the union reps consent, and the majority of the union approves a bargain, then I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with getting paid to not work.
One typical benefit of unions, beyond compensation concerns, are better-defined circumstances under which you're able to say "no" without repercussions, and the security of others having your back if management tries to wiggle out of their side of that agreement.
[EDIT] in short, in some situations you get to replace the typical "well, just leave!" response to management trying to fuck you over, with "... don't leave, because they won't be able to fuck you over, and if they try they'll be the ones having a bad day". Which is nice.
[EDIT] in short, in some situations you get to replace the typical "well, just leave!" response to management trying to fuck you over, with "... don't leave, because they won't be able to fuck you over, and if they try they'll be the ones having a bad day". Which is nice.
They can also lobby on moral grounds - e.g. cracking down on dark patterns, against doing business with abusive regimes or domestic concentration camp operators.
Also work against stack ranking, hire-to-fire, the ridiculous leetcode obsession, and other toxic workplace practices endemic to the industry.
>Unions do not preclude promotions from merit
In theory maybe but in practice this has always seemed to be the case for me (admittedly a brit). Here there are literally queues to be eligible. There is a list of names and it's sorted by company start date.
In theory maybe but in practice this has always seemed to be the case for me (admittedly a brit). Here there are literally queues to be eligible. There is a list of names and it's sorted by company start date.
Because those who are marginalized are more important to me than those doing exceptional well, even if I’m doing exceptional well.
I care little about promotions or status, nor does my job mean much to me other than income (it’s what I do with a small part of my life, not who I am), so I’m optimizing for different metrics than others. I have done well enough for a lifetime, and I’d rather spend my energy pulling the rest of folks up (both in comp and quality of life). Don’t wealthy people spend their time on philanthropy when they’re done hustling? I say, “why wait?” and do what you can where you are with what you have.
Compensation has diminishing utility, while I have found compassionate efforts do not. YMMV.
(Onward to legally mandated PTO, fewer day work weeks, wfh, and stronger labor rights for everyone; society grows great when old people plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in)
Edit reply to your edit: Top talent is a small minority. You’re basically asking the majority “Why do you want better for all of yourselves at the detriment to the very few amongst us capturing a majority of the gains?”
I care little about promotions or status, nor does my job mean much to me other than income (it’s what I do with a small part of my life, not who I am), so I’m optimizing for different metrics than others. I have done well enough for a lifetime, and I’d rather spend my energy pulling the rest of folks up (both in comp and quality of life). Don’t wealthy people spend their time on philanthropy when they’re done hustling? I say, “why wait?” and do what you can where you are with what you have.
Compensation has diminishing utility, while I have found compassionate efforts do not. YMMV.
(Onward to legally mandated PTO, fewer day work weeks, wfh, and stronger labor rights for everyone; society grows great when old people plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in)
Edit reply to your edit: Top talent is a small minority. You’re basically asking the majority “Why do you want better for all of yourselves at the detriment to the very few amongst us capturing a majority of the gains?”
Unions do much more than negotiating salaries. The whole software industry could benefit from:
- Setting quality standards. Ensuring people are properly trained and so on. E.g. Preventing Boeing from offshoring development of the MCAS to engineers paid $9 an hour.
- Setting ethical standards. E.g. Preventing car pollution "defeat device". Providing legal support for whistleblowers.
- Fighting ageism. It's provably widespread in SV.
- Fighting the no-poaching agreements. Many FAANGs were found to be colluding.
- Sighing exploitative immigration rules like the H1B "leash" that creates a class of underpaid workers.
> We'll switch from nimble meritocracy to a regulated and calcified follower
This is an absurd claim. Any human organization can be calcified or stay nimble. Unions are not different.
- Setting quality standards. Ensuring people are properly trained and so on. E.g. Preventing Boeing from offshoring development of the MCAS to engineers paid $9 an hour.
- Setting ethical standards. E.g. Preventing car pollution "defeat device". Providing legal support for whistleblowers.
- Fighting ageism. It's provably widespread in SV.
- Fighting the no-poaching agreements. Many FAANGs were found to be colluding.
- Sighing exploitative immigration rules like the H1B "leash" that creates a class of underpaid workers.
> We'll switch from nimble meritocracy to a regulated and calcified follower
This is an absurd claim. Any human organization can be calcified or stay nimble. Unions are not different.
> Setting ethical standards. E.g. Preventing car pollution "defeat device"
Are VW engineers not part of a union/workers' council? If they are, um...
Are VW engineers not part of a union/workers' council? If they are, um...
https://www.engineering.com/story/video-what-were-vws-engine...
> So my theory of the sequence of events in a nutshell is this:
1. Engineers write code to get around a difficult design problem in order to keep the project moving forward.
2. The design team runs out of time to fix the problem and faces a classic dilemma: delay the program, at a cost of millions, or bury the code to buy time to work on a solution.
3. Once the timeline passes the point at which metal is cut, the die is literally cast and the engines are destined for production, no matter what. At this point, the only career saving option for the engineers involved is to say nothing, and just hope they can get away with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/business/the-engineering-...
> The two men who have led Volkswagen and shaped its culture much of the past 20 years are Ferdinand Piëch, the chief executive from 1993 until 2002, and Martin Winterkorn, the chief executive from 2007 until his resignation after the scandal became public.
Mr. Piëch, a grandson of Mr. Porsche, is an engineer who made his name shaping Audi to take on BMW and Mercedes-Benz. His tenure came to be defined by his toughness and willingness to demote or dismiss people who were not performing well.
> Some critics argue that after 20 years under Mr. Piëch and Mr. Winterkorn, Volkswagen had become a place where subordinates were fearful of contradicting their superiors and were afraid to admit failure. “There is a self-righteousness which led down this terrible path,” said David Bach, a senior lecturer at the Yale School of Management who has followed the Volkswagen case.
Bernd Osterloh, chairman of the Volkswagen workers council, wrote a letter to the staff suggesting flaws in company culture. “We need in the future a climate in which problems aren’t hidden but can be openly communicated to superiors,” he wrote.
> So my theory of the sequence of events in a nutshell is this:
1. Engineers write code to get around a difficult design problem in order to keep the project moving forward.
2. The design team runs out of time to fix the problem and faces a classic dilemma: delay the program, at a cost of millions, or bury the code to buy time to work on a solution.
3. Once the timeline passes the point at which metal is cut, the die is literally cast and the engines are destined for production, no matter what. At this point, the only career saving option for the engineers involved is to say nothing, and just hope they can get away with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/business/the-engineering-...
> The two men who have led Volkswagen and shaped its culture much of the past 20 years are Ferdinand Piëch, the chief executive from 1993 until 2002, and Martin Winterkorn, the chief executive from 2007 until his resignation after the scandal became public.
Mr. Piëch, a grandson of Mr. Porsche, is an engineer who made his name shaping Audi to take on BMW and Mercedes-Benz. His tenure came to be defined by his toughness and willingness to demote or dismiss people who were not performing well.
> Some critics argue that after 20 years under Mr. Piëch and Mr. Winterkorn, Volkswagen had become a place where subordinates were fearful of contradicting their superiors and were afraid to admit failure. “There is a self-righteousness which led down this terrible path,” said David Bach, a senior lecturer at the Yale School of Management who has followed the Volkswagen case.
Bernd Osterloh, chairman of the Volkswagen workers council, wrote a letter to the staff suggesting flaws in company culture. “We need in the future a climate in which problems aren’t hidden but can be openly communicated to superiors,” he wrote.
um... what? Finish your thought.
OK, since you asked: Why did their membership in a union not preclude this outcome, given that one of the purported benefits of unions is to prevent such outcomes?
This is like asking "why did greenpeace not preclude climate change".
Because that behavior is widespread across the whole industry, across many countries and across 4/5 decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_device
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
Unions, just like any other non-governative organization, are just as powerful as people support them.
Because that behavior is widespread across the whole industry, across many countries and across 4/5 decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_device
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
Unions, just like any other non-governative organization, are just as powerful as people support them.
All those downsides you mention are not automatic consequences of having a union. Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how things can work out. All the nice perks you mention are completely at the discretion of your employer. Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
>All those downsides you mention are not automatic consequences of having a union.
No, but don't try to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it. Doubly so when the employees in question are part of a national union.
>Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how things can work out.
Cool. And just as soon as you do the work to make the collective bargaining status quo in the US the same as it is in Europe, we can continue this conversation. Until then, I don't care about this tangent.
>Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
Because *I* am not gaining leverage. A bureaucracy that represents me as part of an amalgamation gains leverage. Before I toss my hat in, I need to hear a whole lot more about what that bureaucracy is planning to be, and how it's going to design itself. I don't need to be pitched the possibility this instance could be better than the stereotype. Why not show me the plan on how we're going to make sure this one is a good one?
Let's set goals. Up front and on screen. Then we can decide on the implementation details (such as unionization) needed to get there. When the cart is put before the horse, I don't see how you can tell me with a straight face that the union could ever possibly be anything but exactly the generic stereotypical union that the grandparent poster is afraid of.
No, but don't try to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it. Doubly so when the employees in question are part of a national union.
>Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how things can work out.
Cool. And just as soon as you do the work to make the collective bargaining status quo in the US the same as it is in Europe, we can continue this conversation. Until then, I don't care about this tangent.
>Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
Because *I* am not gaining leverage. A bureaucracy that represents me as part of an amalgamation gains leverage. Before I toss my hat in, I need to hear a whole lot more about what that bureaucracy is planning to be, and how it's going to design itself. I don't need to be pitched the possibility this instance could be better than the stereotype. Why not show me the plan on how we're going to make sure this one is a good one?
Let's set goals. Up front and on screen. Then we can decide on the implementation details (such as unionization) needed to get there. When the cart is put before the horse, I don't see how you can tell me with a straight face that the union could ever possibly be anything but exactly the generic stereotypical union that the grandparent poster is afraid of.
> to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it
Any new organization in human society is going to be the same as previous ones? Does this apply to unions only? Or no progress ever happens in any organization?
Any new organization in human society is going to be the same as previous ones? Does this apply to unions only? Or no progress ever happens in any organization?
It's true that past performance is no guarantee of future results. Nevertheless, we are well-advised to examine the history and past performance when seeking to estimate future results.
It's funny to hear such talk even as we are all members of an industry that has reinvented everything from taxis to space rocketry, payment systems to currency.
Perhaps this isn't the union that will do it, but surely the tech industry can find a way to innovate on unions and labor power. Why everything else and not that?
Perhaps this isn't the union that will do it, but surely the tech industry can find a way to innovate on unions and labor power. Why everything else and not that?
Perhaps we already have disrupted the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic and the re-invention of employment bargaining doesn't look exactly like the old unions?
SWEs have more bargaining power than ever right now (at least in the US, which is the market I'm most familiar with) .
SWEs have more bargaining power than ever right now (at least in the US, which is the market I'm most familiar with) .
SWEs have a lot of bargaining power because at the moment, it is an occupation in hot demand. That's not qualitatively different from any number of highly-sought after professions throughout history. That's not really a fundamental disruption and itself will eventually be disrupted by market forces. What we see is the summer before the fall.
> Perhaps we already have disrupted the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic
Care to describe what disruption happened and how? Software developers contracts seem pretty similar to any other office worker.
The only big change in employment in the last 15 years happened outside of software development: the gig/sharing economy.
And it's a huge step backwards.
Care to describe what disruption happened and how? Software developers contracts seem pretty similar to any other office worker.
The only big change in employment in the last 15 years happened outside of software development: the gig/sharing economy.
And it's a huge step backwards.
> Most office workers do not get options
1) Plenty of people in finance, lawyers, and so on have high salary and excellent conditions. Many had highly paid jobs in the same fields 50 years ago. This is nothing close with "disrupting the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic".
2) An this point it's really difficult to assume that you are arguing in good faith.
1) Plenty of people in finance, lawyers, and so on have high salary and excellent conditions. Many had highly paid jobs in the same fields 50 years ago. This is nothing close with "disrupting the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic".
2) An this point it's really difficult to assume that you are arguing in good faith.
Most office workers do not get options or RSUs in their company. Most office workers cannot set a flag on their LinkedIn profile that says "looking for work", get hounded by recruiters, and land another job, with higher pay, a stock grant, and signing bonus, and start the new job next month.
> Most office workers cannot set a flag on their LinkedIn profile that says "looking for work", get hounded by recruiters, and land another job, with higher pay, a stock grant, and signing bonus, and start the new job next month.
It's nice to have your role in high demand, but all good things must come to an end.
It's nice to have your role in high demand, but all good things must come to an end.
[deleted]
>Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
Because in this case it isn't in Europe?
I like the European tradition a lot more than the frequent outcomes with US unions. I've seen US unions where what the original poster describes is totally accurate.
Because in this case it isn't in Europe?
I like the European tradition a lot more than the frequent outcomes with US unions. I've seen US unions where what the original poster describes is totally accurate.
> Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
My main source of leverage comes from my employer's projection of what I'll do for them over the coming year/years. The better picture I paint for them on that point, the more leverage I have.
It's not at all obvious to me that my leverage would be increased by collective bargaining by more than the cost of that outsourcing.
My main source of leverage comes from my employer's projection of what I'll do for them over the coming year/years. The better picture I paint for them on that point, the more leverage I have.
It's not at all obvious to me that my leverage would be increased by collective bargaining by more than the cost of that outsourcing.
Average pay for union jobs in Europe is far less than $50,000
That's one side of the equation; what's the cost of living?
According to the OECD, Americans have more disposable after adjusting for government transfers for things like healthcare, education, and childcare. And it's not even close.
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm
Most unions in Europe are for blue collar work. In the UK (anecdotally) I've seen a lot more developers form cooperatives than unions, and even the cooperatives are fairly rare.
And yet quality of life is much higher.
If you read the article,
> Poché, [...] lives in Manhattan [...] earning just under $50,000 a year.
That doesn't seem like "extremely well compensated"
> Poché, [...] lives in Manhattan [...] earning just under $50,000 a year.
That doesn't seem like "extremely well compensated"
She works as a "Campaigner" according to LinkedIn and is 23. What is the median salary for 23 year olds in Manhattan?
EDIT: I googled "median salary" in Manhattan (no age qualifier) and you guessed it...it's $50,000
EDIT: I googled "median salary" in Manhattan (no age qualifier) and you guessed it...it's $50,000
I'll also add that as a "campaigner" working for someone like change.org, you can expect to make less because lots of people want to work in the these activist roles. It's similar to how game developers are paid less than b2b saas developers.
Always seems a shock to HN when the jobs that everyone wants that don’t require a very technical education tend to be on the low end. Well at least for the campaigner role.
The median salary of $50000 still seems a bit low to me considering how real estate must be pretty expensive in Manhattan. An okay-ish 1-bedroom apartment seems to be around at $2000 a month, which amounts to almost half of your salary (and I haven't really delved into the living costs of that area!)
I can confirm that this is a common salary for someone just out of college, even in NYC yes. She may work in Manhattan but she doesn't need to live there. Many young people have roomies in Brooklyn. It's what you sign up for when you choose to live in NYC.
>We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes like forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k contribution, ...
You presume this sort of compensation is enjoyed throughout our industry. It isn't.
You presume this sort of compensation is enjoyed throughout our industry. It isn't.
That’s the beauty of the industry though. If you don’t like your work or don’t think you are compensated enough, you are free to apply and work at any number of other tech companies around the world.
> We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes like forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k contribution, ...
Doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers have professional associations. Professional athletes and Hollywood actors (as well as other film industry workers) are also unionized.
Doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers have professional associations. Professional athletes and Hollywood actors (as well as other film industry workers) are also unionized.
I know several lawyers who barely have two nickels to rub together. If that’s what a professional association gets me, I’ll pass.
There's a glut of lawyers, despite all of the gatekeeping and credentialing in that industry. Don't think you can blame it on the ABA for that. Not sure if they're the ones behind exorbitant law school tuitions either. Not to mention, that's only one profession out of several. What has the IEEE done against you lately?
Professional associations are from different from unions. The stated reason for the existence of a professional association is the protection of the public. Unions, on the other hand, exist for the benefit of their members.
Broadly I agree with you but these aren't really tech workers, they sound more like soft sales to me...
> I honestly don't understand why tech workers want unions.
Read Shopify's CEO speech about being a team and not a "family". Also read Coinbase CEO. These "tech unions" are PACS, not your traditional worker unions.
Read Shopify's CEO speech about being a team and not a "family". Also read Coinbase CEO. These "tech unions" are PACS, not your traditional worker unions.
Unions don't block those features you want. All Labor benefits from group power against Capital. Your job today benefits from Union efforts in decades past.
>Unions don't block those features you want.
They can in some cases do, particularly in the US.
It's still a possibility.
They can in some cases do, particularly in the US.
It's still a possibility.
My job has nothing to do with unions of the past.
edit: Fair points. I still believe that modern labor is a highly dynamical system. Many workers do need additional support and benefits, but our corner of the world is one of the best compensated and least regulated. Solutions for getting low-paid workers better equity shouldn't be used as a hammer -- workers earning six to seven figures do not need unions. Unions in tech will put downward pressure on our mobility, competitiveness, and compensation.
edit: Fair points. I still believe that modern labor is a highly dynamical system. Many workers do need additional support and benefits, but our corner of the world is one of the best compensated and least regulated. Solutions for getting low-paid workers better equity shouldn't be used as a hammer -- workers earning six to seven figures do not need unions. Unions in tech will put downward pressure on our mobility, competitiveness, and compensation.
You don't have weekends, health coverage, paid vacations, medical leave, or maternity/paternity leave?
>My job has nothing to do with unions of the past.
But you enjoy many of the benefits past union members fought and died for.
But you enjoy many of the benefits past union members fought and died for.
And we also have negative outcomes such as discounting worker education and experience (seniority should NEVER be valued over talent), restriction of work to narrow definitions leading to inefficiencies, the fact that the increased cost and decreased deficiencies hurt the product’s customers, and the list goes on and on.
We owe a debt to those who worked to get us simple humane things like taking children out of coalmines and getting benefits for working beyond 40 hours per week. Those days are gone. Now they fight to keep people who get drunk on the job or try to tell our factories that some people should stand around and do nothing because asking them to help move some parts from one room to another isn’t in their narrowly defined job description.
We owe a debt to those who worked to get us simple humane things like taking children out of coalmines and getting benefits for working beyond 40 hours per week. Those days are gone. Now they fight to keep people who get drunk on the job or try to tell our factories that some people should stand around and do nothing because asking them to help move some parts from one room to another isn’t in their narrowly defined job description.
If you have weekends off, it does.
Just because you can come up with original sentences doesn't mean you invented English.
Tech workers are not evenly compensated. If you work in FAANG or most enterprises, you're probably happy. Not if you work in gamedev, or many non-software oriented companies.
When you say “we,” you are speaking from your perspective. The reason there are such high earners is that there are also low earners.
Most people in this thread discussing change.orgs business model instead of unionization. Most tech business do indeed thrive on continual exploitation of their workers while those on top make huge sums. Tech also has the added bonus of providing useful colorful apps that are used to exploit more workers: instacart, uber, etc etc. And also building the shiny weapons of future and existing police states.
I honestly had no idea that change.org did anything beyond online petitions or that they had 217 employees. Their website doesn’t say much about how they make money, other than a link to become a member. Are they really pulling in significant amounts of money from contributions, or do they have some other business that isn’t immediately obvious? What am I missing?