Kickstarter Union voted 97.6% to ratify one of the first tech union contracts(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Kickstarter Union voted 97.6% to ratify one of the first tech union contracts
https://twitter.com/ksr_united/status/1537828455403900928
306 comments
Is it mandatory for employees to join the union?
No, and even worse, it is mandatory for the union to negotiate for employees who don't join. That's one of the many ways in which unions are sabotaged in the US. If unions could negotiate for exclusive benefits for their own members, they wouldn't have any trouble recruiting. Instead Taft-Hartley made it illegal for them to manage insurance/pensions that the employer contributes to.
Unions are weak because the deck was stacked, the same way it is in every kleptocracy.
Unions are weak because the deck was stacked, the same way it is in every kleptocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members-only_unionism is allowed, but most unions impose the same rules about non-members to prevent competition.
Depends on the contract, but when I worked for Kroger years ago, if I opted out of the union, I got like 2 more $ an hour but at the cost of some other benefits. I was 15 so of course I opted out for that extra cash.
Holy crap those are some insane dues! I had a similar experience working for a grocery store at that age. I am pro-union since I have seen the good it does for trades, but it seemed scummy trying to convince me to join the union as a kid who was on his parents insurance at the time and didn't need benefits.
Funny enough, the person who replied to you was wrong. I didn't get health insurance. They were dues. The benefits I mentioned were guaranteed raises that I knew I wouldn't get because I didn't plan to work there for more than a summer.
It's not dues, it's health insurance.
And it's not really "scummy" of the union that health insurance had weird loopholes for kids.
And it's not really "scummy" of the union that health insurance had weird loopholes for kids.
Then why try to convince me to join if I'm paying into insurance and strike funds that I will never see any benefit from? I understand collective bargaining but it seems like they just wanted to trick high school kids into giving away 15% of their paychecks. Also even though the store had high union membership, my managers still pulled crap like calling me to the register during my legally mandated 15 minute break.
In Canada, it is not. If you don’t join the union, you may still benefit from the union’s bargaining power so you will pay some dues to the union. I would presume this varies per region.
It depends.
In many industries it's a requirement of the bargaining agreement. But many states have passed 'right to work' laws which state you can't be forced.
And still, I know of positions where there are 'union' and 'non-union' people basically doing the same job at companies. Non-union usually comes with a pay bump to offset not having the union benefits.
In many industries it's a requirement of the bargaining agreement. But many states have passed 'right to work' laws which state you can't be forced.
And still, I know of positions where there are 'union' and 'non-union' people basically doing the same job at companies. Non-union usually comes with a pay bump to offset not having the union benefits.
When I helped run a union we had to carefully track paid time and expenses. Only time spent negotiating and enforcing the contract could be collected from non members.
So it is mandatory...
I doubt that would be legal. The unions in Sweden tried it, but it was against rights enshrined in the constitution (freedom of association), so didn’t fly even here.
Or course not. You can work somewhere else if you don’t want collective representation. Can’t have your cake and eat it too, getting benefits of a union without joining it is freeloading.
When I worked at a place with UAW representation, you had the option to not become a UAW member and still work there, but you had to pay some portion of the union dues anyway. They were not called dues in that case, but something else. The argument was that UAW had negotiated certain benefits that you enjoyed whether you were a member or not, so you should still pay something.
The union isn't my employer, why would I need their permission to work?
Because your employer wants the union to be happy. You also need the customer's permission to work; because if customers ask your employer to fire you, your employer will think that it's a good idea to fire you. edit: TBH, you need my permission to work, too, if I know enough of the customers or have enough followers on my twitter account.
I can assure you my employer would like the union to fuck off.
In a world where it isn't illegal to fire everyone who even thinks of joining the union, you might have some (ethically wrong) point. That's not in this world.
In a world where it isn't illegal to fire everyone who even thinks of joining the union, you might have some (ethically wrong) point. That's not in this world.
t34egr(1)
Now we just need general purpose software engineering certifications with teeth so we can move away from this leetcode death spiral in interviewing, and mature as an industry
Everyone just forgetting the 700,000 members of the Communication Workers of America (around since 1949)?
Really digging unions in tech. I for one would love to slack off for a few years as a semi-sabbatical/early-semi-retirement before I leave a job. Or at least to dial down my contributions without fear of being paid less :)
Just kidding, I think unions are pure evil, and the above is not even the worst one of the many reasons.
Just kidding, I think unions are pure evil, and the above is not even the worst one of the many reasons.
This is fantastic. Kudos to them. Copying some things they won, for the non-clickers:
- Minimum 3% annual CoL raises
- Profit-sharing bonuses
- Putting their current benefits in the contract, so management will have to re-negotiate if they want to make them worse.
- Replacing at-will with "just cause", progressive disciplining, with criteria for performance improvement plans.
Looking forward to more details & seeing how this plays out, especially as the market collapses (probably will end up looking like amazing timing on their part, btw).
Interestingly, for the people that like to paint unions as wokies, the progressive discipline item (if implemented well) actually _curbs_ 'cancel culture'. Because at-will employment is basically the enforcement mechanism for cancel culture.
- Minimum 3% annual CoL raises
- Profit-sharing bonuses
- Putting their current benefits in the contract, so management will have to re-negotiate if they want to make them worse.
- Replacing at-will with "just cause", progressive disciplining, with criteria for performance improvement plans.
Looking forward to more details & seeing how this plays out, especially as the market collapses (probably will end up looking like amazing timing on their part, btw).
Interestingly, for the people that like to paint unions as wokies, the progressive discipline item (if implemented well) actually _curbs_ 'cancel culture'. Because at-will employment is basically the enforcement mechanism for cancel culture.
>Minimum 3% annual CoL raises
Weird that they call it a CoL raise. If it isn't tied to cost, it is just an minimum annual raise.
Weird that they call it a CoL raise. If it isn't tied to cost, it is just an minimum annual raise.
Weird that you're arguing that 3% isn't a CoL raise, when inflation has been pegged to 2.25% for decades, and is currently 8%+
I think what the person you responded to is saying is that the raise should be tied to inflation. You may not actually disagree with them.
My point is simply that CoL changes aren't fixed and fluctuate. I think it is weird to call it a CoL raise if you are guaranteed it even if CoL doesn't change or goes down.
I'm not sure where you are getting that inflation has been pegged to anything. 2% might be an average, but it has gone everywhere from -2% to 6% in the last two decades.
Besides, inflation is not CoL.
I'm not sure where you are getting that inflation has been pegged to anything. 2% might be an average, but it has gone everywhere from -2% to 6% in the last two decades.
Besides, inflation is not CoL.
Inflation is different from cost of living else high cost of living regions wouldn't exist.
> to 2.25% for decades, and is currently 8%+
That plus sign is pretty subtle there.
That plus sign is pretty subtle there.
We don't know what it's tied to, because that's just the minimum.
> Replacing at-will with "just cause", progressive disciplining, with criteria for performance improvement plans.
What does "progressive disciplining" mean? I like the idea of criteria for being pipped, though I wonder if Kickstarter had a pip culture like Amazon.
What does "progressive disciplining" mean? I like the idea of criteria for being pipped, though I wonder if Kickstarter had a pip culture like Amazon.
Speaking in very generic terms, "progressive discipline" is the idea that you start with smaller punishments, give employees time to correct, and then move on to more severe ones if they do not fix whatever the issue is. With documentation each step of the way.
These sorts of policies don't generally mean that, for extreme circumstances, larger punishments can't be used, just that you can't start with a harsh punishment for a mild issue.
These sorts of policies don't generally mean that, for extreme circumstances, larger punishments can't be used, just that you can't start with a harsh punishment for a mild issue.
Why would you be happy with a 3% raise any year in tech?
> Minimum means the least you can do of something. For example, if the minimum amount of dollars you must pay for something is seven, then you cannot pay six dollars or less (you must pay at least seven). You can do more than the minimum, but no less. [0]
[0]: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_and_minimum
[0]: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_and_minimum
Unfortunately, the minimum in employment agreements is frequently also the maximum.
Source this. Every Union I've seen continues to support performance based raises, just weighed appropriately against other compensation increases.
Source: the whole economy. If someone offers X, and you want Z, and you sign a contract for Y, they are giving you Y. Do you evet give Comcast an extra $50 for fun?
It's what the company supports, not what the union supports. And "performance based raises" are obviously not CoL raisesm
It's what the company supports, not what the union supports. And "performance based raises" are obviously not CoL raisesm
By this logic a minimum wage means existing no one earns more than minimum wage…?
The fact that there is a minimum wage, and that efforts to increase it are met with resistance is proof that there are many jobs for which the minimum wage is also the maximum.
Their current minimum is 0%. I suspect "you get a 3% raise this year" will be treated the same way "you get a 0% raise this year" is.
"Guaranteed minimum 3% CoL raise per year" does not mean "you only get a 3% raise per year." It is a minimum of one kind of raise, and this doesn't mean that there are no other forms of raises, or that the CoL raise wouldn't be more at times.
(reading solely from this wording, I don't work at Kickstarter and so don't know the details of the contract other than what's published above.)
(reading solely from this wording, I don't work at Kickstarter and so don't know the details of the contract other than what's published above.)
Historically, mine have been about 3% during the 2% inflation years. I got 1.5% last year (whee!).
[deleted]
Kickstarter also voted itself to become a Public Benefits Corporation [1] so you would hope they were already out in front of ensuring contributor rights are fairly represented in concert with other stakeholders.
[1] https://medium.com/kickstarter/kickstarter-is-a-pbc-heres-wh...
[1] https://medium.com/kickstarter/kickstarter-is-a-pbc-heres-wh...
Also a large chunk of the employees who didn't want to unionize (25-35% of their peak headcount) left the company over some of the tactics employed in the contested fight over unionizing the company.
Can you link to details about this?
It's worth remembering that the event that, uh, kickstarted their drive for unionization was the site's management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words). The details are a bit fuzzy now but iirc some of the hard-left employees didn't like the ToS being enforced in that case, because whilst they accepted the project was calling for violence they felt that encouraging people to "punch Nazis" should explicitly be allowed. They felt that strongly enough that they unionized to force management to acquiesce.
So this isn't a classical union that's requesting more money for the workers or anything. It's the new sort of union which tries to force companies to take sides in the culture war.
It's thus not a surprise that a significant proportion of workers wouldn't want to be a part of that, and well, the sort of people who were unionizing the firm were doing so explicitly to support physical violence. US unions have a long history of violence already.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
So this isn't a classical union that's requesting more money for the workers or anything. It's the new sort of union which tries to force companies to take sides in the culture war.
It's thus not a surprise that a significant proportion of workers wouldn't want to be a part of that, and well, the sort of people who were unionizing the firm were doing so explicitly to support physical violence. US unions have a long history of violence already.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
The other sibling comments in reply to this comment emphasise the central point that it was about culture war and that therefore it's not surprising that many employees don't want to take part on one side or the other!
The comments are literally just rehashing a conflict. Would anyone want to work in a place where such a discussion was part of daily working life?
The comments are literally just rehashing a conflict. Would anyone want to work in a place where such a discussion was part of daily working life?
> raising money to support violence against conservatives
Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author.
Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author.
The entire comic is predicated on a meme coming out rioting at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on campus
It is a reference to a tweet from writer Mike Monteiro, who declared “It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.”
It is not about literal German Nazis, It is about attributing the title of Nazi to US conservatives and validating physical violence.
It is a reference to a tweet from writer Mike Monteiro, who declared “It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.”
It is not about literal German Nazis, It is about attributing the title of Nazi to US conservatives and validating physical violence.
Equating people criticizing folks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer as people criticizing "US conservatives" says more about you and the Republican Party then the people doing the criticizing. These are not mainstream conservative people. They do not have mainstream conservative values. These are people who support extreme right wing policies including at times fascist policies. Basically every mainstream platform has kicked these people off for their abhorrent behavior. Holding them up as a representative of "US conservatives" is an insult to any reasonable-minded conservative.
I didn't say that milo ect were typical or that I agree with them.
I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence.
I don't agree with the idea that you get to punch someone in the face if you disagree with them, even if you label them as a fascist
I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence.
I don't agree with the idea that you get to punch someone in the face if you disagree with them, even if you label them as a fascist
The argument is, in part, "these people [fascists] don't play by the rules, and will obliterate you if given the chance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I think most folks would agree that at some point Hitler's Third Reich could be opposed by force, but I think folks would struggle at exactly when to draw the "ok, it became OK to punch Hitler's brownshirts" line.
I think most folks would agree that at some point Hitler's Third Reich could be opposed by force, but I think folks would struggle at exactly when to draw the "ok, it became OK to punch Hitler's brownshirts" line.
I don't think it as clear cut as you claim. There are many political and psychology thinkers who hold that extrajudicial violence is usually counter productive.
> I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence.
But these aren’t “conservatives in general”. These are people who are at the very least fascist sympathizers. No one serious is calling Mitt Romney a nazi.
But these aren’t “conservatives in general”. These are people who are at the very least fascist sympathizers. No one serious is calling Mitt Romney a nazi.
>" No one serious is calling Mitt Romney a nazi."
It happened a lot more often back in 2012 when he was running for President.
It happened a lot more often back in 2012 when he was running for President.
And plenty of people today call Joe Biden a communist. Yet if someone has a "Punch a Communist" bumper sticker, I'm not going to call up the Secret Service saying someone is threatening the president because I know that name-calling is inherently unserious.
Meanwhile Richard Spencer's Wikipedia page starts with "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi..." It is entirely fair to call that guy a Nazi and it is the reason the modern "punch a Nazi" meme centers on him.
Meanwhile Richard Spencer's Wikipedia page starts with "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi..." It is entirely fair to call that guy a Nazi and it is the reason the modern "punch a Nazi" meme centers on him.
>"I know that name-calling is inherently unserious."
But I must beg the question, if society normalizes and encourages violence against Nazis, doesn't that mean that calling someone a Nazi is a potentially serious act? And, what if they aren't really a Nazi?
The term "stochastic terrorism" has been discussed and I believe it applies here. This is the definition I pulled from dicitonary.com: "the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted"
But I must beg the question, if society normalizes and encourages violence against Nazis, doesn't that mean that calling someone a Nazi is a potentially serious act? And, what if they aren't really a Nazi?
The term "stochastic terrorism" has been discussed and I believe it applies here. This is the definition I pulled from dicitonary.com: "the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted"
Anyone can call anyone a Nazi. The question is whether someone can make an individual determination that they think another person is a fascist, and whether this is a legitimate moral defense of extra judicial violence. Do individuals or groups have a moral right to judge others and carryout violence outside of the legal system
>Anyone can call anyone a criminal. The question is whether someone can make an individual determination that they think another person is a criminal, and whether this is a legitimate moral defense of extra judicial violence. Do individuals or groups have a moral right to judge others and carryout violence outside of the legal system
That is basically all comic books. Why are you criticizing this one and not like Batman or something?
That is basically all comic books. Why are you criticizing this one and not like Batman or something?
Being a Nazi isn't criminal, and I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just pointing out why the comic was controversial.
I don't think it should be illegal to print, but can see how Kickstarter employees could see it as advocating violence in the context of it's name and origin.
I think employees would be similarly outraged if someone was crowd funding a comic called "how to mow down leftists" after the Charlottesville car attack.
Again, not illegal, but you could see it as advocating vigilantism and not want it on their platform.
In general, I oppose vigilantism and violence, and think both sentiments are detestable.
I don't think it should be illegal to print, but can see how Kickstarter employees could see it as advocating violence in the context of it's name and origin.
I think employees would be similarly outraged if someone was crowd funding a comic called "how to mow down leftists" after the Charlottesville car attack.
Again, not illegal, but you could see it as advocating vigilantism and not want it on their platform.
In general, I oppose vigilantism and violence, and think both sentiments are detestable.
At this point, Mitt Romney is a RINO - republican in name only. The party has moved way past his kind of politics.
>"Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author."
I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint.
Edit: I'm struggling to articulate this, but I also sense a rhetorical sleight-of-hand along the lines of "By definition, we only go after Nazis. If you claim that Nazi we went after was actually a conservative, that says more about you than it does about us and it makes us question your sympathies."
I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint.
Edit: I'm struggling to articulate this, but I also sense a rhetorical sleight-of-hand along the lines of "By definition, we only go after Nazis. If you claim that Nazi we went after was actually a conservative, that says more about you than it does about us and it makes us question your sympathies."
> I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint.
Indeed, there was a very high profile example of just that a few months ago. It even made headline news, you've probably heard about it.
Indeed, there was a very high profile example of just that a few months ago. It even made headline news, you've probably heard about it.
Can you elaborate instead of being coy? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
[deleted]
> I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis"...
C'mon. Beating up and killing Nazis has been a core part of American culture for 80 years or so. Comics, video games, movies. Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America?
C'mon. Beating up and killing Nazis has been a core part of American culture for 80 years or so. Comics, video games, movies. Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America?
That's an appeal to tradition. If harassing gay people was a core part of American culture should we continue to do it? Beating up and killing people over one's political beliefs is wrong.
"It was wrong to beat up gay people" and "it was wrong to beat up the Nazis" are... not quite comparable, I'd argue.
Except that only depends on where your point of view lies. If you were a Nazi you would think it okay to beat up the pink triangle people.
It's also a diversion from the actual argument about inciting violence against _anyone_ being both wrong AND illegal.
It's also a diversion from the actual argument about inciting violence against _anyone_ being both wrong AND illegal.
I think you're dramatically overstating just how integral "beating up and killing Nazis" is to American culture. I'd go a step further and say that the principles of liberty and the First Amendment are more ingrained than the notion that it is permissible and encouraged to commit violence against Nazis. Especially if the alleged Nazis are fellow Americans.
>"Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America? "
Obviously not, and the fact that this is even being asked illustrates the concern because the association between Nazism and Conservatism has already taken root in some way. If you had just left those last two sentences out of your post, the first assertion would have stood on its own.
>"Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America? "
Obviously not, and the fact that this is even being asked illustrates the concern because the association between Nazism and Conservatism has already taken root in some way. If you had just left those last two sentences out of your post, the first assertion would have stood on its own.
More communists than Nazis although we've forgotten about that unfortunately.
[deleted]
Except the kind of people who donate to something like that think that all conservatives are nazis.
> banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)
"A graphic artist...raising money on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to bring a comic book, called 'Always Punch Nazis,' to life" doesn't obviously sound like a call for violence [1]. I see enough ambiguity here to hold judgement.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
"A graphic artist...raising money on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to bring a comic book, called 'Always Punch Nazis,' to life" doesn't obviously sound like a call for violence [1]. I see enough ambiguity here to hold judgement.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
I don’t see where it’s relating “conservatives” to the name “nazis”, but if that’s what the author’s intent is, then that is shameful.
Calling conservatives a detestable name of a former global enemy doesn’t make it acceptable. Instead it’s encouraging blind “hate” AND violent crimes
Calling conservatives a detestable name of a former global enemy doesn’t make it acceptable. Instead it’s encouraging blind “hate” AND violent crimes
>management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)
What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.
What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.
Here's what the book says,
"Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies.
SCREW THAT.
ALWAYS PUNCH NAZIS".
"Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies.
SCREW THAT.
ALWAYS PUNCH NAZIS".
What is your objection to that passage? Most Nazis today do not call themselves "Nazis" because almost everyone agrees the Nazis were the bad guys. That is all that passage is saying. Saying sometimes Nazis go by "the far-right" is not the saying all far-right people are Nazis. You are the one reading "hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" and immediately equating that to all conservatives.
I was just quoting from the book to provide missing context. My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition to include anyone that disagrees with their ideology.
>My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition
I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2.
You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage.
[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi
I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2.
You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage.
[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi
The way I read the passage, merely holding any position perceived by them as "racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" constitutes Nazism - regardless of whatever term you may choose. Therefore, holding such views rightfully subjects you to well-deserved violence.
Given that most conservatives hold positions that are perceived by the nazi punching crowd as one or more of those evil stances above, I feel like the concern is genuine. Emphasis on perceived, because there is a tendency to exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are.
Given that most conservatives hold positions that are perceived by the nazi punching crowd as one or more of those evil stances above, I feel like the concern is genuine. Emphasis on perceived, because there is a tendency to exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are.
You edited "hateful groups are spewing vile..." out of the beginning of that quote which is important because even if people "exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are", there is still a difference between an anti stance and a hateful and vile stance. It isn't talking about opposing affirmative action, being against more immigration, or disagreeing with gay marriage. If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end.
>"If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."
And there's the issue, front and center. If someone like me is worried that labels are getting thrown around in a wanton and haphazard manner, and such labels are used as justification for violence, why is it seen as a character flaw for me to worry that such labels might be foisted upon myself in the future?
>"only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."
Honestly, part of why I'm so concerned is that I can't read this as anything other than an insinuation.
And there's the issue, front and center. If someone like me is worried that labels are getting thrown around in a wanton and haphazard manner, and such labels are used as justification for violence, why is it seen as a character flaw for me to worry that such labels might be foisted upon myself in the future?
>"only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."
Honestly, part of why I'm so concerned is that I can't read this as anything other than an insinuation.
The character flaw isn't worrying about the labels being foisted wrongly upon someone. The character flaw is someone worrying that their personal politics can't clearly be distinguished as not being motivated by hate. Odds are that is a marker of a bad and unjust political opinion.
No, odds are that you see the world in black and white when that's not how people are.
Link? No.
I'm personally in tight with a whole bunch of (ex-)Kickstarter people from rank and file to leadership.
Glad to be friends with people but happy they're not my coworkers.
I'm personally in tight with a whole bunch of (ex-)Kickstarter people from rank and file to leadership.
Glad to be friends with people but happy they're not my coworkers.
A recently unionized workplace can get hostile to workers who opposed it. This is fine by me: if you opposed the majority of your coworkers in their struggle for better material working conditions, then you should feel their resentment.
Actually most people were union-supportive but thought it either wasn't the right time or would negatively impact the company in the long-run. Only a small minority (maybe 15%) of the company were activist and the rest were "union? okay cool!".
There were some really dirty tactics used by the activist camps (on both sides) and even some press written about such at the time. Things like demanding that management accept the union without an employee vote (back when their internal polling showed that only 30% would vote to unionize...). Negative articles in the press, etc.
The tactics employed and employee-vs-employee culture caused a number of folks I know to leave. Some even from the pro-union side.
There were some really dirty tactics used by the activist camps (on both sides) and even some press written about such at the time. Things like demanding that management accept the union without an employee vote (back when their internal polling showed that only 30% would vote to unionize...). Negative articles in the press, etc.
The tactics employed and employee-vs-employee culture caused a number of folks I know to leave. Some even from the pro-union side.
Only 15% being activist is usually the case. Most people just participate in conversations and voting.
Internal polling is always skewed, which is why you have the NLRB process. Negative articles in the press about working conditions and demanding that the management accept the union without going through a vote are both normal. Pretending they're "dirty" is kind of weird.
And if the people left, that's fine. I instigated and ran an organizing committee and left the shop after we won. It's a draining struggle, and one that wouldn't have been successful if things weren't already fucked up for a lot of people at Kickstarter. Ultimately, the success of a union campaign shows that people don't think informal channels will get them what they need at their jobs, and they're willing to commit to long-term conflict in order to make it happen. They wouldn't do that over mild dissatisfaction.
Internal polling is always skewed, which is why you have the NLRB process. Negative articles in the press about working conditions and demanding that the management accept the union without going through a vote are both normal. Pretending they're "dirty" is kind of weird.
And if the people left, that's fine. I instigated and ran an organizing committee and left the shop after we won. It's a draining struggle, and one that wouldn't have been successful if things weren't already fucked up for a lot of people at Kickstarter. Ultimately, the success of a union campaign shows that people don't think informal channels will get them what they need at their jobs, and they're willing to commit to long-term conflict in order to make it happen. They wouldn't do that over mild dissatisfaction.
Can we also make a hostile work environment to pro-union employees? Or is this another one of those hypocrite things?
>Can we also make a hostile work environment to pro-union employees?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting
Historically, it would be hard to argue otherwise. It is lucrative to remove bargaining leverage from labor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting
Historically, it would be hard to argue otherwise. It is lucrative to remove bargaining leverage from labor.
It already is hostile to pro-union workers, usually. This is part of the resentment that sets in. After months of surveillance and harassment, your pro-union coworkers will be pissed that you chose to side with the people who surveilled and harassed them.
What...sort of environment do you think caused them to unionize?
One where people were expected spend more time working than being offended.
Ah yes, labour unions, that invention of 2010s woke culture... You seem to be a bit confused.
"If working with dangerous machinery without union representation for 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for company scrip was good enough for my great-grandfather when he was 8 years old, it's good enough for me!"
> Can we also make a hostile work environment to pro-union employees?
That's already the default in any non-union workplace, which is to say, the majority of workplaces.
That's already the default in any non-union workplace, which is to say, the majority of workplaces.
Just move the office to a low tax country / state. Union people will refuse to move there.
Who wouldn't want to move from a vibrant coastal city to a suburb in Arkansas?
Given that SF is losing people and Boise is gaining them, apparently many people want to make that move.
I guess some people think human excrement on the street isn't very "vibrant", they're probably racists or something for not liking it I'm sure.
I guess some people think human excrement on the street isn't very "vibrant", they're probably racists or something for not liking it I'm sure.
This is 75% housing prices, 24% people leaving who never wanted to be there in the first place but moved for tech jobs, and 1% human excrement.
You can't fool me about Boise. I've been there.
You can't fool me about Boise. I've been there.
My relocation from NYC to Miami has been nothing but roses.
The people who could create that hostile work environment refuse to cooperate with each other.
This is a more anti-union post than the one it's replying to (and also reference-free.)
The flip side is that a union shop, especially a recently unionized one, is much more tight-knit. I still have close friends from a union struggle years ago. And you have job security, collective bargaining power, and Weingarten rights for the duration of your time at that company.
It's not possible that people who were anti-union could think that working conditions would not improve with the addition of a union?
My comment holds regardless. Whether they merely wanted to solicit their boss's favor or had some ideological objection, they still opposed it.
Yes. I think that’s exactly how Mao phrased it. ;)
"Power flows from the barrel of a gun": broke
"Power flows from not being chatty with your coworkers": woke
Isn't that designation basically BS? So was Etsy, and they ditched it and went full capitalism mode.
How profitable is kick starter? I've not kept up, but it's certainly not discussed much these days
According to Wikipedia:
Net income: $1.3 million after tax (2019)[1]: 1
According to Wikipedia:
Net income: $1.3 million after tax (2019)[1]: 1
My sense is that in addition to a fair number of people having experienced a failed or at least disappointing kickstarter, it was probably something of a fad for a lot of people.
That's not much money at all.
Well theyre a public benefit corporation so it shouldn't be big right? Profit is supposed to be a nice side effect of what they're doing, not their main goal. If they were raking in the dough I would be asking how much they really cared about helping people.
Well they'll need to grow at least 3% per year since everyone is going to be guaranteed a COL raise every year even on bad years.
No they don't, inflation is baked into their pricing model. They make money by taking a percentage of the donations. If inflation makes the dollar worth half as much, people will donate twice as much to get the same results.
I'm pretty sure $1 of profit at a tech company puts you in the top 15%.
Will this lead to reduced employment in Kickstarter? Probably
Kickstarter may survive since they enjoy near monopoly status, but otherwise how can they compete given that high performers in tech are allergic to unions?
Every major sport in the US has a union so I do not think that unions are antithetical to high performance. Certain kinds of contracts obviously are not great but you don’t have to adopt ‘same job, same pay’ contracts, you can adopt ‘min pay, min benefits’ or ‘min pay, same benefits’ type arrangements. The possibilities are endless. Further, a union contract is just one kind of contract and, as long as they aren’t contradictory, employers and employees can have more than one contract.
This idea that unions MUST be antithetical to the company or performance is silly. We have counterexamples on TV almost every day. Further, the idea that job insecurity is the best way to motivate people to perform also seems silly.
This idea that unions MUST be antithetical to the company or performance is silly. We have counterexamples on TV almost every day. Further, the idea that job insecurity is the best way to motivate people to perform also seems silly.
Newsflash: A union can negotiate whatever contract they want. The Kickstarter union isn't associated with something like the UAW that pushes for things like making firing bad performers impossible.
If you read the highlights, they're just asking for documentation on termination and disciplining. Not at all unreasonable.
If you read the highlights, they're just asking for documentation on termination and disciplining. Not at all unreasonable.
While I disagree with the idea that high performers are "allergic" to unions, Kickstarter seems like a project that is pretty much done and is in maintenance mode. Developers are going to be seen as a lot more fungible than at a tech-focused company with hard problems that need to be solved, or lofty ambitions that require a lot of innovation. It doesn't seem like they need high performing individual contributors, they just need competent developers who are able to keep things running, fix bugs and make minor enhancements.
> given that high performers in tech are allergic to unions
You can prove anything from a false premise.
You can prove anything from a false premise.
Is kickstarter a tech company ?
>but otherwise how can they compete given that high performers in tech are allergic to unions
If you're talking about keeping 'high performers' in sales, that's what commission is for.
If you're talking about keeping 'high performers' in engineering, ... well, do you even need high performers? Due to the nature of their business, there are no challenging technical feats to accomplish. You really just need solid engineers to push the product and maintain the infrastructure.
If you're talking about keeping 'high performers' in sales, that's what commission is for.
If you're talking about keeping 'high performers' in engineering, ... well, do you even need high performers? Due to the nature of their business, there are no challenging technical feats to accomplish. You really just need solid engineers to push the product and maintain the infrastructure.
> Kickstarter may survive since they enjoy near monopoly status, but otherwise how can they compete given that high performers in tech are allergic to unions?
"high performers" aren't going to be satisfied by Kickstarter's compensation at first place thus won't apply there.
Also good luck arguing to your boss you are a "high performer" in a company that has "progressive performance evaluation", by what measure?
This is a none issue.
"high performers" aren't going to be satisfied by Kickstarter's compensation at first place thus won't apply there.
Also good luck arguing to your boss you are a "high performer" in a company that has "progressive performance evaluation", by what measure?
This is a none issue.
Good point. I didn't realize they had already weeded them out.
[deleted]
> high performers in tech are allergic to unions?
High performers in tech do not have a problem with the heirs who own a majority of their corporation's stock telling them what to do, but are allergic to the people alongside them doing the work and creating the wealth from having input.
High performers in tech do not have a problem with the heirs who own a majority of their corporation's stock telling them what to do, but are allergic to the people alongside them doing the work and creating the wealth from having input.
Heirs? Kickstarter isn't a dynasty by any stretch of imagination. High performers in tech are in fact allergic to unions. I guarantee you that the highest paid FANG engineers would never in a million years even consider applying to a unionized tech company.
Do you know how hard it is to already weed out underperformers in large tech companies? I wouldn't be surprised if half of Kickstarter's engineers pumped out fewer than 3 PRs a week. Only the underperformers will choose to stay in the long run.
Do you know how hard it is to already weed out underperformers in large tech companies? I wouldn't be surprised if half of Kickstarter's engineers pumped out fewer than 3 PRs a week. Only the underperformers will choose to stay in the long run.
>> I wouldn't be surprised if half of Kickstarter's engineers pumped out fewer than 3 PRs a week.
Ah yes. That always super meaningful metric of high performance - number of PRs. Doesn't matter what it is, if you can't solve it and push some code in less than two days, it's a clear indicator you're a terrible engineer.
Ah yes. That always super meaningful metric of high performance - number of PRs. Doesn't matter what it is, if you can't solve it and push some code in less than two days, it's a clear indicator you're a terrible engineer.
I'm not saying that is the only barometer I would use if I were measuring performance but again, I'd be surprised if you told me that an average Kickstarter now was anywhere close to being as productive (whatever metric you'd like to use) before their unionization.
What does this mean?
Love that someone in tech is finally getting unions in tech, don't love that it was kickstarter though. Their corporate culture is very toxic and I don't see them sticking around long term. It might be just me but my impression of kickstarter is that they are some of the worst offenders of 'maximum virtue signaling, minimum virtue'. That makes me inherently skeptical of a move like this.
Isn't a very toxic corporate culture the perfect reason for them to be getting a union?
People can be toxic regardless if there is a union or not.
Humanity is endlessly capable of finding ways to do anything (good and bad).
Unions and employers negotiate what kind of decisions are made and how, but they're hardly inclusive of every last thing.
Some of the worst employer's I've had were union shops. It's entirely possible to have the opposite experience too, but there's nothing about a union that prevents toxicity.
For the record I've zero experience with how Kickstarter is / this isn't a comment about how or if there are issues at Kickstarter with such things.
Humanity is endlessly capable of finding ways to do anything (good and bad).
Unions and employers negotiate what kind of decisions are made and how, but they're hardly inclusive of every last thing.
Some of the worst employer's I've had were union shops. It's entirely possible to have the opposite experience too, but there's nothing about a union that prevents toxicity.
For the record I've zero experience with how Kickstarter is / this isn't a comment about how or if there are issues at Kickstarter with such things.
Unions might not prevent toxic personalities, but they certainly can protect against toxic managers.
I’ve found that to be untrue.
Often what people think of as “toxic” are informal actions and behaviors that unions don’t resolve.
Maybe they can sit with you in a meeting but that doesn’t change how that manager can behave.
Often what people think of as “toxic” are informal actions and behaviors that unions don’t resolve.
Maybe they can sit with you in a meeting but that doesn’t change how that manager can behave.
If you take a group of toxic people, the current employee base, and institutionalize them as a Union well now you still have a toxic culture but no way to get ride of the problematic employees.
"toxic culture" almost always means managers abusing staff.
Can you shed some light on why you think they have a toxic culture? Have you worked there?
> Their corporate culture is very toxic and I don't see them sticking around long term.
I think they changed CEO recently, no? It seems like the ex-CEO, one of the founder, wasn't "a good cultural fit" after all. They had a round of layoffs a few years ago where some activist employees were weeded out, seems like it didn't work.
I think they changed CEO recently, no? It seems like the ex-CEO, one of the founder, wasn't "a good cultural fit" after all. They had a round of layoffs a few years ago where some activist employees were weeded out, seems like it didn't work.
It's actually sort of the opposite of that.
They fired 2 activists who were poor performers but not even the people leading the activism. The press made an enormous, outsized fuss over it. A bunch of non-activists left the company half out of disgust and half out of strong encouragement from their peers.
The company's culture is "very toxic" because 80% of the people there are moralizing to all of their peers instead of doing work.
They fired 2 activists who were poor performers but not even the people leading the activism. The press made an enormous, outsized fuss over it. A bunch of non-activists left the company half out of disgust and half out of strong encouragement from their peers.
The company's culture is "very toxic" because 80% of the people there are moralizing to all of their peers instead of doing work.
Weird context for moralizing to happen at a company whose model is encouraging people to make interest-free unsecured loans to people who aren't obligated to deliver a thing for them.
[deleted]
t34egr(1)
[deleted]
Big no thanks to this.
If you hate where you work this much, improve yourself and work somewhere else.
Adults don't give feedback in a transparent way and this is because they don't want to look discriminatory. Modern employment and HR policies have done great things, but they've made the waters for this kind of communication even more opaque and pushed incentives that way as well.
Being unable to effectively communicate in a competitive professional environment as an adult and unionizing to solve this problem is at best juvenile, even worse when you think about long-tail consequences in terms of babying future hires.
As someone who previously worked at Amazon and found it shitty, Amazon is a stupid point of comparison for unionizing in tech because it's a shit-show run like a hedge fund. However, as a heuristic, people who've spent more than two years at any kind of Amazon should be avoided IMO.
If you hate where you work this much, improve yourself and work somewhere else.
Replacing at-will with "just cause", progressive disciplining, with criteria for performance improvement plans.
Adults don't give feedback in a transparent way and this is because they don't want to look discriminatory. Modern employment and HR policies have done great things, but they've made the waters for this kind of communication even more opaque and pushed incentives that way as well.
Being unable to effectively communicate in a competitive professional environment as an adult and unionizing to solve this problem is at best juvenile, even worse when you think about long-tail consequences in terms of babying future hires.
As someone who previously worked at Amazon and found it shitty, Amazon is a stupid point of comparison for unionizing in tech because it's a shit-show run like a hedge fund. However, as a heuristic, people who've spent more than two years at any kind of Amazon should be avoided IMO.
There are also those who simply want their company to honor it's word. The only reason I support unions in tech is that I'm tired of my company violating their own policies to screw over specific individuals (including me).
I would switch if I thought other places wouldn't lie. But it seems to me that all companies do.
You wouldn't buy a house or a new car without a contract. It seems stupid to me to enter a job without a real contract (as opposed the the ones we see now that are basically "we the company make the rules and can change them with or without notice anytime").
I would switch if I thought other places wouldn't lie. But it seems to me that all companies do.
You wouldn't buy a house or a new car without a contract. It seems stupid to me to enter a job without a real contract (as opposed the the ones we see now that are basically "we the company make the rules and can change them with or without notice anytime").
Why does organizing mean you hate your workplace?
Organizing means you want more power, more control.
Also, there are many dimensions to liking or disliking your workplace. You may love the product your working on. You may really like your colleagues. You may also love the office environment. However, you may dislike the amount of vacation days, the lack of ability to work part time or the lack of paternal leave.
Workplaces have literally hundreds of properties, each of which you may like or dislike. So organizing to tweak those you dislike (while, on balance, you actually still like most properties) is very normal.
Organizing means you want more power, more control.
Also, there are many dimensions to liking or disliking your workplace. You may love the product your working on. You may really like your colleagues. You may also love the office environment. However, you may dislike the amount of vacation days, the lack of ability to work part time or the lack of paternal leave.
Workplaces have literally hundreds of properties, each of which you may like or dislike. So organizing to tweak those you dislike (while, on balance, you actually still like most properties) is very normal.
Part of being an Adult TM is separating emotions from work.
Admittedly, I was able to work on some very cool shit at Amazon - however the job made me hate my life.
Ergo - adult logical cycles were spent, decided to get a new job after leetcoding for a bit.
The people who aren't skilled enough to get new jobs or improve themselves (also holds true in any industry) will always be some degree of fucked. I admit, some unions are good, but engaging in a system that grants most benefit to people not willing to improve or make the bar of performance set by the industry isn't good for anyone involved. That said, never work for a place that makes you hate your life. And yes... having the ability to make that choice is a privilege.
Admittedly, I was able to work on some very cool shit at Amazon - however the job made me hate my life.
Ergo - adult logical cycles were spent, decided to get a new job after leetcoding for a bit.
The people who aren't skilled enough to get new jobs or improve themselves (also holds true in any industry) will always be some degree of fucked. I admit, some unions are good, but engaging in a system that grants most benefit to people not willing to improve or make the bar of performance set by the industry isn't good for anyone involved. That said, never work for a place that makes you hate your life. And yes... having the ability to make that choice is a privilege.
> not willing to improve or make the bar of performance set by the industry isn't good for anyone involved
You're complaining about the establishment, in black-and-white, of such a bar. A bar that will be enforceable via the contract terms.
We don't know the terms, so we don't know whether the bar will be lower or higher than the unwritten one that management decides through opaque processes / on a whim.
You're complaining about the establishment, in black-and-white, of such a bar. A bar that will be enforceable via the contract terms.
We don't know the terms, so we don't know whether the bar will be lower or higher than the unwritten one that management decides through opaque processes / on a whim.
There are many reasons someone might want to remain at their place of work and still retain improved benefits and treatment from their employer. As an adult, it’s not for you to judge others’ reasons: who are you to say I should quit my job and spend my time solving stupid Leetcode problems?
If we can agree on that, then I’m not sure how we can disagree that unions can be an important tool in helping employees achieve greater representation in a system which generally privileges the will of execs and board members far above those of employees - you know, the people who actually make the company run.
If unions ever dominate the tech industry to the extent that they control the labor pool, we can discuss whether that’s a good thing. For now, that’s just a bogeyman. But having real leverage to increase your bargaining power in the workspace — IMO that’s very good. No one is stopping you from spending your time doing Leetcode, though.
If we can agree on that, then I’m not sure how we can disagree that unions can be an important tool in helping employees achieve greater representation in a system which generally privileges the will of execs and board members far above those of employees - you know, the people who actually make the company run.
If unions ever dominate the tech industry to the extent that they control the labor pool, we can discuss whether that’s a good thing. For now, that’s just a bogeyman. But having real leverage to increase your bargaining power in the workspace — IMO that’s very good. No one is stopping you from spending your time doing Leetcode, though.
"or make the bar of performance set by the industry"
Can you define that bar? That's the problem - there aren't any solid definitions without a contract, and it varies by company. The company can screw over people who are actually meeting the bar by simply saying the bar is higher than it actually is.
Can you define that bar? That's the problem - there aren't any solid definitions without a contract, and it varies by company. The company can screw over people who are actually meeting the bar by simply saying the bar is higher than it actually is.
A level of performance / ability where you can interview, get a job and the salary you deem indicative of your skill. This varies from person to person obviously.
For instance, for a while I had a CS degree and was solidly above average, but I didn't quite meet the bar because I sucked at leetcode and didn't have enough experience. So I accepted this, improved, and now have a higher paying job.
For instance, for a while I had a CS degree and was solidly above average, but I didn't quite meet the bar because I sucked at leetcode and didn't have enough experience. So I accepted this, improved, and now have a higher paying job.
I'm not talking about interviews. I'm talking about performance evaluation at the company. The issues are with moving goal posts, discrinatory practices, and office politics.
The only place without moving goal-posts and / or younger incoming / better skilled talent is a government job.
If you don't want to have to care about improving / competing work as a paralegal, in retail or for the government.
Yes, it sucks but it's a reality of working in an industry as well paid as software engineering.
I'm convinced that sitting on your laurels even if you're well above average for say 4-5 years and not actively improving / being cognizant of others around you and their skillsets will always result in poor career outcomes.
If you don't want to have to care about improving / competing work as a paralegal, in retail or for the government.
Yes, it sucks but it's a reality of working in an industry as well paid as software engineering.
I'm convinced that sitting on your laurels even if you're well above average for say 4-5 years and not actively improving / being cognizant of others around you and their skillsets will always result in poor career outcomes.
What does your first sentence mean? That you cannot have likes and dislikes and that you cannot want to improve the things you dislike?
I don’t get it. Could you explain that.
I don’t get it. Could you explain that.
I think it may mean that the poster thinks that changing "at-will" to "just cause" is a language change rather than a procedure change (which now routes discipline and dismissal through a union intermediary.) It's the only way I can make sense of the language: that people are being sensitive snowflakes because they want these nicer words to be used.
> making this language "nicer" isn't going to help anyone.
What is this a reference to? Do you think at-will employment has something to do with woke language or am I reading this wrong?
What is this a reference to? Do you think at-will employment has something to do with woke language or am I reading this wrong?
Data shows that people in unionized workplaces generally get higher pay than non-union.
Perhaps it might be different in tech, where software engineers are usually already very well paid. Hard to say.
Perhaps it might be different in tech, where software engineers are usually already very well paid. Hard to say.
What data in what countries? In the US the overwhelming majority of union membership is in Federal employment and mandatory. That makes up 80% or more of US union employment. That leaves the usual trade unions and the film industry and in the former most places of employment are mandatory union (UPS are 100% Teamsters, for example). The whole film industry is set up where you work your way into the unions over years rather than opt in/out.
How about data that doesn't come directly from union activists.
It's funny the groups that claim to be non-partisan while simultanously advocating a list of positions...
It's funny the groups that claim to be non-partisan while simultanously advocating a list of positions...
Why is "nicer" in quotes? Who are you quoting, or even paraphrasing?
Objective criteria for PIPs has nothing to do with niceness. Are you aware that this is a standard part of union contracts in general... like one of the first things usually negotiated?
> Adults don't give feedback in a transparent way and this is because they don't want to look discriminatory. Modern employment and HR policies have done great things, but they've made the waters for this kind of communication even more opaque and pushed incentives that way as well.
If I'm understanding your comment correctly, you're against opaque communications? Then, establishing these criteria in a contract is as transparent as you can get.
Objective criteria for PIPs has nothing to do with niceness. Are you aware that this is a standard part of union contracts in general... like one of the first things usually negotiated?
> Adults don't give feedback in a transparent way and this is because they don't want to look discriminatory. Modern employment and HR policies have done great things, but they've made the waters for this kind of communication even more opaque and pushed incentives that way as well.
If I'm understanding your comment correctly, you're against opaque communications? Then, establishing these criteria in a contract is as transparent as you can get.
t34egr(3)
Definitely wouldn't want to be part of a union. I represent myself, thanks.
Smaller and wide set of unions in an industry can be effective, but industry wide unions are effectively a monopoly on labor supply and bad for society. Look no further than the MTA in NYC.
Terrible cost overruns and bad governance of the subway system, for what? So employees can clock extra hours and get egregiously overpaid? No thanks.
Competitive markets produce societally best outcomes, as is proven time and time again throughout history. Competition applies to labor too, by the way
Smaller and wide set of unions in an industry can be effective, but industry wide unions are effectively a monopoly on labor supply and bad for society. Look no further than the MTA in NYC.
Terrible cost overruns and bad governance of the subway system, for what? So employees can clock extra hours and get egregiously overpaid? No thanks.
Competitive markets produce societally best outcomes, as is proven time and time again throughout history. Competition applies to labor too, by the way
> Competition applies to labor too, by the way
Yes, which is why unions are great.
Corporations bargain collectively by default; each is a large unit, with a lot of resources, composed of many people.
Unions allow individuals to bargain collectively, to match corporations in terms of leverage, because few individuals are valuable enough to even come close.
Yes, which is why unions are great.
Corporations bargain collectively by default; each is a large unit, with a lot of resources, composed of many people.
Unions allow individuals to bargain collectively, to match corporations in terms of leverage, because few individuals are valuable enough to even come close.
> Corporations bargain collectively by default;
Only with unskilled labor.
My profession is skilled and the skillset is in demand and hard to find. I bargain for myself, thanks.
I have repeatedly and at length discussed on HN about my 3 separate union membership experiences and how I will never again repeat them.
Only with unskilled labor.
My profession is skilled and the skillset is in demand and hard to find. I bargain for myself, thanks.
I have repeatedly and at length discussed on HN about my 3 separate union membership experiences and how I will never again repeat them.
"unskilled labor"
What an extremely elitist phrase.
What an extremely elitist phrase.
> What an extremely elitist phrase.
This! I hate when people talk about "unskilled labor" because there is no such thing. There definitely is work that requires less training than other jobs, but there is no such thing as unskilled labor.
This! I hate when people talk about "unskilled labor" because there is no such thing. There definitely is work that requires less training than other jobs, but there is no such thing as unskilled labor.
You're certainly glad that your uber driver can't be suddenly promoted to airline pilot though, right?
So you would define an airline pilot as skilled labor but driving an Uber (I have never used Uber, so I will compare it to a taxi) as unskilled labor.
Flying a plain certainly takes a skill. So does driving a car. Both are skills. They certainly differ in the time required to obtain that skill, but that does not change the fact than an unskilled person can't drive a car through dense urban traffic bringing you safely to your destination, neither can they land a an airplane.
If a job was really unskilled, anybody could do it without any training at all. People usually don't pay for actually unskilled things because they can do it themselves just as good
Flying a plain certainly takes a skill. So does driving a car. Both are skills. They certainly differ in the time required to obtain that skill, but that does not change the fact than an unskilled person can't drive a car through dense urban traffic bringing you safely to your destination, neither can they land a an airplane.
If a job was really unskilled, anybody could do it without any training at all. People usually don't pay for actually unskilled things because they can do it themselves just as good
So what?
Besides, driving a car safely is very much a skill. It's life-saving by definition.
Besides, driving a car safely is very much a skill. It's life-saving by definition.
Uber drivers have to pass an examination by the state which usually requires many hours of lessons and supervised training. How is that unskilled?
85% of Americans have a driver's license too.
A skill being common doesn't make it no longer a skill.
But common skills don't command elevated wages.
We're not talking about wages, we're talking about who counts as 'skilled labor'.
It's not elitist. Some skills are effectively commoditized. They don't require specialized, rare knowledge, years of training and constant personal investment.
If you pick a job that literally anyone else can learn to do in a few days, then the cap on your salary and lack of bargaining power is on you.
If you pick a job that literally anyone else can learn to do in a few days, then the cap on your salary and lack of bargaining power is on you.
I mean, it is elitist. Is that inaccurate? What I don't get is why that is supposed to be bad. It's just a fact.
"Elitist" is almost always used as a pejorative. Just looking up the definition of it points to social power, wealth, class hierarchies, etc. It is rarely used to just mean "smart, capable, skilled" in a neutral sense.
The comment above was clearly using it as a pejorative.
The comment above was clearly using it as a pejorative.
Do you have a better term for it?
High-paid/low-paid labor?
Skill is a proxy for supply whereas pay is a proxy of supply-demand. It might actually be a better term, since even if you do very skilled labor, you would prefer an union if there was no demand.
This is a terrible substitute, since there are a lot of low-paid high-skill jobs (ex, graduate students, TAs).
There's a meaningful labor liquidity difference between a job that takes 2 years of training and 2 days of training, and it's important for policy decisions. Sorry?
There's a meaningful labor liquidity difference between a job that takes 2 years of training and 2 days of training, and it's important for policy decisions. Sorry?
But aren't those low-paid, high skill jobs likely to be unionized? Only issue I see with that term is that union affects pay.
I am not trying to argue about the merits of unionization. I am saying that "low-skill" is a meaningful term we should not drop.
More exploited | Less exploited?
Back in my younger years, I worked a lot of unskilled-labor type jobs.
The starkest difference that I recognize between people in those jobs and people in my career is that in the former people have a hard time showing up to work on-time or at all and in the latter everyone is pretty tuned in and works hard.
It only hit me late in life that success in life really can be just as simple as showing up.
I guess what I would say here is that the kind of people who feel that they need collective bargaining agreements probably overlaps quite strongly with the group of people that have a hard time showing up.
The starkest difference that I recognize between people in those jobs and people in my career is that in the former people have a hard time showing up to work on-time or at all and in the latter everyone is pretty tuned in and works hard.
It only hit me late in life that success in life really can be just as simple as showing up.
I guess what I would say here is that the kind of people who feel that they need collective bargaining agreements probably overlaps quite strongly with the group of people that have a hard time showing up.
Yes grampa, the disadvantaged kid who never got a chance to learn a "skilled job" should just pull himself by the bootstraps, show up, give the manager a firm handshake. Yawn.
I worked shitty jobs into my 30s before I landed on my career. Suck it up.
Also you're missing the point. I didn't say anything about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. You DON'T have to work hard. I said just show up. Every day. On time. That's literally the one thing I've seen in life that differentiates people who are successful in life from those who aren't.
And I know bank security guards who show up every day and live fulfilled happy successful lives. What I was saying was that commonly you'll find in unskilled labor jobs are people who don't show up every day. Not all of them but a large number. They won't do the minimum to succeed in life. They need the coddling.
Also you're missing the point. I didn't say anything about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. You DON'T have to work hard. I said just show up. Every day. On time. That's literally the one thing I've seen in life that differentiates people who are successful in life from those who aren't.
And I know bank security guards who show up every day and live fulfilled happy successful lives. What I was saying was that commonly you'll find in unskilled labor jobs are people who don't show up every day. Not all of them but a large number. They won't do the minimum to succeed in life. They need the coddling.
I'm sorry, but your impression is wrong. The biggest correlate with income is not your punctuality, not hours worked, not productivity. It is this: your parents' income. This directly contradicts the (popular) view that we live in a meritocracy where all you have to do to succeed is work hard and be smart and apply yourself.
> What I was saying was that commonly you'll find in unskilled labor jobs are people who don't show up every day.
Mind sharing the study of workplace absenteeism that you're basing that opinion on?
> What I was saying was that commonly you'll find in unskilled labor jobs are people who don't show up every day.
Mind sharing the study of workplace absenteeism that you're basing that opinion on?
I never correlated income with punctuality.
I correlated lack of punctuality with overrepresentation in low-wage+low-skill jobs.
There are also plenty of high-social status, skilled, low-income jobs that are thoroughly dominated by the upper classes, like college professors, journalists, rank & file media/fashion, and orchestra musicians. Those jobs are not low-skill and people in them tend to show up to work.
I correlated lack of punctuality with overrepresentation in low-wage+low-skill jobs.
There are also plenty of high-social status, skilled, low-income jobs that are thoroughly dominated by the upper classes, like college professors, journalists, rank & file media/fashion, and orchestra musicians. Those jobs are not low-skill and people in them tend to show up to work.
> Do you have a better term for it?
Apparently the euphemism treadmill is on low-wage labor [1]. Which is dumb, since it literally though not conceptually covers graduate students.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unskilled-labor.asp
Apparently the euphemism treadmill is on low-wage labor [1]. Which is dumb, since it literally though not conceptually covers graduate students.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unskilled-labor.asp
"labor" and "job"
Thank you for complimenting the above insightful comment! :)
I wouldn't divide it between skilled and unskilled. It's more a product of supply and demand.
Unskilled labor can have decent bargaining power if there's a shortage of unskilled labor.
It just so happens that there tends to more frequently be shortages of skilled labor
Unskilled labor can have decent bargaining power if there's a shortage of unskilled labor.
It just so happens that there tends to more frequently be shortages of skilled labor
> Unskilled labor can have decent bargaining power if there's a shortage of unskilled labor.
Not really, because that’s the definition of unskilled: it takes no special skills to do the job. So if there’s a shortage and wages go up dramatically then skilled labor can take its place. (The opposite is not possible/ advisable though.)
Not really, because that’s the definition of unskilled: it takes no special skills to do the job. So if there’s a shortage and wages go up dramatically then skilled labor can take its place. (The opposite is not possible/ advisable though.)
Being willing to do the job is a hurdle on its own. And there is variance between employee quality for "unskilled" labor too.
E.g. think about customer facing roles and social skills/aptitude. Having all friendly/nice employees can drive greater revenue for a business. Chick fil a and costco are famous for hiring friendly employees, can have meaningful results for the business
E.g. think about customer facing roles and social skills/aptitude. Having all friendly/nice employees can drive greater revenue for a business. Chick fil a and costco are famous for hiring friendly employees, can have meaningful results for the business
And plenty of businesses have gone the other way and decided that the personal touch of being greeted by a human being provides less business value than a computer. E.g., McDonalds, Wendy's, your grocery store.
The no-poach cartel that ruled big tech for like a decade would like to have a word.
People like to forget about this. With the way salaries work in this industry, we are all underpaid.
If your skillset is sufficiently rare and in-demand than Google/Facebook/Apple aren't your only options for high-paying employment.
Heck, I haven't even worked for any of those yet and last I checked at least 2 of them were offering less than what I make for my role.
Heck, I haven't even worked for any of those yet and last I checked at least 2 of them were offering less than what I make for my role.
That's an oligopoly/cartel, which represents monopoly power on labor demand, and is illegal
Did anyone go to jail over it? No. I doubt anyone was even fired. It was settled for $415 million split 4 ways between the companies involved[1]. So it's "illegal", but in terms of repercussions experienced by the offenders I'd say it's up there with a $150 speeding ticket.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
That's a problem with elected officials/regulatory agencies.
I'm a strong believer that government's number one priority should be to maintain a competitive market, as in the long run that produces the best outcomes for broader society.
Unfortunately they've failed quite badly at it. Especially in regards to big tech.
Important to direct ire towards those that are responsible, representatives need to be held accountable
I'm a strong believer that government's number one priority should be to maintain a competitive market, as in the long run that produces the best outcomes for broader society.
Unfortunately they've failed quite badly at it. Especially in regards to big tech.
Important to direct ire towards those that are responsible, representatives need to be held accountable
> I bargain for myself, thanks.
Judging by that history, you aren't doing so well. Good luck, and hopefully things improve!
Judging by that history, you aren't doing so well. Good luck, and hopefully things improve!
I haven't been part of a union for more than 20 years now. I'm doing great.
> I bargain for myself, thanks.
Well, that's good to know. I guess the rest of the world can stop worrying about themselves since you're taken care of.
Well, that's good to know. I guess the rest of the world can stop worrying about themselves since you're taken care of.
He's saying he doesn't want the choice denied to him, as unionization advocates frequently attempt to justify.
Democracy needs no apologies. You are denied choices everyday because society and government have agreed upon those choices. There will always be those upset because they feel their rights are infringed upon.
By that logic, slavery in the US was a-ok if/because it was supported by the majority. That is why rights not subject to majority exist and should exist.
And the right to determine the terms with with you negotiate away your labor is among the most sacred.
Letting others do that for you is much closer to indentured servitude or slavery.
The problem with all of these collectivsts' arguments is that they all believe themselves to be in their utopia's social planning committee rather than themselves a laborer. And that's if they made it past the "shoot all the troublemakers" phase of their revolution.
Letting others do that for you is much closer to indentured servitude or slavery.
The problem with all of these collectivsts' arguments is that they all believe themselves to be in their utopia's social planning committee rather than themselves a laborer. And that's if they made it past the "shoot all the troublemakers" phase of their revolution.
You're free to work at a non-unionized company, of course, or even found your own.
What you advocate for, not organizing, is what got us to the indentured servitude and slavery current state (US centric of course). Those who can’t recognize that are beyond hope (as they ignore the economic data clearly demonstrating the benefits), and to cater to them or entertain their desire to maintain the status quo helps no one but themselves.
Edit: This forum has some sort of empathy deficiency in aggregate.
Edit: This forum has some sort of empathy deficiency in aggregate.
busterarm(2)
I did not know "collective bargaining in a capitalist wage-labour system" was actually synonymous with "proletariat uprising", but here we are.
Forgive me, but in NYC where I'm from nearly 100% of the people talking about unions are Wobblies (IWW people) and nearly 100% of them are tankies but even if they aren't their union advocates for a revolution anyway.
A union tends to be a monopoly on labor supply in most cases. Not a competitive labor market.
Bargaining collectively = monopoly. They can raise wages up to the level of marginal profit of the employing company.
Just the same as a company that's a monopoly could raise prices up to marginal value of the good to the customer.
If the company can bypass the union to hire others, then it's not a monopoly. But if the union is influential enough this may not be possible.
Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society, only those being paid beyond their individual market power. Raises cost of goods and lowers quality for the rest
Bargaining collectively = monopoly. They can raise wages up to the level of marginal profit of the employing company.
Just the same as a company that's a monopoly could raise prices up to marginal value of the good to the customer.
If the company can bypass the union to hire others, then it's not a monopoly. But if the union is influential enough this may not be possible.
Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society, only those being paid beyond their individual market power. Raises cost of goods and lowers quality for the rest
> Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society
Real life on planet earth disagrees pretty hard with you. Google "___est countries". Pick a metric that shows policy impacts. Say, health, happiness, etc. The kind of metrics that aren't abstract BS and can't be cherry-picked.
Pick the first, say, five. Then look up their unionization rates.
I'll spoil it for you. Nordic countries win (it doesn't even matter the metric lol... they even top CATO institute freedom rankings somehow). They have massive levels of unionization. Finland has unionized entire sectors of the economy.
Counter-examples welcome. But say "GDP" and I'll show up at your house and throw a pie in your face.
Real life on planet earth disagrees pretty hard with you. Google "___est countries". Pick a metric that shows policy impacts. Say, health, happiness, etc. The kind of metrics that aren't abstract BS and can't be cherry-picked.
Pick the first, say, five. Then look up their unionization rates.
I'll spoil it for you. Nordic countries win (it doesn't even matter the metric lol... they even top CATO institute freedom rankings somehow). They have massive levels of unionization. Finland has unionized entire sectors of the economy.
Counter-examples welcome. But say "GDP" and I'll show up at your house and throw a pie in your face.
It's a good thing Europe can mooch off US innovation and Chinese manufacturing. Manufacturing that is not unionized, by the way.
If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run.
What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized?
If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run.
What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized?
The US is not particularly innovative. Due to historical and geographic circumstances, it's in a unique position to attract foreign talent and foreign innovations and to monetize them.
It's a good environment for doing business. There is plenty of capital available, and the laws are usually reasonable. It's a large country that's sufficiently centralized that you don't have to localize everything for each state. And it's a stable environment that has mostly been isolated from the rest of the world and not touched by war in over 150 years.
As a drawback, the system really favors those who own over those who work. Even in places like the Silicon Valley, how much of the wealth goes to those who innovate and how much goes to those who fund the innovations? And how much goes to local property owners who just happened to be in the right place at the right time?
Americans don't study STEM as often as people in other developed countries, because they correctly see where the money is. There are many top STEM schools, but even they largely consist of foreign talent teaching foreign talent.
If the US went the way of Europe and stopped attracting foreign talent, I have no idea what would happen to tech innovation. The innovators and the innovations would still be there, but maybe there would not be as many people capable of taking advantage of the innovations.
It's a good environment for doing business. There is plenty of capital available, and the laws are usually reasonable. It's a large country that's sufficiently centralized that you don't have to localize everything for each state. And it's a stable environment that has mostly been isolated from the rest of the world and not touched by war in over 150 years.
As a drawback, the system really favors those who own over those who work. Even in places like the Silicon Valley, how much of the wealth goes to those who innovate and how much goes to those who fund the innovations? And how much goes to local property owners who just happened to be in the right place at the right time?
Americans don't study STEM as often as people in other developed countries, because they correctly see where the money is. There are many top STEM schools, but even they largely consist of foreign talent teaching foreign talent.
If the US went the way of Europe and stopped attracting foreign talent, I have no idea what would happen to tech innovation. The innovators and the innovations would still be there, but maybe there would not be as many people capable of taking advantage of the innovations.
> As a drawback, the system really favors those who own over those who work. Even in places like the Silicon Valley, how much of the wealth goes to those who innovate and how much goes to those who fund the innovations? And how much goes to local property owners who just happened to be in the right place at the right time?
The crucial paragraph.
The crucial paragraph.
> If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run.
IRL datapoints > counterfactuals: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/nordic-state-i...
Also I said "Google it" for a reason. You picked an abstract one, and Sweden still beat us! And who could have guessed (me!), but Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland sit there in the top 10 as well :) [0]
> What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized?
You're not only dodging my point, but your own. You asked what was best for society.
0: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008...
e: Man the "mooching" argument, in this context specifically, is really gonna stick with me. In a work meeting once, someone with knowledge said that each engineer in my org was earning the company $1.5-3 million. This is against a ~$200k salary. This is kind of subjective, but as an """innovator""", the idea that Finland is the one mooching off me is _hilarious_. I'm not gonna comment on what I "deserve" though because dessert theory isn't sound anyway.
IRL datapoints > counterfactuals: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/nordic-state-i...
Also I said "Google it" for a reason. You picked an abstract one, and Sweden still beat us! And who could have guessed (me!), but Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland sit there in the top 10 as well :) [0]
> What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized?
You're not only dodging my point, but your own. You asked what was best for society.
0: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008...
e: Man the "mooching" argument, in this context specifically, is really gonna stick with me. In a work meeting once, someone with knowledge said that each engineer in my org was earning the company $1.5-3 million. This is against a ~$200k salary. This is kind of subjective, but as an """innovator""", the idea that Finland is the one mooching off me is _hilarious_. I'm not gonna comment on what I "deserve" though because dessert theory isn't sound anyway.
Where do you think those earnings go in the long run? In a competitive market margins get driven down, and profitability feeds into lower cost of goods.
E.g. cloud providers must provide cheaper and cheaper service to stay competitive with other cloud providers. This in turn drives down costs for all technology in society.
Sure a union could try to take that profit and feed it into wages instead, but that's worse for society in the end.
When profit margins maintain at excessive levels it's typically an indication that there's either a first mover advantage, or the company is a pseudo-monopoly.
I'd argue there are some big cases where that applies today
E.g. cloud providers must provide cheaper and cheaper service to stay competitive with other cloud providers. This in turn drives down costs for all technology in society.
Sure a union could try to take that profit and feed it into wages instead, but that's worse for society in the end.
When profit margins maintain at excessive levels it's typically an indication that there's either a first mover advantage, or the company is a pseudo-monopoly.
I'd argue there are some big cases where that applies today
> Sure a union could try to take that profit and feed it into wages instead, but that's worse for society in the end.
Yeah, that's the whole assumption I'm challenging with real world data.
Your ideas sound great on paper or in a vacuum, though. This conversation is way asymmetric, where I'm the only person pointing to facts you can look at with your eyes, so I'm gonna leave and wish you luck with your theories.
PS: > Chinese manufacturing. Manufacturing that is not unionized, by the way.
Unintentional comedy? Natural language model trained on Econ podcasts? Arguing from opposite day? Or the most embarrassing gaffe you could have possibly made in this convo? Not that their unions are good. Just a funny thing to write, caveat-free.
Yeah, that's the whole assumption I'm challenging with real world data.
Your ideas sound great on paper or in a vacuum, though. This conversation is way asymmetric, where I'm the only person pointing to facts you can look at with your eyes, so I'm gonna leave and wish you luck with your theories.
PS: > Chinese manufacturing. Manufacturing that is not unionized, by the way.
Unintentional comedy? Natural language model trained on Econ podcasts? Arguing from opposite day? Or the most embarrassing gaffe you could have possibly made in this convo? Not that their unions are good. Just a funny thing to write, caveat-free.
> drives down costs for all technology in society
I am not familiar enough with the data to argue one way or another. But a counterargument would involve productivity. There are several fields where good-paying shops run rings around their budget-minded peers. Even for relatively unskilled roles, e.g. Costco. Sometimes consumers care about that directly. More often, it shows up in productivity.
Again, can't argue one way or another. Removing competition opens up novel channels for corruption. But I wouldn't say that a conclusion can be reached from first principles.
I am not familiar enough with the data to argue one way or another. But a counterargument would involve productivity. There are several fields where good-paying shops run rings around their budget-minded peers. Even for relatively unskilled roles, e.g. Costco. Sometimes consumers care about that directly. More often, it shows up in productivity.
Again, can't argue one way or another. Removing competition opens up novel channels for corruption. But I wouldn't say that a conclusion can be reached from first principles.
Of course I'm speaking from theory in a vacuum.
In the real world competitors don't always form immediately, it can take quite awhile. But the broad strokes are true, and bear out over time, barring monopoly formation in a given sector, free information etc.
Of course Costco does have competitors, they just haven't been able to execute as well up to this point.
In the real world competitors don't always form immediately, it can take quite awhile. But the broad strokes are true, and bear out over time, barring monopoly formation in a given sector, free information etc.
Of course Costco does have competitors, they just haven't been able to execute as well up to this point.
> It's a good thing Europe can mooch off US innovation and Chinese manufacturing. Manufacturing that is not unionized, by the way.
You have it completely wrong. The US is mooching off of EU and Chinese brain talent and has done so for the past 75 years, since the end of WWII. Most innovation that occurs in the US has been done thanks to exploiting highly educated labor that migrated here from elsewhere on the planet.
If we're talking about the tech success of Silicon Valley, again that has mostly been mooching off of the lack of regulations regarding the sale and use of personal user data. Thankfully, EU is finally beginning to install some protections in that sense.
You have it completely wrong. The US is mooching off of EU and Chinese brain talent and has done so for the past 75 years, since the end of WWII. Most innovation that occurs in the US has been done thanks to exploiting highly educated labor that migrated here from elsewhere on the planet.
If we're talking about the tech success of Silicon Valley, again that has mostly been mooching off of the lack of regulations regarding the sale and use of personal user data. Thankfully, EU is finally beginning to install some protections in that sense.
[deleted]
If you're on the far right of the bell curve of earnings, you might not find studies based on the average too convincing.
> Google "___est countries".
How about I Google which countries have the largest revenues for their technology companies, and the senior-level salaries of their employees?
> Google "___est countries".
How about I Google which countries have the largest revenues for their technology companies, and the senior-level salaries of their employees?
Have fun doing so! It will answer a different question than the one we're talking about. Report back if you want.
But there’s a chicken and eg problem there. I would argue that we in Sweden have the GDP (per capita) we have because of the few large companies that were started before unionization.
It’s also kind of unsustainable in a globalized world, and even more so with remote work: The Nordic model is that you give everyone more or less the same compensation regardless of contribution. But how is that going to work 5 years from now? It’s already coming apart I would say.
It’s also kind of unsustainable in a globalized world, and even more so with remote work: The Nordic model is that you give everyone more or less the same compensation regardless of contribution. But how is that going to work 5 years from now? It’s already coming apart I would say.
> have massive levels of unionization. Finland has unionized entire sectors of the economy
There's an opportunity for tech to create a less antagonistic form of unions. Simply creating a Board seat for the ESOP, voted in by the ESOP holders (excluding senior management), would be shareholder aligned and beneficial to employees.
There's an opportunity for tech to create a less antagonistic form of unions. Simply creating a Board seat for the ESOP, voted in by the ESOP holders (excluding senior management), would be shareholder aligned and beneficial to employees.
The Nordic union system is apparently different, the unions are responsible for distributing unemployment insurance. In places like Canada you get that everywhere as long as you’re not a contractor. So there’s a much bigger incentive to join in Nordic countries.
> The thing about unions in the Nordic countries, though, is that they’re different from unions in most other countries. I learned this in Denmark in 2007 when a union steward at Lego A/S, which had just announced plans to move a bunch of factory work to Eastern Europe, gave me an impassioned lecture on the positive economic aspects of outsourcing. Unions in Denmark saw (and presumably still see) preserving the competitiveness of Danish industry as a much higher priority than protecting specific jobs. They arrived at this mindset in part because Denmark is a small country trying to succeed in a big, scary world, but also because access to generous unemployment benefits is what leads many (perhaps most) workers in Denmark to join unions in the first place.
> Denmark, Finland and Sweden are what are called “Ghent system” countries, where unions administer the unemployment insurance program with help from government subsidies. Norway used to have a Ghent system but abandoned it in 1938. Belgium, where the actual city of Ghent is located, has a “partial Ghent system.” In recent years, the link between union membership and unemployment insurance has weakened in the remaining Ghent system countries too, with most union-affiliated insurance providers now formally independent, and scholars from those countries have written lots of papers about the pressures the system is under. But from the perspective of many outside observers it still looks pretty great in the way that it combines continued union strength with a flexible, pragmatic approach to serving workers that seems quite compatible with economic competitiveness.
https://archive.ph/2ExBA#selection-6089.0-6961.1
From “ The Conservative Case for Unions”:
> This is not to say the old style of American industrial unions will come back, or should. The mid-20th-century enterprise model, as it was called, relied on confrontational tactics to organize particular companies or factories. That may have succeeded in an era of oligopolistic, locally rooted corporations. However, in an era when even a slight increase in labor costs at a North Carolina factory sends jobs to China, organizing just a single company can boomerang against workers and management alike.
> Fortunately, other models have emerged elsewhere in the world, models that can benefit both companies and labor. A well-known example, popular in Europe, is the so-called works council, which gives workers a voice in company affairs without triggering the fraught, complex process of creating a formal union. In Germany, unions can organize entire sectors, rather than particular companies, giving employers and workers incentives to cooperate in ways that improve industries’ competitive position.
> Even more intriguing is the Ghent system, successful in Denmark and Sweden, under which unions administer government-funded unemployment benefits. Providing that safety net helps unions to shift their focus from protecting individual jobs to maintaining workers’ overall income security; this in turn allows employers more flexibility in hiring and firing.
https://archive.ph/2ycDr
The best argument for unions is to evolve them from the large rigid bureaucratic ones that protect bad workers to ones that focus purely on wages, while keeping the country competitive (Unions 2.0 if you will).
Also I was surprised to find out France has less unionization than even the US (9% vs 13%).
Otherwise I think reducing anything to a single metric like that is silly.
> The thing about unions in the Nordic countries, though, is that they’re different from unions in most other countries. I learned this in Denmark in 2007 when a union steward at Lego A/S, which had just announced plans to move a bunch of factory work to Eastern Europe, gave me an impassioned lecture on the positive economic aspects of outsourcing. Unions in Denmark saw (and presumably still see) preserving the competitiveness of Danish industry as a much higher priority than protecting specific jobs. They arrived at this mindset in part because Denmark is a small country trying to succeed in a big, scary world, but also because access to generous unemployment benefits is what leads many (perhaps most) workers in Denmark to join unions in the first place.
> Denmark, Finland and Sweden are what are called “Ghent system” countries, where unions administer the unemployment insurance program with help from government subsidies. Norway used to have a Ghent system but abandoned it in 1938. Belgium, where the actual city of Ghent is located, has a “partial Ghent system.” In recent years, the link between union membership and unemployment insurance has weakened in the remaining Ghent system countries too, with most union-affiliated insurance providers now formally independent, and scholars from those countries have written lots of papers about the pressures the system is under. But from the perspective of many outside observers it still looks pretty great in the way that it combines continued union strength with a flexible, pragmatic approach to serving workers that seems quite compatible with economic competitiveness.
https://archive.ph/2ExBA#selection-6089.0-6961.1
From “ The Conservative Case for Unions”:
> This is not to say the old style of American industrial unions will come back, or should. The mid-20th-century enterprise model, as it was called, relied on confrontational tactics to organize particular companies or factories. That may have succeeded in an era of oligopolistic, locally rooted corporations. However, in an era when even a slight increase in labor costs at a North Carolina factory sends jobs to China, organizing just a single company can boomerang against workers and management alike.
> Fortunately, other models have emerged elsewhere in the world, models that can benefit both companies and labor. A well-known example, popular in Europe, is the so-called works council, which gives workers a voice in company affairs without triggering the fraught, complex process of creating a formal union. In Germany, unions can organize entire sectors, rather than particular companies, giving employers and workers incentives to cooperate in ways that improve industries’ competitive position.
> Even more intriguing is the Ghent system, successful in Denmark and Sweden, under which unions administer government-funded unemployment benefits. Providing that safety net helps unions to shift their focus from protecting individual jobs to maintaining workers’ overall income security; this in turn allows employers more flexibility in hiring and firing.
https://archive.ph/2ycDr
The best argument for unions is to evolve them from the large rigid bureaucratic ones that protect bad workers to ones that focus purely on wages, while keeping the country competitive (Unions 2.0 if you will).
Also I was surprised to find out France has less unionization than even the US (9% vs 13%).
Otherwise I think reducing anything to a single metric like that is silly.
Seems like there is a wide gap between a single company organizing a union for their employers and a monopoly on the labor supply. I would be more convinced by your point if this wasn't one of the first tech unions (according to headline).
It depends how it's structured. If Kickstarter can go and hire non union labor, then all is good.
If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company.
The company will die if they try to bypass the union. In this case they could distort compensation far above what a competitive market would bear, and consumers of Kickstarter eat the cost (e.g. broader society).
It's definitely not a free lunch where workers get paid more and there's no societal cost, as many would like to believe
If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company.
The company will die if they try to bypass the union. In this case they could distort compensation far above what a competitive market would bear, and consumers of Kickstarter eat the cost (e.g. broader society).
It's definitely not a free lunch where workers get paid more and there's no societal cost, as many would like to believe
> If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company.
This is no different from having to accept any other company policies.
A company has a monopoly on its own policies, including whether joining a union is required.
This is no different from having to accept any other company policies.
A company has a monopoly on its own policies, including whether joining a union is required.
It's very different.
Employees can join a different company. Companies can't magically become a different company. If they have a single union they are forced to work with, that union has monopoly power on labor supply.
Good for union employees, bad for the rest of society
Employees can join a different company. Companies can't magically become a different company. If they have a single union they are forced to work with, that union has monopoly power on labor supply.
Good for union employees, bad for the rest of society
What do you think society is made of, if not people?
Unions benefit the people in the union at the expense of the rest of society. There is no free lunch; when somebody gets paid more, that money comes from somewhere else
The MTA is run by New York State, and therefore at the whim of Albany cronyism [1]. This is why it’s so dysfunctional. I wouldn’t necessarily blame the transit unions.
Edit: also, there’s a history of multiple private subway companies in NYC, it didn’t work out.
1. https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2021/01/how-the-mta-...
Edit: also, there’s a history of multiple private subway companies in NYC, it didn’t work out.
1. https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2021/01/how-the-mta-...
Yes, combination of the misaligned incentives of government coupled with a public sector union.
Given the lack of a profit motive, a well run government needs incentive structures to motivate results towards societally good outcomes. Too bad none of the local, state, federal governments do. Would be easy to institute if the will were there though
Edit: To address your edit, the private subway systems failed after NY instituted a price cap on fares, IIRC. And inflation destroyed their profitability over time due to this.
Once the subway system was made public, development pretty much halted entirely, outside of an extension every few decades.
Subway systems are private in Japan
Given the lack of a profit motive, a well run government needs incentive structures to motivate results towards societally good outcomes. Too bad none of the local, state, federal governments do. Would be easy to institute if the will were there though
Edit: To address your edit, the private subway systems failed after NY instituted a price cap on fares, IIRC. And inflation destroyed their profitability over time due to this.
Once the subway system was made public, development pretty much halted entirely, outside of an extension every few decades.
Subway systems are private in Japan
You seem to be magically appending "with a public sector union" to the real cause of the majority of MTA's problems.
Sorry, but I don't buy this guilt by association: How does the union cause a significant portion of MTA's problems?
Sorry, but I don't buy this guilt by association: How does the union cause a significant portion of MTA's problems?
It compounds them. Government has no incentive for real results, union leads to highly overpaid employees who are frequently caught not working on the clock.
Two separate problems for sure, both bad for the rest
Two separate problems for sure, both bad for the rest
> union leads to highly overpaid employees who are frequently caught not working on the clock
Can you demonstrate this, or provide any evidence for it at all?
The reason I ask this is because you seem to be automatically assuming Union=Bad with no reason to do so.
Can you demonstrate this, or provide any evidence for it at all?
The reason I ask this is because you seem to be automatically assuming Union=Bad with no reason to do so.
Happens all the time in the MTA, just Google it
So in other words, you can only prove the MTA has lazy employees, and are assuming that the union is causing that (with no evidence).
That's what I wanted to know, thanks!
That's what I wanted to know, thanks!
I think unions are great for unskilled labor: When the employer sees employees 100% as a collective, then it makes sense that employees bargain as a collective too.
But it goes off the rails when there’s a big difference in productivity between employees, and it gets even worse when managers are allowed to unionize and use strict labor laws to protect them while they play corporate politics.
Source: I’m Swedish and have seen it myself from most angles.
But it goes off the rails when there’s a big difference in productivity between employees, and it gets even worse when managers are allowed to unionize and use strict labor laws to protect them while they play corporate politics.
Source: I’m Swedish and have seen it myself from most angles.
> Competitive markets produce societally best outcomes
Define "societally best outcomes". By using the word "societally", you are saying it's not he best outcome for the business, nor is it the best outcome for the employees, nor the best outcome for the customers, but the best outcome for the society at large. Your MTA example shows that a union is great for workers. Please explain.
Considering unions are used successfully in many industries and are supported by both major parties in the US, you'll have a difficult time explaining how they are all wrong.
> Smaller and wide set of unions in an industry can be effective,
Isn't this the KickStarter union?
Also, what's a "Smaller and wide union"?
Finally, if unions are so bad, why do many of the largest companies in the world continue to hire from unions?
Define "societally best outcomes". By using the word "societally", you are saying it's not he best outcome for the business, nor is it the best outcome for the employees, nor the best outcome for the customers, but the best outcome for the society at large. Your MTA example shows that a union is great for workers. Please explain.
Considering unions are used successfully in many industries and are supported by both major parties in the US, you'll have a difficult time explaining how they are all wrong.
> Smaller and wide set of unions in an industry can be effective,
Isn't this the KickStarter union?
Also, what's a "Smaller and wide union"?
Finally, if unions are so bad, why do many of the largest companies in the world continue to hire from unions?
> Finally, if unions are so bad, why do many of the largest companies in the world continue to hire from unions?
Because it's illegal not to. I dunno if you know this but if you have a union shop, the company can't just hire non-union employees. (In most cases) Once your company unionizes you can hire union employees, or go out of business.
Realistically what companies do is incorporate a subsidiary in a non-union jurisdiction and outsource the jobs to the subsidiary.
Because it's illegal not to. I dunno if you know this but if you have a union shop, the company can't just hire non-union employees. (In most cases) Once your company unionizes you can hire union employees, or go out of business.
Realistically what companies do is incorporate a subsidiary in a non-union jurisdiction and outsource the jobs to the subsidiary.
MTA is great for MTA employees. The remaining 10 million or so New Yorkers pay the cost.
You can't assess these things in isolation.
If the Foxconn factory unionized, you can bet iPhones would cost hundreds of dollars more. Who bears that cost?
Consumers of iPhone/society at large (when extrapolating to other businesses)
You can't assess these things in isolation.
If the Foxconn factory unionized, you can bet iPhones would cost hundreds of dollars more. Who bears that cost?
Consumers of iPhone/society at large (when extrapolating to other businesses)
>If the Foxconn factory unionized, you can bet iPhones would cost hundreds of dollars more.
I'd be willing to bet that they don't. iPhone prices are set at the highest price that Apple determines people are willing to pay, not by the cost to produce it; even the costs that do exist are mostly materials, not labor costs. Labor costs are close to 1% of the sticker price [1]. This is the same as the argument that erroneously claims that if you paid fast food workers well it would lead to $10 big macs, when other countries with much higher wages have comparable prices to ours.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-it-costs-apple-make-i...
I'd be willing to bet that they don't. iPhone prices are set at the highest price that Apple determines people are willing to pay, not by the cost to produce it; even the costs that do exist are mostly materials, not labor costs. Labor costs are close to 1% of the sticker price [1]. This is the same as the argument that erroneously claims that if you paid fast food workers well it would lead to $10 big macs, when other countries with much higher wages have comparable prices to ours.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-it-costs-apple-make-i...
Apple sets prices based on what they think will maximize their profitability. If iPhone cost $1M dollars, there are still people who would buy it. Demand is a curve, not a fixed value.
Sorry, I was being unclear. I meant "people" in the aggregate, as perhaps a stand in for the demand curve. And that Apple sets their price based on the highest point on that curve which still maximizes revenue, then uses their absolutely ridiculous amount of cash-on-hand to reserve capacity and set the supply curve wherever it would intersect that point on the demand curve. (Which is part of why Apple weathered the chip shortage better than most)
i.e., at the scale they operate, they are beholden almost exclusively to demand, rather than supply, and what supply constraints they do have are mostly a matter of material costs and logistics as opposed to labor.
As the other commenter points out, my argument is that this pricing method (and the comparatively tiny input labor costs) mean that the cost of labor has an effectively negligible effect on pricing, and only would eat into profits.
i.e., at the scale they operate, they are beholden almost exclusively to demand, rather than supply, and what supply constraints they do have are mostly a matter of material costs and logistics as opposed to labor.
As the other commenter points out, my argument is that this pricing method (and the comparatively tiny input labor costs) mean that the cost of labor has an effectively negligible effect on pricing, and only would eat into profits.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but GP was arguing that an increase in wages for manufacturing iPhone would eat at apples profit margins, not add to the products final price.
Yes, and if margins decline or go negative, then price must be raised
Are you still a consultant as stated in your bio? Wouldn’t mass unionization give you even more of a leg up assuming employers rely on 3rd parties more to avoid the headache?
I personally think current market rates for contractors, esp the staff Aug kind, are still lower than they should be, all things considered
I personally think current market rates for contractors, esp the staff Aug kind, are still lower than they should be, all things considered
Have you worked at a company where you were treated unfairly, were lied to, etc? How'd that work out for you?
I left because the UFCW wasn’t representing me. People think that unions are simply fair by default but some are really an Animal Farm where all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others.
Yeah, there are bad unions just like bad companies. At least they tend to have contracts when companies don't. I would love to have contracts be required via legislation rather than unions.
I'm sorry but the contract was screwing me. I worked (decades ago) as a third shift janitor in a 24 hour supermarket. My responsibilities included cleaning the customer and employee restrooms and also cleaning the meat cutting room. My union negotiated maximum hourly wage was less than the starting wage for stockers and cashiers. Why? Because there were maybe 10 janitors per store, whereas there were 100+ stockers and cashiers. So the union represented votes and 10 votes per store amounted to exactly what you think it would. This is why any sort of generic 'tech union' is going to be a failure in my opinion, because if you have 150 developers and 20 QA, for example, where do you think the equality will actually land. People will vote for the common good up to a point. Single occupation unions would possibly work, i.e. a QA union, a Developers union but would introduce other problems.
Contracts and unions aren't some magical cure all. Unions are political organizations and come with all the problems that political organizations have.
Contracts and unions aren't some magical cure all. Unions are political organizations and come with all the problems that political organizations have.
Yeah, I left for greener pastures and more pay. It's called the free market.
Badly run companies will get weak talent and become uncompetitive.
Badly run companies will get weak talent and become uncompetitive.
It doesn't have to be badly run. If 5% are getting screwed over, it won't hurt the company.
Those 5% can argue for better conditions or leave. If their value is not commensurate with their asks, they won't get it.
Both labor supply and demand needs to be competitive for an efficient society.
If there's a single employer in town, and lack of mobility for residents, that's a monopoly on labor demand just the same as a union is a monopoly on labor supply
Both labor supply and demand needs to be competitive for an efficient society.
If there's a single employer in town, and lack of mobility for residents, that's a monopoly on labor demand just the same as a union is a monopoly on labor supply
We currently have people leaving who are being replaced by others with higher salaries and similar contributions. So it's not like it's meritorious.
With the information and power imbalance between companies and workers, it seems the companies are already an oligopoly. Unions are the oligopoly on the opposing side to balance that out.
With the information and power imbalance between companies and workers, it seems the companies are already an oligopoly. Unions are the oligopoly on the opposing side to balance that out.
>"Have you worked at a company where you were treated unfairly, were lied to, etc? How'd that work out for you?"
I feel like this happens, from time to time, in virtually every company or institution. I know of people who work for public-sector unions and this kind of thing is commonplace there as well.
I feel like this happens, from time to time, in virtually every company or institution. I know of people who work for public-sector unions and this kind of thing is commonplace there as well.
Good for them! It'd be nice to see a software engineering guild emerge in the coming years. Think about the benefits we could accrue; I for one would strongly prefer a real pension to a 401K.
Oh yea? You can have mine, if you give me your 401k.
(It’s like $20k per year, and you’ll pay taxes on that when the day comes. You may have to move to Sweden to survive on it.)
(It’s like $20k per year, and you’ll pay taxes on that when the day comes. You may have to move to Sweden to survive on it.)
Many pensions are based on a percentage of the persons salary at a point in time, so no, it’s not always “20k a year”
I suspect you're conflating your state pension everyone gets with a job-based pension that pays a percentage of your salary. And even if not, I know plenty of people, even teachers and other low-paid workers, whose pensions are much better than that.
Even though we're already 3 decades into blatantly clear evidence that the economics of pensions destroy both company and municipality alike (especially in high-paying, high-tax US markets where pensioners draw their pension but relocate to low-tax/no-tax states to live their life and spend it), we're facing real declining birth rates on the horizon which are making that even more true. The State of New Jersey, despite proximity to NYC and all of the income that brings has been financially on the brink of collapse due to pensions since the 70s.
It would be wise of you to listen to the Swedes and Norwegians when they complain. They have some of the most funded and legally-guaranteed pensions in the world while economically times are becoming tougher and tougher for their citizens.
Especially for the Norwegians it's looking like pensions can't even cover basic living expenses Norwegians face _THIS YEAR_ and that's on the back of fantastic oil wealth.
It would be wise of you to listen to the Swedes and Norwegians when they complain. They have some of the most funded and legally-guaranteed pensions in the world while economically times are becoming tougher and tougher for their citizens.
Especially for the Norwegians it's looking like pensions can't even cover basic living expenses Norwegians face _THIS YEAR_ and that's on the back of fantastic oil wealth.
I don't understand unions for tech workers. We're not living in shacks rented to us by the company and can't afford a bus ticket to a new city or school to start a new life.
We're making six figures here. Want more pay? Sit on your butt and do leetcode or practice interviews and network with other rich programmers. Move to a tropical island and work remote. Heck, you don't even need to go to college and just about anything you want to learn is a $9.99 class away or free on in video format.
We're making six figures here. Want more pay? Sit on your butt and do leetcode or practice interviews and network with other rich programmers. Move to a tropical island and work remote. Heck, you don't even need to go to college and just about anything you want to learn is a $9.99 class away or free on in video format.
Just because conditions are good, doesn't mean they couldn't be better, or that they will always remain good. Demands like unionization are made most effectively when the demanding party has high leverage. Unionization is a preventative measure against a future potential backslide in conditions.
Not every worker can or wants to work for a FAANG, whether because of skill, time available to study, logistics like location, moral reasons, or anything else. We all deserve good working conditions now and in the future.
Tech workers are absolutely spoiled compared to most other laborers. We also have higher leverage and thus a better chance at unionization compared to many others. Others having it worse should not prevent us from raising our own conditions, and actually helps improve conditions of other classes of laborers by making it more likely they'll unionize themselves or causing employers to improve conditions as a preventative measure.
Not every worker can or wants to work for a FAANG, whether because of skill, time available to study, logistics like location, moral reasons, or anything else. We all deserve good working conditions now and in the future.
Tech workers are absolutely spoiled compared to most other laborers. We also have higher leverage and thus a better chance at unionization compared to many others. Others having it worse should not prevent us from raising our own conditions, and actually helps improve conditions of other classes of laborers by making it more likely they'll unionize themselves or causing employers to improve conditions as a preventative measure.
Removing my skills or value proposition from the equation sounds very dangerous. This sounds like giving power to bean counters and exalting mediocrity.
When I want 'better', I work for it and get it myself, not by schmoozing the union bosses to get on their good side or paying union fees for 20 years to build up tenure.
When I want 'better', I work for it and get it myself, not by schmoozing the union bosses to get on their good side or paying union fees for 20 years to build up tenure.
Unionization doesn't mean removing your value proposition from the equation. There are still different title tiers with different pay, and variance in pay within a given band. I would hope a tech worker union is less tenure-oriented than a union like the UAW but I acknowledge that is tricky to implement and not guaranteed.
If you are vastly more productive than coworkers in the same title band and wish to capture more of that surplus value, you should look to change employers, found a company, or become an independent consultant. Those are the available options with or without unions.
If you are vastly more productive than coworkers in the same title band and wish to capture more of that surplus value, you should look to change employers, found a company, or become an independent consultant. Those are the available options with or without unions.
With most unions, pay is a function of seniority only.
I think most of these tech-unions are ideologically motivated and have no interest in actually improving working conditions.
I think most of these tech-unions are ideologically motivated and have no interest in actually improving working conditions.
Tech is not a monolith and there are certainly people employed by Tech companies who are engaged in technology oriented jobs who will benefit from unionization.
Unions do more than ask for larger wages.
The skills tech workers contribute are undervalued; I'd make the case that we tech workers are underpaid given the contributions we make to the tech companies we work at.
Do you feel like you already make a lot of money, and you don't need more? If so, there are two actions you could take. You tell me which results in greater good in the world:
1. Don't push or struggle for better pay. Be happy with what you have, and let upper management and stockholder dividends soak up the extra. I'm sure they'll spend it making the world a better place.
2. Organize, push, and struggle to improve your pay. Since you're already happy with the pay level you get, donate all surplus to the charity of your choice. Put your niece through college. Save some of it, then retire earlier and spend more time with your family.
Do you feel like you already make a lot of money, and you don't need more? If so, there are two actions you could take. You tell me which results in greater good in the world:
1. Don't push or struggle for better pay. Be happy with what you have, and let upper management and stockholder dividends soak up the extra. I'm sure they'll spend it making the world a better place.
2. Organize, push, and struggle to improve your pay. Since you're already happy with the pay level you get, donate all surplus to the charity of your choice. Put your niece through college. Save some of it, then retire earlier and spend more time with your family.
> We're making six figures here
Turns out there are other countries outside of the US. And even in US not all developers are overpaid.
Moreover, software developers are much much more likely to drop out of their career before pension and/or face burnout than other fields.
Turns out there are other countries outside of the US. And even in US not all developers are overpaid.
Moreover, software developers are much much more likely to drop out of their career before pension and/or face burnout than other fields.
Have you heard some of the horror stories from the game industry?
If you are into unionization and tech, it's worth exploring the platform co-op (worker co-ops) world a bit. An essential link list via their Facebook group page https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yL5-Q-uPgg1qGtxrKEYOXdsn...
At first I thought those were people fighting for better working conditions. After reading the comments I've realized that most are activists trying to enforce cancel culture within the company.