I don't know whether we deserve a union or not. I do know that I emphatically do not want or need one. I make the amount of money I need. I have my pick of jobs if I feel undervalued by the place I work. Under no circumstances do I want to be forced to pay dues into a union that is unlikely to represent me in the company or politically.
Since I have no need or desire there is no reason for me to consider the question.
It's not just about money. Working conditions are equally important.
Consider when companies demand that everyone RTO after promising permanent WFH. Consider when companies rescind offer letters after you've already quit your old job. Consider mass layoffs and severance.
I think about how so many engineers need to take a long, unpaid break from work after leaving their jobs, because they've been burned out by their former employer.
Right now if I don't like the working conditions I leave for a place that has better conditions. I've never had to take a long unpaid break because I don't stick around long enough to burn out. I've done exactly this multiple times. I think most people could do this. I don't know why more of them don't. If they did working conditions would be across the board better.
I don't think burnout is caused by companies most of the time. It's caused by the employee not taking care of themself. Will a manager abuse someones willingness to not leverage the power they have? Sure. Some managers are awful. They'll continue to be awful when the Union is in place. Just in a different way. You'll still be miserable under that manager. The solution is to make a plan to leave and start executing on it. The moment you make the plan you'll feel better.
The reader is expecting you to say, "because I only work for employeers with good working conditions", but...
> because I don't stick around long enough to burn out.
Well, ok, but how old are you, and do you believe that this strategy of musical chairs will continue to work for the rest of your life? It's a marathon, not a sprint.
> If they did working conditions would be across the board better.
Why do you think so? How exactly is that going to happen? What's the incentive to improve working conditions when employees just leave quickly, on purpose? Again, you didn't even claim that your new jobs have good working conditions.
It's not musical chairs. My average tenure is somewhere around 5 years. I've worked at companies for 7+ years without burning out or getting close to it. So yeah, I think it's a sustainable pace for quite a while. I'm also not a spring chicken anymore. I have 5 adult children.
Why do you think so? How exactly is that going to happen? What's the
incentive to improve working conditions when employees just leave quickly,
on purpose? Again, you didn't even claim that your new jobs have good
working conditions.
Most of my jobs have had great working conditions. The few jobs that were short tenure were the ones that didn't. The incentive is that high turnover is harmful. Successful companies should look to keep people around for longer than a year. If they want to keep me for 5 or more then they'll have to provide an environment that I'll be willing to stick around for. There are companies that have done that and we have both benefited as a result. If enough people realize that they are valuable employees and treat their employer relationship that way I believe it can change the landscape.
If you think it's hopeless and you aren't a valuable employee in the companies eye then that turns into a self fulfilling prophecy.
Great but for those of us who have better than adequate working conditions and enough money, please explain why we "deserve a union".
Reading through this interview and thread, I notice how often this debate comes down to a sense of agency. You write about programmers being "burned out by their employer". But I would say that people experience burnout when they fail to set boundaries. Working to the point where your mental health suffers is your fault: it's your responsbility to establish healthy boundaries or, failing at that, quit.
> Working to the point where your mental health suffers is your fault: it's your responsbility to establish healthy boundaries or, failing at that, quit.
It's interesting that the manager and/or employer has no apparent agency here.
Sure they do. But their agency doesn't eliminate yours. You can't control what your employer does. You can control what you do. So the correct thing is to exercise your own agency in response to theirs.
So once the collective agrees they want something they will form a union to bargain collectively. But so far developers don't agree about anything so they don't, because the collective feels that they get enough from their individual contracts.
Why? Unions work the best when they are formed around a cause everyone cares about, that is how we got workers right in the first case, there is nothing that says you need to form a union when things are good.
Because at the time you want to form a union due to things being bad, your employer already has the workers in a position of fear and control, and they have reasonably free reign to do whatever they want and toe the line of illegality when it comes to intimidating workers who are discussing unionization.
Talk to a union organizer about this. They'll help you understand how this type of monopsony looks to a worker when they're trying to organize.
What mechanism is there to impact unethical work laid across your back? You walk away so someone in more of a desperate situation will do the work instead?
Why on earth would you want to continue working for someone who would ask you to do that? The union won't make that person any better. Union or no union you are better off going somewhere else.
Yeah actually a union can help with all of those things.
That's why police are unionized, as well as most team sport elite athletes (players unions). And they like the power it gives them, which is why you never hear them talk badly about it.
While I personally think Police are necessary in a well functioning society, I will argue that Police unions are a large contributing factor behind the poor reputation Police have gotten lately. They have blocked much needed reforms, protected bad eggs, and are an argument for how a Union can force it's participants to support things they find morally repugnant.
You don't think unions negotiate work terms such as wages, working hours, conditions, etc.?
What are some of the reasons you think a labor union would form in the first place?
Have you ever heard of mandatory break requirements in certain industries? Think those ideas came from business owners?
"The National Labor Union was founded on August 20, 1866, in Baltimore, Maryland. It was the first attempt to create a national labor group in the United States and one of their first actions was the first national call for Congress to mandate an 8-hour work day."
In my experience, democratic organizations are complete garbage. Every experience I've had with local government/HOAs has been a disappointing at best.
I get that some democratic organizations are necessary. But adding more voluntarily seems to be at best a necessary evil, not something to list as a positive.
> Every experience I've had with local government/HOAs has been a disappointing at best.
As far as I'm aware, most HOAs were imposed from above by the home builder rather than coming into existence via grassroots organization of the home owners.
You don't have to join but you usually still have to pay the dues. So you both have no vote on how that money get's spent but are also forced to give it to them anyway.
But you can't form a union if they vote against it, which is why you are here arguing with people. So we here we have clear proof that even if you spend years arguing it doesn't necessarily lead to the democratic results you want. Individual bargaining however seems to work very well, lots of people get what they want that way much faster and easier than any democratic process. And that is why people vote to not have unions.
The moment developers have a cause they can agree on, they will start to vote for unions. And no it isn't too late at that point, rather it is too early to vote for a union unless you have a cause you collectively care about.
> even if you spend years arguing it doesn't necessarily lead to the democratic results you want
Yes, this is how democracy works in general. You don't get everything (or necessarily anything) you want
Personally the only thing that would really make me quit is if they tried to make me go hybrid or back to the office in any way. My workplace is small (10 engineers) and so unionizing based on that could be pretty easy, but it would be easier for me to quit and find a new job that does do remote
That law has a loophole: Force the worker to pay the union even if they don't join it. So unless you live in a right to work state that law doesn't mean much.
> Consider when companies demand that everyone RTO after promising permanent WFH. Consider when companies rescind offer letters after you've already quit your old job. Consider mass layoffs and severance.
Should these not just be regular labor law requirements?
Perhaps, but favorable labor legislation often depends on a robust organized labor movement, especially in the United States (where no labor party is present).
A union will make it more difficult to be hired. You can see how difficult it is to get a job a western Europe due to "working conditions" requirements.
> I have my pick of jobs if I feel undervalued by the place I work
Definitely something that is in no danger of changing at any point in the future! What a relief for all of us!
We already have ample evidence that tech giants colluded to depress the salaries of their workers. I can understand being wary of unions but to suggest they’d provide absolutely nothing feels like a failure of imagination.
Software engineer is not the only job I've every had. I've been the janitor sweeping floors, I've been the guy on the assembly line. I've literally supported my family by working day labor with no certainty of continued employment. I have always been able to find a place and prove myself worthy of the pay without sacrificing my health, or family time. I've quit jobs when I no longer felt like it was the right place for me.
I don't think it's anyone's responsibility but mine to ensure that I can provide for my family. I have all the self-dignity I need to stand up for myself and my family. I have built the support structures I need to survive rocky periods. None of what I've done is out of reach for anyone else. So yes, I think a certain amount of self-responsibility and self-reliance is good for you. I don't buy into the idea the most important dynamic is relative power between employees who may or may not share my values and an employer.
Instead I buy into the idea that self-respect, self-reliance and community support structur is far more important and I would rather focus on that than trying to balance the power dynamic at a particular workplace.
> None of what I've done is out of reach for anyone else.
Yes it is.
It's important to look for the privileges you were born into that allowed you to get to where you are now. Because not everyone starts at the same starting line. It's great that you have such a strong work ethic and are so self reliant but life comes at you fast, and sometimes you need some outside help. Illness, accidents, family emergencies, wildfires/tornadoes/hurricanes/earthquakes/etc; those things happen and you need help, whether its from the government or from your employer or your church or church-equivalent.
It's great that you've got such a good relationship with your employer. But there are others that don't have that same relationship, and are being exploited and are being treated unfairly by their employer. Thanks to the US' H1-B system, they may not have the luxury of quitting under those circumstances like you do.
Not everyone has access to the same community support structure as you do. It's great that you have one! But for those that don't, their workplace can be a lifeline.
Look at the bigger picture. If your boss was assaulting a co-worker with his fists, what would you do? Yell at your co-worker and tell them to have more self-respect? Why, when it's financial or cultural instead shouldn't you stand up for them as well?
If your boss was assaulting a co-worker with his fists, what would you do?
I would stand in his way with my own fists.
You say I have privilege which I suppose I do. I have it because I worked on myself to get them and stood up for myself when I needed to. I have no college degree. I grew up poor. I think perhaps one of the greatest injustices you can do to someone is tell them they are stuck with no recourse and have no leverage they can exercise. I think that's a lie that imprisons people in circumstances they don't need to be stuck in.
>Look at the bigger picture. If your boss was assaulting a co-worker with his fists, what would you do? Yell at your co-worker and tell them to have more self-respect? Why, when it's financial or cultural instead shouldn't you stand up for them as well?
> I would stand in his way with my own fists.
Ok, but that’s what unionizing is. Standing up to your employer to stop rampant abuse to you and your fellow coworkers.
I feel as though you're imagining the Big Bad Union that big companies love to describe. A union can be in whatever form you wish it to be. If software engineers wish to band together to form a union solely to improve their health insurance then they could just do that.
I don't get to pick unions. I get to pick my community support structures. Who I marry, which church,friend group,local community group I join? Those are all voluntary. Unions are not voluntary so they can't really be a community support group in the sense I mean.
You are correct! But we are discussing why I personally would vote against one at an employer. It would take an otherwise reasonable and enjoyable employer and turn them into a place I no longer want to work.
You could argue for disability protections instead of unions if that's your true position. Arguing for a .01% case to make a 100% rule is disingenuous.
The irony here is that the tech companies are willing to organize into a kind of union in order to promote their interests, but the tech workers aren't.
> Definitely something that is in no danger of changing at any point in the future!
Then how about we cross that bridge when we get there rather than trying to optimize today’s situation for potential problems that might happen in the future?
> We already have ample evidence that tech giants colluded to depress the salaries of their workers.
And we already have evidence that the problem didn’t require a union to solve.
What makes you feel that a union wouldn’t represent your interests? Do you really believe that corporations will continue paying us well any longer than they absolutely have to? As soon as an ai or low code split comes along that can replace junior and mid level engineers, those jobs will get harder and harder to find. The rest of us will have to shoulder the responsibility of “cleaning” after those solutions and the additional work of not having a “pipeline” to continue growing better software engineers.
> Farming automation and the green revolution didn't make us all unemployed - it meant 90% of us could do something else instead of farming.
There was actually a lot of fear that there would be mass starvation and competition for food because food production could not match population increase. It was an existential threat, much like how we look at global warming. And that fear today? Gone, and most people never even knew it existed.
“Technology will free us from a life of drudgery!” has been the promise for what, over a hundred years now? We all sit around at our leisure while robots prepare our dinner.
What actually happened in agriculture is that technology enabled massive conglomerates to dominate the industry. I see few guarantees that technological progress is going to free me up to do something else that enriches my life.
One has to consider the impact on dynamism. It may not matter to many but it would be something management would have to consider before entering into new areas for development.
I think unionization would impact expansion and research areas —the big bets where now if something doesn’t work the company either reorganizes the team or lets go of a team. With a union companies would operate more conservatively.
That would perhaps provide stable jobs for current job holders but limit growth for prospective job holders.
Outcome for whom, though? We can use fancy words like "Pareto" or we can argue that it doesn't matter if a productivity improvement gives a billionaire more toys if everyone else is experiencing smaller houses and a worse public environment.
One thing we're not experiencing is smaller houses. Compare now to the 1950s or the 1920s or the 1890s. Productivity improvements have not led to smaller houses. Empirically proven.
Union's do much more than just negotiate things with your employer. They lobby elected representatives. They donate money to political groups or candidates for office.
I have more dimensions to me than just what I do for a job. The collective aggregate desires of all my coworkers is likely to diverge from me in areas that I care deeply about. I don't need a situation where I am "forced" to support those things with my money and labor. I already have to do it with my taxes in some occasions. I don't need another one.
Do you use the "forced" framing when your money and labor is used to fund your employer lobbying against your interests? Or is it just natural and right that your effort is subservient to the desires of your boss because they are more important than you?
I think it depends. If the union is voluntary its not forced. But often membership isn’t voluntary. The relationship between you and your employer, however is. Many people choose not to work for defense companies for example.
> What makes you feel that a union wouldn’t represent your interests?
They definitionally don't. Unions represent the union's interests. It is the design intent of unions to represent an amalgamation of their members. That's already not the same as my interests, but the union organization itself is also an incentivized actor.
These distinction are far from a subtlety.
My interests might overlap with the union's interest, but that's highly situational.
But you already enjoy many benefits already brought about by unions that you did not pay dues for, like weekends off, ending child labor, 40 hr work week, 8 hr work day, benefits around health care, unemployment and more.
Unions have also perpetuated racism, sexism, xenophobia, organized crime, government corruption, etc. It’s not all sunshine and lollipops. America abandoned unions for a reason.
> have also perpetuated racism, sexism, xenophobia, organized crime, government corruption,
The same is true for political parties, religious organizations, and all sorts of other organizations that are made of people, including privately owned companies. Which of these concepts would you like to abandon, and what do you propose should be their replacement?
What you say is an argument for balancing power, not for concentrating it.
Unions are forced participation. I am not forced to participate in political parties or religious organizations. In theory a Union could be purely voluntary in which case cool. I'll opt out. But then the Union loses most of it's leverage so it in practice if a Union gets introduced it's no longer voluntary it's forced for anyone who works at that company. The only choice for someone who doesn't want to contribute to the union is to leave the company.
Government is also forced participation but I accept it as necessary part of a functioning society. I don't see Software Engineering Unions as a necessary part of a functioning society though.
That's not what we were talking about, but alright.
Not sure how it works in the US, but from what I read you can't be forced to join a union there. But I think I get what you mean: once you work in a given place, there's usually not much choice which union you can join (or which will represent you in any case), and your only option is to change employer, location or career.
I understand that point of view, but I don't think it's a good argument. Employers also organize and wield their influence in ways that you seem to resent in unions. Don't like it? You have the same choices as above. (I don't think people should be forced into unions; I just think your argument is not anti-union, or at least cannot be fairly applied to single them out.)
The difference seems to be that the employer pays you and treats you well enough that you think you won't benefit from a union. Good for you! Hope it stays that way.
>once you work in a given place, there's usually not much choice which union you can join (or which will represent you in any case), and your only option is to change employer, location or career.
Unions are generally democratic, too, so there's also the option of voting for different union reps (or volunteering to be a rep) in order to change the union's policy or how the union works.
They quite literally are not, at least not in the US; half the states have right-to-work laws that prohibit this explicitly, and there are likely some protections even in the states that don't have a blanket protection.
There are many unions in the US. My partner is a member of a union and has much better healthcare and, overall, a better benefit package than I do. They work at the state university.
So? Unions also bought and influenced media outlets. They also lobbied. It's not like unions just sat there while management poisoned the country's mind against unions.
Unions were not able to make a compelling case. They had every chance to do so, starting with them being the default option in many industries.
America abandoned unions for a reason. It may have taken a concerted effort by corporate capitalists to get there, but that's not why. "Why" is because more and more people felt that the unions were not a net positive for them.
It can be the case that people didn't feel that unions were a net positive from the 1960s~2000s and now, starting from somewhere in the late 2010s, have begun reconsidering whether unions are net positive. All that needs to change is conditions altering which make unions seem to be a net positive.
Sure. It can even be the case that unions were a net positive before 1960, too. It can even be the case that the gains achieved by the unions are what made conditions less terrible from ~1960 to ~2000, and that the absence of the unions is what allowed conditions to get worse after 2000. (I don't think that's the whole story, but it's a defensible reading of events...)
The ones outside of your metropolitan area. There are tech workers around the world, not just in Silicon Valley, and they are subject to all sorts of economic conditions.
Can't think of a stronger argument for organizing than the fact that white supremacists hate it when it happens. It's good to do things that antagonize and infuriate white supremacists.
Since I have no need or desire there is no reason for me to consider the question.