Do programmers need a union?(stackoverflow.com)
stackoverflow.com
Do programmers need a union?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9773/do-programmers-need-a-union
62 comments
I think there are some companies at which a "company union" (something traditional labor activism doesn't like) could be useful. Essentially, all the employees in some particular class at a particular company (say, all the electrical engineers) negotiate some subset of employment terms as a group. It helps to level the playing field, because when you're one person negotiating individually against a corporation whose managers/staff are acting collectively on the other side, you're at a bit of a disadvantage--- it's very hard to negotiate away stuff that's embedded in corporate policy (say, noncompetes) just as an individual trying to get your own contract modified. Much easier if a large group of people together threaten to leave en masse if the terms aren't changed. This can sometimes be done without a formal union though; sometimes informal employee organizations can wield enough "soft power" to get objectionable things changed, especially if it's at an employer who's sensitive to morale and image.
It's a bit less of a problem if you're at a company, usually a smaller one, where you can actually negotiate one-on-one with a manager or boss who has individual authority to negotiate a wide range of terms. Then you might be able to get objectionable terms removed, if the manager's reasonable and you're willing to compromise on other things (say, accept lower pay for more favorable terms). But if the manager's highly constrained by higher-ups and policy, you don't have a real negotiation.
It's a bit less of a problem if you're at a company, usually a smaller one, where you can actually negotiate one-on-one with a manager or boss who has individual authority to negotiate a wide range of terms. Then you might be able to get objectionable terms removed, if the manager's reasonable and you're willing to compromise on other things (say, accept lower pay for more favorable terms). But if the manager's highly constrained by higher-ups and policy, you don't have a real negotiation.
But if the manager's highly constrained by higher-ups and policy, you don't have a real negotiation.
Negotiation begins with shopping around. Any particular company may be unwilling to negotiate with you. That doesn't mean you can't negotiate, it just means you need to move on.
Incidentally, big companies do respond to these issues. When people start leaving in droves, hiring policies are reviewed, and changes are made (or the company dies).
Negotiation begins with shopping around. Any particular company may be unwilling to negotiate with you. That doesn't mean you can't negotiate, it just means you need to move on.
Incidentally, big companies do respond to these issues. When people start leaving in droves, hiring policies are reviewed, and changes are made (or the company dies).
No. More granularity in capitalism. A lot of dysfunction gets perpetuated because it's hidden in the bowels of big, bureaucratic institutions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Not sure I follow. Couldn't you just as well argue that unions bring bad employer practices to light?
Who brings bad union practices to light? Commerce exposes this sort of stuff. The more commerce is used, as opposed to invisible, internal mechanisms, the less unions have to do. Not all unions are bad, but not everything they do acts to increase transparency.
That has to happen on both sides, though. More granularity on the employees' side while the employers grow/merge into large organizations that act collectively will just produce a bigger power imbalance.
Sunlight is also the fuel for weeds.
What are you trying to say? All murderers and dictators breath oxygen too.
I'm simply trying to say that there are two (or more) sides to every discussion and argument, and usually there are plenty of good points and bad points for every side.
Arguing for a standing body to help guide/regulate education and certifications could be a potential benefit, especially in the area of life-critical engineering, like software for hospital equipment, nuclear reactors, or space shuttles. Alternatively, a giant regulatory body could result in nothing but additional fees for students and prospective employees if they have any hope of being hired.
Edit: I also find it very interesting that my above remark swung from one to four, and now is down to zero. Difference between gut reactions and thinkers?
Arguing for a standing body to help guide/regulate education and certifications could be a potential benefit, especially in the area of life-critical engineering, like software for hospital equipment, nuclear reactors, or space shuttles. Alternatively, a giant regulatory body could result in nothing but additional fees for students and prospective employees if they have any hope of being hired.
Edit: I also find it very interesting that my above remark swung from one to four, and now is down to zero. Difference between gut reactions and thinkers?
He's trying to say that when there's no institution that grades programmers and opportunities are open to everyone, lots of bad programmers surface.
But I don't think it's a useful point, because there is a market and societal use for bad/new programmers and it doesn't really hurt the profession as a whole.
But I don't think it's a useful point, because there is a market and societal use for bad/new programmers and it doesn't really hurt the profession as a whole.
I think the societal use for new/bad programmers is very painful for some good ones.
Yes, certain types do. Game programmers come to mind. Not sure everyone else needs them though, but there are likely others who do.
Additionally, less onerous IP terms for employment, standard non-competes and a reduction of the idea of absurd overtime being the norm are all good things.
California can thank their non-compete/IP laws for part of Silicon Valley's success.
Additionally, less onerous IP terms for employment, standard non-competes and a reduction of the idea of absurd overtime being the norm are all good things.
California can thank their non-compete/IP laws for part of Silicon Valley's success.
Game programmers choose their work environment they could easily be paid more and work less hours by using their skills in other industries, but they choose not too.
A lot of them choose that environment just people involved in movies and television work crazy hours. Entertainment seems to require massive amount of work in relatively short bursts. Those who can figure out a way to not need this will quickly get the best talent and destroy their competition.
What would a union do? Take their money? Have them go on strike? Bankrupt the company? Make it harder to fire crappy programmers (as if it isn't hard enough already).
A lot of them choose that environment just people involved in movies and television work crazy hours. Entertainment seems to require massive amount of work in relatively short bursts. Those who can figure out a way to not need this will quickly get the best talent and destroy their competition.
What would a union do? Take their money? Have them go on strike? Bankrupt the company? Make it harder to fire crappy programmers (as if it isn't hard enough already).
>A lot of them choose that environment just people involved in movies and television work crazy hours.
And almost everyone in the movie industry is union as well. For the same reason (highly desired jobs allowing for crazy abuse of the workers). Actually movie industry programming (Special effects, etc), are actually very tame compared to many other forms of programming as far as hours go, especially compared to video games, which is another place some of those skills they have could be applied.
The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc.
And almost everyone in the movie industry is union as well. For the same reason (highly desired jobs allowing for crazy abuse of the workers). Actually movie industry programming (Special effects, etc), are actually very tame compared to many other forms of programming as far as hours go, especially compared to video games, which is another place some of those skills they have could be applied.
The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc.
Anyone can create a company that does that, and if they're successful then that's great.
Creating games in under 40 hours a week: http://archives.igda.org/qol/IGDA_2005_GDC-QOL-Lecture.ppt
Creating games in under 40 hours a week: http://archives.igda.org/qol/IGDA_2005_GDC-QOL-Lecture.ppt
The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc.
The point would be to harm society for the benefit of union members?
The point would be to harm society for the benefit of union members?
As opposed to harming the programmers for the benefit of society?
If that truly was the choice, yes, I'd be all for giving less of a benefit to society over actually harming programmers.
I don't think that is true however. As many people have successfully developed software in general, and games in particular, with 40 hour weeks, I believe the overtime shops are throwing hours at a problem that has other solutions. By forcing game companies to have the same overtime type regulations that almost every other sort of company has, you make those solutions mandatory.
If you think I'm full of it, perhaps you should look at EA: They peeled back from massive overtime, and now "only" do stupid hours 2 months a year (down from 4-8 months a year). Evidently, those stupid overtime hours weren't needed.
Holywood has unionized. Notice movies are still made. Sitcoms are still made. Nothing stopped there. Occasionally there is a strike or something, and we watch reruns.
If that truly was the choice, yes, I'd be all for giving less of a benefit to society over actually harming programmers.
I don't think that is true however. As many people have successfully developed software in general, and games in particular, with 40 hour weeks, I believe the overtime shops are throwing hours at a problem that has other solutions. By forcing game companies to have the same overtime type regulations that almost every other sort of company has, you make those solutions mandatory.
If you think I'm full of it, perhaps you should look at EA: They peeled back from massive overtime, and now "only" do stupid hours 2 months a year (down from 4-8 months a year). Evidently, those stupid overtime hours weren't needed.
Holywood has unionized. Notice movies are still made. Sitcoms are still made. Nothing stopped there. Occasionally there is a strike or something, and we watch reruns.
How are the programmers harmed? They are voluntarily choosing to put in long hours in return for salary+fun. If they are willing to out compete you by putting in long hours, who are you to tell them "no, that's unfair competition, you don't have the right to work harder than me?"
I'm sorry, but forcing everyone to work at union levels of laziness is a bad idea. The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games, a few more lazy people become game programmers, and a few hardworking people are crowded out of game programming and go work on wall st.
As for Hollywood unions, to show they are not harmful, you must show we would get the same number/quality of movies at the same price. GM makes cars in spite of having a union, they are just crappier/more expensive than Toyota. Many supermarkets still sell food in spite of a union, they are just more expensive than Walmart.
I'm sorry, but forcing everyone to work at union levels of laziness is a bad idea. The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games, a few more lazy people become game programmers, and a few hardworking people are crowded out of game programming and go work on wall st.
As for Hollywood unions, to show they are not harmful, you must show we would get the same number/quality of movies at the same price. GM makes cars in spite of having a union, they are just crappier/more expensive than Toyota. Many supermarkets still sell food in spite of a union, they are just more expensive than Walmart.
>They are voluntarily choosing to put in long hours in return for salary+fun.
They are voluntarily are harming themselves. It's still harm. Their marriages don't last/are very strained, their health declines from long amounts of chair time, bad food and long hours. If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it.
> The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games
Perhaps? Perhaps we'll just produce them differently! And even if we do, they're just video games. It's okay if we create less of them in order to produce them without harming everyone involved to do so. I'm sure if we took off all the safety regulations, employee regulations, and negotiated employee agreements we'd have cheaper oil and more of it. Doesn't make that a good either.
They are voluntarily are harming themselves. It's still harm. Their marriages don't last/are very strained, their health declines from long amounts of chair time, bad food and long hours. If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it.
> The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games
Perhaps? Perhaps we'll just produce them differently! And even if we do, they're just video games. It's okay if we create less of them in order to produce them without harming everyone involved to do so. I'm sure if we took off all the safety regulations, employee regulations, and negotiated employee agreements we'd have cheaper oil and more of it. Doesn't make that a good either.
If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it.
I'm not a game programmer, but I do work long hours. Why would losing one of my competitive advantages would make me happy?
Perhaps we'll just produce them differently!
If this can be done, there is nothing preventing you from doing so now and gaining a competitive advantage over other companies (better working conditions + equal productivity == better employees). So why aren't you getting rich by doing this right now?
I'm not a game programmer, but I do work long hours. Why would losing one of my competitive advantages would make me happy?
Perhaps we'll just produce them differently!
If this can be done, there is nothing preventing you from doing so now and gaining a competitive advantage over other companies (better working conditions + equal productivity == better employees). So why aren't you getting rich by doing this right now?
In 2002, I had 3 friends employed by gaming companies. In 2010, none of them are, and happier for it.
One of them got an 90% pay increase by moving to a company doing kernel level development. They also got normal working hours. Hmmm, tough call.
One of them got an 90% pay increase by moving to a company doing kernel level development. They also got normal working hours. Hmmm, tough call.
Why do game programmers need a union?
As for IP terms/noncompetes/overtime, I'm not sure why you need a union. Why not just negotiate for that yourself?
As for IP terms/noncompetes/overtime, I'm not sure why you need a union. Why not just negotiate for that yourself?
>As for IP terms/noncompetes/overtime, I'm not sure why you need a union. Why not just negotiate for that yourself?
Because certain portions of our field have jobs that people are willing to be whipped and beaten for if they can get the jobs (entry level game programming, I'm looking at you).
There isn't anything about programming that makes it reasonable to require unpaid overtime exemptions, etc, unlike most other fields have. It's merely poor management demanding it.
Game programming, especially, would be nice, as there is no reason to make games come out faster, they're pure entertainment without just recompense for hours worked. A heavy preponderance of unions would deescalate the field, making everyone do less over a given period of time (or pay people much better than they do for the overtime they demand).
Because certain portions of our field have jobs that people are willing to be whipped and beaten for if they can get the jobs (entry level game programming, I'm looking at you).
There isn't anything about programming that makes it reasonable to require unpaid overtime exemptions, etc, unlike most other fields have. It's merely poor management demanding it.
Game programming, especially, would be nice, as there is no reason to make games come out faster, they're pure entertainment without just recompense for hours worked. A heavy preponderance of unions would deescalate the field, making everyone do less over a given period of time (or pay people much better than they do for the overtime they demand).
Game programmers are presumably compensated with fun.
There is nothing preventing a game programmer from quitting to work at a bank, a rails shop or google. If a game programmer stays, it's because he/she enjoys game programming so much that it's worth the long hours and poor pay.
I'm not sure why you consider unions reducing productivity to be a good thing.
There is nothing preventing a game programmer from quitting to work at a bank, a rails shop or google. If a game programmer stays, it's because he/she enjoys game programming so much that it's worth the long hours and poor pay.
I'm not sure why you consider unions reducing productivity to be a good thing.
Are you aware of the fact that if we had 1992's productivity, there would be full employment in the US right now? You know when your boss lays off 1/3 the team, then expects you to do the same work: That's productivity!
Productivity is not god. Productivity does not trump the health of the people who work there. Programming jobs currently do horrible things to the health of IT's practitioners, especially ones with stupidly long hours, including game programming.
Saner hours would employ more people (or the games would do less). No one can say "games are essential enough to damage people's health over" but guess what: their development largely damages their health of their programmers.
Productivity is not god. Productivity does not trump the health of the people who work there. Programming jobs currently do horrible things to the health of IT's practitioners, especially ones with stupidly long hours, including game programming.
Saner hours would employ more people (or the games would do less). No one can say "games are essential enough to damage people's health over" but guess what: their development largely damages their health of their programmers.
Are you aware of the fact that if we had 1992's productivity, we would all be 30% poorer (and living 2.8 years less) than we are today?
I don't see your numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distr...
And productivity doesn't drive medical research, so:
>(and living 2.8 years less)
is unlikely
And productivity doesn't drive medical research, so:
>(and living 2.8 years less)
is unlikely
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mk...
You can do the inflation calculation yourself. Income is a poor measure since it excludes non-wage compensation (e.g., medical spending) which have gone up significantly relative to income.
I'm not sure why you conclude life expectancy went up due to medical research. Wealth increases life expectancy, but not due to medical spending.
You can do the inflation calculation yourself. Income is a poor measure since it excludes non-wage compensation (e.g., medical spending) which have gone up significantly relative to income.
I'm not sure why you conclude life expectancy went up due to medical research. Wealth increases life expectancy, but not due to medical spending.
Your graph doesn't show anything about actual wages, or wages with the excluded non-wage compensation you're speaking of.
GDP growth is not related to income growth of normal people. For the last 20 years, something like 85% of the growth has gone to the very very rich. It was only really in the postwar period did the middle class ever really grow large (in that period of time we had the only factories in the world), and income growth has been pretty stagnant since the 80's.
According to the US Census Bureau, the median is "considerably lower than the average, and provides a more accurate representation."
"While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. "
Sources: http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm
I bring you to the censuses conclusions about our largely stagnant american wages (which peaked in 1999): http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
Most of that GDP is going to very very rich people.
GDP growth is not related to income growth of normal people. For the last 20 years, something like 85% of the growth has gone to the very very rich. It was only really in the postwar period did the middle class ever really grow large (in that period of time we had the only factories in the world), and income growth has been pretty stagnant since the 80's.
According to the US Census Bureau, the median is "considerably lower than the average, and provides a more accurate representation."
"While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. "
Sources: http://www.demographia.com/db-stateinc2000.htm
I bring you to the censuses conclusions about our largely stagnant american wages (which peaked in 1999): http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
Most of that GDP is going to very very rich people.
Collective bargaining power is better. A guy with a decade of experience may be able to negotiate a good deal, but for someone just out of university they'll likely be treated like their just lucky to have a job. Certain rules should apply industrywide.
For games industry in general a focus some sort of standardisation for credit would be useful. How long does one have to work on a project to be in the credits for example? People get screwed out of credit all the time.
Royalties is another point of contention. Some sort of standardisation for minimums would be useful. Call of Duty 2 has made well over a billion in revenue, yet there was all sorts of drama regarding royalties and the studio collapsed as a result and likely many walked away with nothing.
For games industry in general a focus some sort of standardisation for credit would be useful. How long does one have to work on a project to be in the credits for example? People get screwed out of credit all the time.
Royalties is another point of contention. Some sort of standardisation for minimums would be useful. Call of Duty 2 has made well over a billion in revenue, yet there was all sorts of drama regarding royalties and the studio collapsed as a result and likely many walked away with nothing.
While I find a lot of the author's ideas useful, there's quite a bit of emphasis on certification. I think certification of programmers tends to be a mistake in that I've never heard of a credential (CS degrees included) that actually serves as substantial evidence that a person can produce usable code on demand. I find the comparison of programming to writing[0] useful here: passing a grammar test is not evidence that someone can write articles, essays or novels. When hiring a writer, one should examine samples of that person's writing.
[0]This is not my idea, but I can't find the original source to cite it.
[0]This is not my idea, but I can't find the original source to cite it.
I would join a union that lobbied against, say, overreaching non-compete agreements and against age discrimination (a big problem in this industry).
But the life of a programmer is typically not so bad to start with.
But the life of a programmer is typically not so bad to start with.
I would agree with you on the potential benefit of a lightweight union that existed only for specific purposes, e.g. negotiating health care or lobbying on my behalf. A traditional labor union would, IMO, entail too much bureaucratic inertia to be of much utility to anyone in the field.
Besides that, I have to ask how long this collective experience of programmers enjoying happy lives will last. My general observation is that the accepted value of that labor is cheapening rapidly, whether from scarcity of jobs, glut of available talent, or the general difficulties in remaining competitive when the skillset is often globally portable.
My friend who basically left his engineering field to make more money cleaning pools strikes me as a demonstrative example.
Besides that, I have to ask how long this collective experience of programmers enjoying happy lives will last. My general observation is that the accepted value of that labor is cheapening rapidly, whether from scarcity of jobs, glut of available talent, or the general difficulties in remaining competitive when the skillset is often globally portable.
My friend who basically left his engineering field to make more money cleaning pools strikes me as a demonstrative example.
This has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Unions breed laziness and rob its members of motivation to work because the union will always protect them to the most dizzying degree.
Simply look at this flowchart to see the steps required to fire a New York City teacher. It is outrageous. http://commongood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf
Unions have so much leverage over a company that they negotiate themselves out of a job. There is a reason GM went bankrupt, there is a reason the public school system is failing. Why the hell would I want to join a programmer's union?
Simply look at this flowchart to see the steps required to fire a New York City teacher. It is outrageous. http://commongood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf
Unions have so much leverage over a company that they negotiate themselves out of a job. There is a reason GM went bankrupt, there is a reason the public school system is failing. Why the hell would I want to join a programmer's union?
Totally agree with you. Unions are useful for those who want to put in their '20' years and then live off of pensions, work boring jobs, or need safety guarantees.
From my experiences, programmers are dynamic, inventive, independent, and the type of people who would be willing to stay up two days straight to get done what they need to be done. Would you really want a union around to tell you how many hours a week you could work? Could you imagine a start-up hiring unionized programmers?
From my experiences, programmers are dynamic, inventive, independent, and the type of people who would be willing to stay up two days straight to get done what they need to be done. Would you really want a union around to tell you how many hours a week you could work? Could you imagine a start-up hiring unionized programmers?
Union pensions & healthcare are a giant scam. Unions have completely underfunded their pensions and will go bankrupt in the not too distant future. The reason they are advocating national healthcare is that it will greatly reduce their financial burden.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opi... (just a quick link -- i once saw a great list of pensions and their obligations but can't find it now)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opi... (just a quick link -- i once saw a great list of pensions and their obligations but can't find it now)
When a programmer is willing to stay up two days straight to get done what they need to be done, that's one thing. When the programmer's company expects and demands that the programmer work 80-100 hours per week for six months at the 40 hour per week payrate because the management doesn't understand or care about estimation, scheduling, and sustainable productivity, that's another.
I don't want a union that tells me I can't work more than 40 hours a week, but I wouldn't mind a union that forces my company to pay me for overtime when it's necessary. In the case of a start-up, that payment can be in the form of something deferred, like partial ownership of the company. As a start-up programmer I'm willing to take on some of the risk that the owners do, and contribute my time and effort towards making the start-up a success. But I expect to be rewarded for that too.
The other thing I'd like a union for, and maybe this is more of a professional organization with some teeth, is to enforce some basic standard practices. I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and I find it appalling how seldom basic engineering practices are followed in the software development world. There's a wide variety of tools, practices, and processes in software development so I wouldn't want anything specific to be required, but some things are generic:
- Use version control
- Have and use a requirements definition process
- Have and use an estimation process
- Have and use a scheduling process that tries to keep a sustainable level of productivity
- Provide developers with opportunities to improve their skills (as simple as a book budget and company time to study, up to in-house or out-of-house training)
- Provide a career path, including both management and non-management tracks. (Programmers who don't want to manage shouldn't be stuck in dead-end positions.)
A "professional organization with teeth" could be an organization that developers can join, which could audit employers work practices at the employers request. A positive audit could lead to a certification of that employer, which could make it easier for the employer to hire better developers from among the ranks of the organization. The organization could also provide training and certification to the developers for basic software engineering practices, relevant legal practices, etc, making them more appealing to the employers.
I don't want a union that tells me I can't work more than 40 hours a week, but I wouldn't mind a union that forces my company to pay me for overtime when it's necessary. In the case of a start-up, that payment can be in the form of something deferred, like partial ownership of the company. As a start-up programmer I'm willing to take on some of the risk that the owners do, and contribute my time and effort towards making the start-up a success. But I expect to be rewarded for that too.
The other thing I'd like a union for, and maybe this is more of a professional organization with some teeth, is to enforce some basic standard practices. I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and I find it appalling how seldom basic engineering practices are followed in the software development world. There's a wide variety of tools, practices, and processes in software development so I wouldn't want anything specific to be required, but some things are generic:
- Use version control
- Have and use a requirements definition process
- Have and use an estimation process
- Have and use a scheduling process that tries to keep a sustainable level of productivity
- Provide developers with opportunities to improve their skills (as simple as a book budget and company time to study, up to in-house or out-of-house training)
- Provide a career path, including both management and non-management tracks. (Programmers who don't want to manage shouldn't be stuck in dead-end positions.)
A "professional organization with teeth" could be an organization that developers can join, which could audit employers work practices at the employers request. A positive audit could lead to a certification of that employer, which could make it easier for the employer to hire better developers from among the ranks of the organization. The organization could also provide training and certification to the developers for basic software engineering practices, relevant legal practices, etc, making them more appealing to the employers.
> I wouldn't mind a union that forces my company to pay me for overtime when it's necessary. In the case of a start-up, that payment can be in the form of something deferred, like partial ownership of the company.
You don't need a union to force your company to pay you overtime. You just the willingness to walk when you don't like the terms.
Note that "willingness to walk" is all that the company has.
> Provide a career path, including both management and non-management tracks. (Programmers who don't want to manage shouldn't be stuck in dead-end positions.)
Ah yes - the geek director job, handed out as patronage.
People make it to real higher positions by providing the relevant value, not by coming from a particular background. Mandating folks with a background just leads to a "make work" position.
You don't need a union to force your company to pay you overtime. You just the willingness to walk when you don't like the terms.
Note that "willingness to walk" is all that the company has.
> Provide a career path, including both management and non-management tracks. (Programmers who don't want to manage shouldn't be stuck in dead-end positions.)
Ah yes - the geek director job, handed out as patronage.
People make it to real higher positions by providing the relevant value, not by coming from a particular background. Mandating folks with a background just leads to a "make work" position.
If you don't like the job because it doesn't use version control or is forcing you to work 80 hours per week, then find another job. It really is that simple. No unions required.
sigh
I wish people would stop down voting comments that they don't disagree with.
I wish people would stop down voting comments that they don't disagree with.
Some notable unions go too far in protecting the jobs of their members... so the entire concept of unions is bad?
The entire modern conception is bad because they are granted special rights from the government. If a union was just an organization of people doing collective bargaining their would be no problems - unfortunately they want special rights and will use force to achieve them.
The problem is the balance of power begins so overwhelmingly on the side of the employer. If an employer doesn't want its employees to unionize it's extraordinarily difficult for them to do so.
The only power the employer has is to offer money in return for labor. Similarly, the employee has the power to offer labor in return for money.
In this regard, there is complete equality between parties.
The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government) to prevent any third parties from undercutting them. In contrast, the employer is forbidden from colluding with other employers regarding the hiring of employees. The union is permitted to withhold their services from the employer. The employer, however, is forbidden from withholding employment from the union.
Near as I can tell, all a union does is shifts power completely from employers and workers into the hands of the union. Not to mention that it deprives third parties (non-union workers) of their rights.
In this regard, there is complete equality between parties.
The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government) to prevent any third parties from undercutting them. In contrast, the employer is forbidden from colluding with other employers regarding the hiring of employees. The union is permitted to withhold their services from the employer. The employer, however, is forbidden from withholding employment from the union.
Near as I can tell, all a union does is shifts power completely from employers and workers into the hands of the union. Not to mention that it deprives third parties (non-union workers) of their rights.
"The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government)"
Well, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, isn't violence violence, Western governments in general have extended their monopoly on the use of force to unions.
In the US if you have a complaint about a union engaging in violence against you (vs. individually identifiable members), it is my understanding it isn't subject to the rule of law, you have to bring it before the political NLRB instead of taking it to the courts.
WRT to your last point, unions are a conspiracy of some workers against others. Think about it, which do they hate more, "scabs" or "management"?
Anyway, imagine a world where in order to begin your startup you've got to negotiate with a union to set up a union shop with a union steward. You personally are doing (some) management as well as coding ... no can do! Etc.
Well, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, isn't violence violence, Western governments in general have extended their monopoly on the use of force to unions.
In the US if you have a complaint about a union engaging in violence against you (vs. individually identifiable members), it is my understanding it isn't subject to the rule of law, you have to bring it before the political NLRB instead of taking it to the courts.
WRT to your last point, unions are a conspiracy of some workers against others. Think about it, which do they hate more, "scabs" or "management"?
Anyway, imagine a world where in order to begin your startup you've got to negotiate with a union to set up a union shop with a union steward. You personally are doing (some) management as well as coding ... no can do! Etc.
The only power the employer has is to offer money in return for labor. Similarly, the employee has the power to offer labor in return for money.
There are other things to be offered besides money. Unfortunately, these are often faked by employers.
There are other things to be offered besides money. Unfortunately, these are often faked by employers.
your response seems to encompass unions in general. are you saying that workers should never have collective bargaining power in general?
Union's are only a good idea in situations where collective bargaining is valuable.
I believe that programmers already have such a unique skill, that is extremely un-commoditized, that it seems unnecessary.
I believe that programmers already have such a unique skill, that is extremely un-commoditized, that it seems unnecessary.
It's been a few years since the last time (pre-HN, even), but this idea keeps coming up over and over for major discussion in the programming world. Every time, there's a big discussion but the unionists never seem to get enough traction or have enough backbone to get it going.
I can't see it happening, because most programmers are savvy enough to negotiate their own terms with employers on an individual basis if they care enough. Programmers, as a group, aren't usually as ignorant as groups who are protected by unions.
I can't see it happening, because most programmers are savvy enough to negotiate their own terms with employers on an individual basis if they care enough. Programmers, as a group, aren't usually as ignorant as groups who are protected by unions.
A professional association that includes legal assistance in the event that a programmer is sued for patent infringement would be a great thing.
There is something similar in the home school community: An organization that in addition to providing general support, coordination, recommendations, etc., also has professional attorneys specializing in that field, and who will defend their members in court when necessary.
There is something similar in the home school community: An organization that in addition to providing general support, coordination, recommendations, etc., also has professional attorneys specializing in that field, and who will defend their members in court when necessary.
So long as employers are free to fire anybody for any reasons unless it is written in a contract specifying what reasons they can get fired. So long as people have the ability to work without being employed by a union.
If people wants to form a union, fine with me, but don't drag me into it.
If people wants to form a union, fine with me, but don't drag me into it.
HN'ers would derive more benefit from an agent
No
No. Unions are pure evil.
You have unions to thank for this thing called 'The Weekend'. Pure evil right there. Let's not get out of hand.
No I don't, if I don't want to work on the weekend, I don't.
It looks like possibly the Unions had something to do with weekends in the US, so perhaps you're thanking them for that. I think globally the practice of resting on the sabbath goes slightly further back.
Everyone has a choice. Either they decide to take a job or they don't. Unions are all about blackmail and holding employers to ransom.
Unions are sort of a fun idea, but they end up as a 'them' vs 'us' mentality which quickly escalates to strikes and blackmail.
It looks like possibly the Unions had something to do with weekends in the US, so perhaps you're thanking them for that. I think globally the practice of resting on the sabbath goes slightly further back.
Everyone has a choice. Either they decide to take a job or they don't. Unions are all about blackmail and holding employers to ransom.
Unions are sort of a fun idea, but they end up as a 'them' vs 'us' mentality which quickly escalates to strikes and blackmail.
You have to look at the history of unions in the UK as well then if you think it's only in the US they've done good: http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/timeline.php
Strikes hurt the strikers far more than the negotiations they are an alternative to. No one wants strikes.
Strikes hurt the strikers far more than the negotiations they are an alternative to. No one wants strikes.
I absolutely do not believe Unions to be a good thing. They're about bullying and mob mentality. Sorry, you won't convince me otherwise :/
If you decide to strike, you should be sacked. Simple. You've broken your side of a contract to work.
Funny how the site there kinda glosses over the disastrous Union woes of the 70s, how the country was brought to its knees.
Of course I'm not a Labour Party supporter at all, which is perhaps another reason I dislike Unions. The two go hand in hand. The Labour party is after all, bankrolled, and totally controlled by Unions. I disagree completely with the philosophies of both of them. They're about waste. Unfairness. etc etc
If you decide to strike, you should be sacked. Simple. You've broken your side of a contract to work.
Funny how the site there kinda glosses over the disastrous Union woes of the 70s, how the country was brought to its knees.
Of course I'm not a Labour Party supporter at all, which is perhaps another reason I dislike Unions. The two go hand in hand. The Labour party is after all, bankrolled, and totally controlled by Unions. I disagree completely with the philosophies of both of them. They're about waste. Unfairness. etc etc
What did the chartist movement come from? What motivated them? What did Lords, factory owners and government officials do to workers before eventually succeeded?
Do you know the answers to the above? Until you do, you're missing out on important parts of British history.
I do not think unions are an unadulterated good, and I think many times the law goes silly trying to make it hard for companies to weasel out of their agreements (which is where many of the laws benefiting unions come from), but to act like they don't ever do good things, you really have to have not looked at what Great Brittan was like before they came about.
You're looking at something without the perspective of history when you look at the state of modern labour without looking at it's history and thereby missing 90% of their reasons for doing what they do the way they do it. Lots of the structures and behaviors are there to combat the shenanigans of the companies employed against the workers in the past.
Do you know the answers to the above? Until you do, you're missing out on important parts of British history.
I do not think unions are an unadulterated good, and I think many times the law goes silly trying to make it hard for companies to weasel out of their agreements (which is where many of the laws benefiting unions come from), but to act like they don't ever do good things, you really have to have not looked at what Great Brittan was like before they came about.
You're looking at something without the perspective of history when you look at the state of modern labour without looking at it's history and thereby missing 90% of their reasons for doing what they do the way they do it. Lots of the structures and behaviors are there to combat the shenanigans of the companies employed against the workers in the past.
Have you any examples of this?
Come to the UK and spend a while enduring the strikes by Union members.
They hold their employer to ransom, trying to blackmail cash out of them, while the public/customers suffer.
Also read up on Walt Disneys biography. Unions pretty much destroyed Disney for a decade.
They hold their employer to ransom, trying to blackmail cash out of them, while the public/customers suffer.
Also read up on Walt Disneys biography. Unions pretty much destroyed Disney for a decade.
It's pointless for programmers to do collective bargaining - our skills are simply too diverse. But to have a professional association that can create standard contracts, assist it's members in negotiating out of stupid IP clauses, perhaps create some certifications etc. isn't a bad idea.