Microsoft Bug Testers Unionized, Then They Were Dismissed

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-23/microsoft-bug-testers-unionized-then-they-were-dismissed

by fludlight • 8 years ago

222 164 8 years ago

erentz• 8 years ago

Another example of how Medicare for All would help business. Just remove healthcare as an employee benefit entirely.

jamroom• 8 years ago

Not sure why you're getting down voted - tying health care to employment is a burden on both companies (at least small ones) and workers.

noobermin3• 8 years ago

I'm sympathetic but I'm not sure how it's related.

_uhtu• 8 years ago

Probably because he didn't make it clear that the reason he brought up Medicare for All was because the whole reason contractors are so prevalent is so you don't have to pay for healthcare for them, effectively separating your workers into two classes.

Medicare for All would be beneficial in this example as it would totally remove the burden on company to provide a healthcare plan.

Without that crucial context, it sounds like he's just randomly bringing up hot-button political issues.

colechristensen2• 8 years ago

In countries with socialized medicine already, how many people are covered by private health insurance and is it paid for by the employer?

The answers are "lots" and "mostly"

colechristensen2• 8 years ago

Countries with socialized medicine still have jobs with private health insurance benefits. The publicly funded health care ends up being mediocre for some reason or another. For example, about 60% of Canadians are covered by some form of private health insurance.

ryneandal• 8 years ago

If it's anything like France, the private insurance hooks you up with "perks" compared to basic, or even shared room care.

Edit: Found what is covered by private insurance in Canada:

About 27.6% of Canadians' healthcare is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.

0x4f3759df• 8 years ago

I've heard that the UK does this as well, still get insurance from work because the free one is terrible.

AnthonyMouse2• 8 years ago

Another example of how Medicare for All would help business. Just remove healthcare as an employee benefit entirely.

The problem there is that the existing Medicare system is predicated on paying less for the same things than private insurance and then letting high private insurance premiums subsidize the Medicare system. Which obviously doesn't work when everyone is on Medicare, so the cost per Medicare patient would go up at the same time as you're adding hundreds of millions of people to it.

So the Medicare tax would have to increase dramatically, but the Medicare tax is pretty regressive. Meanwhile a lot of companies would then get away with discontinuing their private insurance coverage without increasing employee compensation by the same amount. So you're basically talking about a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to corporations.

We should probably look into some other method of dismantling the employer-provided healthcare system. Maybe something that involves primarily catastrophic coverage as a baseline.

jedberg2• 8 years ago

Presumably we would still have private insurance, just like Medicare patients have private insurance now. You'd use your private insurance to do things like skip ahead in line or not see your primary care provider first or getting drugs that aren't on medicare's schedule.

We would also presumably still have doctors who don't take Medicare and can charge whatever they want, and then you'd want private insurance to see those doctors, who presumably would be the best doctors, and the ones that could get away with such things.

Tyrek• 8 years ago

I'm not sure that's how Medicare is 'predicated' - the fundamental assumption is that you get to a) reduce administrative overhead due to a centralized system, and b) using the power of a single-payer system to negotiate lower fees - it's reducing the profit margin of private insurers, not relying on them to subsidize Medicare.

pranjalv123• 8 years ago

Medicare for all would get rid of high private insurance premiums, but it would also raise payments by people who are currently uninsured, and would have higher payment levels than Medicaid. So the decrease in provider payments would, in total, be something like 10%, which could be compensated by lower administrative costs, since hospitals would have fewer insurance companies to deal with.

mynameishere• 8 years ago

the Medicare tax would have to increase dramatically

Would it? It already covers all the old people who suck down almost all the healthcare expenses already. Expanding it would cover younger and healthier people. I don't know the numbers...that's just my quick take.

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

So the Medicare tax would have to increase dramatically, but the Medicare tax is pretty regressive.

So, if you need to change it anyway, make it less regressive at the same time.

zdragnar2• 8 years ago

We actually have employer sponsored health insurance because of unions, and the effect that has had on the insurance market is part of why insurance on the individual market is so dang expensive. Not entirely, as it's expensive no matter how you get it, but it is a factor.

Heck, the Affordable Care Act ruined a lot of insurance policies held by union members because they covered too much. My best friend's employer was stuck with the Faustian choice of massive increases to employee contributions, paying massive penalties to the government, or renegotiating for shittier coverage.

kiliantics2• 8 years ago

A good set of strong unions could make that a reality

infocollector• 8 years ago

wow! Can't they sue Microsoft and get reinstated? Perhaps using courts?

LeoPanthera• 8 years ago

It is important to read the article before you react to the headline.

justboxing• 8 years ago

Can't they sue Microsoft and get reinstated?

Please stop with this. The last time temp workers sued (and won) [1] the rippling effect it has had on 100s and 1000s of contractors since then, is that companies (in Silicon Valley and Bay area atleast) no longer employ contractors for more than 18 months at a time.

And due to this a lot of contractors since 1998 have had to leave lucrative contracts at software companies, because the companies that hired them specifically put this max limit after this lawsuit to shield themselves from such a law suit.

Personally, I've had to leave 3 separate contracts since 2006 in San Francisco, solely because the clients had this policy of not hiring temp workers/ contractors for more than 18 months, so as to avoid any lawsuit from temp workers suing for employee benefits.

[1] Source: [2000] Microsoft to Pay $97 Million to End Temp Worker Suit http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/13/business/fi-64817

IanDrake• 8 years ago

Ditto. I make much more as a contractor than any FTEs I’ve worked with. This has bitten me a few times.

mjevans2• 8 years ago

The best fix for this is to eliminate the "benefits" corporations see by hiring temps/part time over just hiring for a full time job.

If a job is really a partial job require pro-rated benefits (and favor the worker slightly so that it encourages just having full-time jobs).

That might also encourage businesses/the rich to put their political pressure towards socializing those costs instead of outsourcing them to individual (temp/part time) employees.

mjevans2• 8 years ago

I wonder if getting the /position/ they were previously hired to fill classified as a job that /should/ have been full time, so they could then be eligible for relocation/layoff by the main company, is a legal tactic that could work?

sushid• 8 years ago

I realize that it's the article's title, but this seems misleading. The bug testers were contractors working under the temp agency Lionbridge Technologies Inc.

After they won their right to unionize, they were eventually laid off because Microsoft required fewer bug testers for their dwindling Windows Mobile app store and their agency, Lionbridge, couldn't find additional work for them.

noobermin3• 8 years ago

It seems convenient and frustrating, but it did seem like Lionbridge specifically targeted them for laying off.

dsr_3• 8 years ago

That is the political line from Lionbridge and Microsoft.

Do you think there's something special about QA for Windows Mobile that makes them unhireable for other QA jobs?

scarface746• 8 years ago

If Microsoft’s review process is anything like Apple’s for apps, I would assume it’s a lot different from testing internal Microsoft products.

cwyers2• 8 years ago

They worked under a contract. The contract ended. They could have gotten another contract with Microsoft. But they could have gotten a contract with any other software company, too. Why didn't Lionbridge find another contract?

EpicEng5• 8 years ago

Why would MS try to find them work if they didn't need them any longer? Other projects were likely already provisioned for. mS doesn't employ these people directly, it's not their problem.

devhead2• 8 years ago

from the title: "then they were dismissed" should have been: "then a few years later they were dismissed"

calcifer• 8 years ago

Since you are quoting... creatively, let me grab the part you ignored:

In documents obtained via FOIA request, the union provided updates from management in the fall of 2016 about pending assignments that it said showed no substantial decline in workload.

unreal372• 8 years ago

"The number of apps in its Windows Store had dwindled to 13 percent of the 1.1 million offered in 2014, the company said, and it needed less bug testing from Lionbridge, according to a January 2017 memo obtained via a FOIA request."

The number of apps is 1/8th what it used to be. That's significant.

modells• 8 years ago

Microsoft abused subcontractors to deny them benefits even though they were de-facto employees. It doesn't matter what bullshit excuses Microsoft or anyone else comes up with, because they treated people like garbage.

hermitdev• 8 years ago

It's not Microsoft's responsibility to provide benefits for contractors or subcontractors. It's up to those contractors' actual employer (assuming W2) or themselves (if 1099) to provide those benefits. If you're a contractor under W2, you need to take that up with your direct employer, not MS. If you're a 1099, you need to negotiate a sufficient rate to provide yourself with ability to provide yourself with the benefits. I formed my own S-Corp and hired myself as an employee when I was contracting. Better rates than going through a higher agency. Made sure my rate was high enough I could afford health insurance (~$400/month as an individual). You have to negotiate these things, not just take an offer or leave it. Group you're contracting for is always going to low ball it, if you accept it as is, you're at fault. Contracts are negotiable, not take it or leave it. If they say it's take it or leave it, you leave it - they're not going to be worth working for, anyway, and they're going to have a really hard time filling their need.

sureaboutthis• 8 years ago

What a coincidence.

mrhappyunhappy• 8 years ago

Work for Microsoft?:)

dsr_3• 8 years ago

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- attributed to Mao.

The union expected to be dealt with fairly and according to the law; the law failed them, because the mechanisms of the law were controlled by politics and Microsoft has political power; the union did not.

walshemj4• 8 years ago

I think Cornett Joyce predates that :-) when arresting Charles I the king asked on what authority he stepped to one side and pointed to the men with guns behind him.

Sag0Sag0• 8 years ago

I'm not sure why this is being down voted, it's true.

ntsplnkv25• 8 years ago

People are not quite at the point of revolt.

If the path we are currently on continues, though, it will happen. It's only a matter of when.

CydeWeys2• 8 years ago

A similar thing happened to SWEs at Lanetix. I was coworkers with several of them at my previous job. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-tech-company...

Fortunately I've never worked anywhere that had conditions so bad that organizing was worth thinking about, but I won't rule it out as a possibility in the future.

noobermin3• 8 years ago

As a lesson for people who want to unionize, this is why larger is better when it comes to unions.

zdragnar2• 8 years ago

Unless you live in MN, where they push tthrough legislation so they can take medicare money from disabled people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattpatterson/2017/10/02/in-min...

acd• 8 years ago

Big company A wants to pay less for a general service, Large company A outsources the service to smaller company B. Smaller company B in order to make the service cheaper than Company A could do it themselves, company B cuts on things like pay, vacation and social benefits. There is no work safety in company B and everything is by demand "contract" work. In fact employees of company B is often self employees.

This is usually how it goes around and in globalization it is there is often someone willing to the work cheaper but with no health care, pensions etc.

devhead2• 8 years ago

Should tech workers unionize?

sremani• 8 years ago

Tech workers are a global force! Instead of unionizing you would do better by getting security clearance and become a fed contract worker.

That is the closest thing to building a worker moat, I know of.

kiliantics2• 8 years ago

The purpose of a union is to pool the power of all the workers together and use that combined power to achieve things which the individuals themselves never could alone. Really big things. Like, we have weekends, maternity leave, and OSHA thanks to unions big.

Tech workers are indeed a global force and in a world that increasingly requires global solutions - think climate change, migration crises, etc. - a union that leverages the power of all tech workers would be really useful right about now.

walshemj4• 8 years ago

Yes why not? many well paid professions do even in the USA.

exabrial• 8 years ago

Were the bug testers working in conditions where said testers were in physical or psychiatric danger from job hazards? If not, I don't really see an issue with this.

alokitr• 8 years ago

Just as an fyi, there are countries where companies like lionsbridge are not even allowed to exist. e.g. France.

brightball• 8 years ago

Check on the number of companies that exist in France with 49 employees.

cpeterso• 8 years ago

Thought experiment: what if the US government limited companies to a maximum number of employees, say 5000?

There would be new inefficiencies, but it might decrease the possibility or impact of monopolies and encourage competition. There would be a lot more specialized contractor companies. How much of, say, Google's search service or Microsoft Windows could be maintained or developed with just 5000 people?

jedberg2• 8 years ago

Canada too.

gruez• 8 years ago

what's the relevant law here?

kitanata• 8 years ago

Honestly, I think we should just unionize everyone in the tech field. A single Union that handles and accepts all software developers, IT operations folks, software testers, etc and we protect our own and lobby for the laws to benefit us and our profession. The things these companies do to get around basic worker rights is deplorable and we need to organize and fight back, and befor you say you make a ton of money and love what you do so why unionize, ask yourself how many hours you worked overtime and didn’t get paid for it. Ask yourself how many times you’ve seen a colleague let go because they had some medical troubles. Ask yourself how many times a colleague on a visa told you they felt trapped. Ask yourself how many times you’ve heard of a colleague get fucked out of their vacation due to a critical issue. Ask yourself how much power you have to effect change when it comes to just general process and how we go about our day to day. Ask yourself how many times you’ve felt you’ve been asked to do something that was unethical and didn’t want to risk the financial implications and consequences of saying “No”. We need a union. Call it whatever you want, a guild, a bar, a union. Whatever. The point is, it’s time to organize and it’s time to start fighting back.

throwaway080383• 8 years ago

I'm sure this is not true for everyone reading this, but for me the answer to all those questions is zero times.

phillc73• 8 years ago

Nonetheless, if such a Tech Workers Union existed, joining as an act of solidarity would benefit all fellow members and offer you a level of protection to insure you never experienced any of the aforementioned scenarios.

thrill2• 8 years ago

No. I'm an adult. I handle my own issues.

ubernostrum4• 8 years ago

Curious: do you also have that attitude toward starting a company? Would you do it with no loans, no investments from others?

s73v3r_2• 8 years ago

That kind of obstancance isn't a sign of being an adult.

dang• 8 years ago

That's good, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics, where the effect will be trollish.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

CydeWeys2• 8 years ago

To give some examples of practices that unions might help prevent:

I was a full-time employee of an enterprise software consulting company my first job out of college. We were paid salary and didn't get overtime. We did get comp time, but only for hours worked in excess of 95 every two-week paycheck (so you'd have to work 7.5 unpaid overtime hours per week until you started getting comp time). I also had several managers who wanted us to bill the contractual maximum of 40 hours per week for clients, which in practice meant that I worked a lot more than 40 hours per week once travel and various administrative tasks were factored in.

I burned out at that job in less than four years and left to do something else that didn't involve so much time spent away from home at godforsaken little cities.

prolikewh0a4• 8 years ago

while I agree with you, I don't think this would work, as most tech workers are pretty well off and simply don't have to deal with what tech contractors have to deal with. I get a strong "f%$k you I got mine, don't change anything" vibe working in the tech industry.

ntsplnkv25• 8 years ago

In terms of benefits, SV companies, modern tech companies, are typically the cream of the crop, so I think it mitigates the need.

I don't think we need collective bargaining on salaries. But I do think workers should have a unified voice at the table, and at the very least have a political lobby for their rights.

travisoneill1• 8 years ago

I've never been in a union but know people who have. From this small and biased sample of unions:

- Pay is based on seniority, not skill

- You have to please your boss from the company and also the union

I don't want either of these things. If there is a union where this doesn't happen then I could consider it.

JamesBarney• 8 years ago

Not all unions, just some blue collar unions. The american bar and american medical association are also de facto unions.

Lets call it a professional organization instead, and I think what most of us want is collaborative bargaining around IP(companies doesn't own your off hours) and non-competes.

Frondo6• 8 years ago

That is a small and biased sample, and ignores a union representing the most visible people in society: the screen actors' guild.

Think Tom Cruise is paid based on seniority and not skill?

turtlecloud• 8 years ago

We need some more creative thinking here. If we base it off existing unions meh, but we can prob engineer something good.

A software eng that cant see this prob/solution most likely isn’t a good software eng and would benefit from said union.

wz1000• 8 years ago

https://iww.org/unions/dept500/iu560

dev_north_east• 8 years ago

Ask yourself how many times you’ve seen a colleague let go because they had some medical troubles.

Never.

Ask yourself how many times a colleague on a visa told you they felt trapped.

Never.

Ask yourself how many times you’ve heard of a colleague get fucked out of their vacation due to a critical issue.

Never.

Ask yourself how much power you have to effect change when it comes to just general process

Hmm, somewhat. All places I've worked have been pretty responsive. Current place moreso.

I suggest the above is USA-specific and nothing to do with unionised programmers.

christophilus• 8 years ago

I work in the USA and also answer "never" to all of the above. Regarding the last bullet point, I've helped to change general processes in almost every place that I've ever worked. I'm genuinely curious to hear from folks who have experienced these bullet points: where did you work at the time?

leke2• 8 years ago

I used to work for LionBridge. They did have quite a few full time positions when Nokia was flourishing, but when things started to go south with Nokia, they put pressure on LionBridge to cut their costs, else lose their business contract. When Microsoft took over Nokia, nothing changed for the better. People who were forced out of their full-time jobs didn't get them back, and the people who had permanent zero hour contracts kept the same deal. This is when I left (because I was only getting a couple of days work a month).

I feel bad for LB because it was Nokia and MS that turned the screws, even though I think they had the funds to support LB's employees. I also have no idea why LB couldn't then get the reason Nokia and MS lost their product support, ie. the Android vendors' business contracts.

r00fus• 8 years ago

I had to look up what a zero-hour contract is [1]. Seriously sounds like a setup ripe for worker abuse - I mean, yes, according to the standard zero hour contract, both employer and employee can decline work offered/accepted, but who do you think has power in this relationship?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-hour_contract

leke2• 8 years ago

according to the standard zero hour contract, both employer and employee can decline work offered/accepted, but who do you think has power in this relationship?

In my particular case, I was still eligible to unemployment subsidy, if my monthly earnings were lower than that of unemployment benefit, but it came with a condition. Even though I was allowed to decline offered work, I would forfeit my unemployment subsidy for three months each time I declined it. This of course was a condition of the unemployment office, not the company, but the company knew about it, so yes, the company indeed had power over those who needed at least the minimum living allowance.

We actually had a homeless guy working there for a while, until they found out he was homeless.

randyrand• 8 years ago

what’s the difference between a union and a bunch of small 1 person companies all deciding to price fix?

chimeracoder6• 8 years ago

what’s the difference between a union and a bunch of small 1 person companies all deciding to price fix?

Is this a riddle?

The answer: Both were outlawed by antitrust laws, but labor unions later lobbied to except one (but not the other).

RachelF• 8 years ago

I guess this would explain the low quality of Windows updates recently. Almost every patch Tuesday we patch, and then something that should have been caught by Microsoft QA breaks.

The increasingly low quality of Microsoft products makes it hard to use in the enterprise.

SamReidHughes• 8 years ago

If these people can form a union, what's to stop them from forming their own agency and finding clients? Software testing isn't exactly a capital-intensive business.

torgian2• 8 years ago

Huh. Article cant be found now?

torgian2• 8 years ago

Article can't be found now?

Apocryphon2• 8 years ago

Could we at least agree that tech workers in the video game industry should be unionized? The anti-union detractors always talk about how cushy engineers have it and that unions are unnecessary. Well how about the notoriously horrendous working conditions in games?

throw2016• 8 years ago

There is a general lack of empathy for these workers and even for those who get laid off due to globalization and now under a opioid/meth epidemic.

Free market proponents always talk about 'retraining' and other up in the air initiatives but there is no follow up or details about how these will actually work in the real world with some base accountability, processes and studies about how well they worked in the past. And yet all these trade deals without exception have claw backs and multiple processes protecting their investments and profits. In this case all the details are covered carefully and it is not left 'up in the air'.

There are no easy answers here as opinions will shift depending on which side of the equation you or someone you care about finds themselves in. This is really about the kind of society and community you want to build and how you see yourself as a country.

mg794613• 8 years ago

"... gave up on what had been, for people in the software world, an almost unheard of unionization victory" The 'software world' is not just America, thank you. Almost every other civilized country thinks this is normal.

Microsoft Bug Testers Unionized, Then They Were Dismissed

Related Stories