Labor unions are pushing hard for better pay and hours – and winning

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/27/labor-unions-winning-better-pay-hours.html

by pg_1234 • 3 years ago

81 166 3 years ago

I'm so happy for folks who have unions and have gained benefits. I know that in the Software Engineering space we think we're all ninja elite 100x rockstar developers and we don't want to get benefits.

VirusNewbie3• 3 years ago

I’m going to go down fighting keeping unions out of software. It’s the hill i’ll gladly die on.

You’re welcome to go work at a software union shop, like Boeing.

Writing low quality software that kills people, great job security even if you are at fault for peanut pay. I’ll take my non union job any day.

mmole• 3 years ago

This was definitely written by Jeff Bezos on a burner account

deprecative8• 3 years ago

That's fine, you can want to be treated like shit if you like it. I know I'd greatly prefer not being under draconian rules and getting things like OT pay so that when I'm forced to work 80-hour weeks I actually benefit from it. You do you.

asdff2• 3 years ago

Nothing like beating on the airplane to make your point, otherwise known as a mode of travel statistically safer than even merely walking.

miffy900• 3 years ago

You’re welcome to go work at a software union shop, like Boeing.
Writing low quality software that kills people, great job security even if you are at fault for peanut pay. I’ll take my non union job any day.

Boeing primarily manufactures and designs airplanes. The odds of dying while being a passenger on an airplane is about 1 in 200,000. Compare that to being a cyclist, which is 1 in 3,500. Or a pedestrian which is 1 in 485.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-safe-is-flying-heres...

Putting your stupendously bad comparison aside, I'd say most software devs/programmers don't really need to unionise, aside from video game devs. 80+ hour work weeks, constant burn out, consistently underpaid compared to most other devs who just program boring line of business apps; they just get treated very poorly.

whatshisface4• 3 years ago

Engineers have always walked a fine line between labor and capital because while on one hand they own nothing and do not manage anybody, they are also individually valued and work directly within (in a sense being at the core of) the planning functions of companies.

lapcat13• 3 years ago

If you can get laid off, then you're not capital.

kazen442• 3 years ago

in classical manufacturing though, most engineers have to work together with tool and die makers to actually produce the tooling to create the product.

The guys actually physically building the tooling you designed to build a product are definitely unionized, and have been for a very long time.

chasd00• 3 years ago

we don't want to get benefits.

Software engineers are the most coddled bunch out there. Our benefits are so far beyond the pale it’s embarrassing.

cm2012• 3 years ago

Seriously, like big tech has like 6 month standard paternity packages now. Try getting that at any other career in the USA.

throwaway9143• 3 years ago

I have a pretty awful view of this:

In the less complex jobs, they struggle to get things like paternity leave and time off. We have those. We should be looking at those ridiculous things we think we don't deserve and organizing to get them. We could be a leading example for the industries that come behind us.

Paid time off is common in softwareland. Let's make it mandatory "you must take 4 weeks off minimum a year". We know "unlimited time off" is a guilt-tripping farce.

If 1 software dev can add billions of dollars of value to a company, we should be getting these ridiculous things. These things that seem like coddling us. Maybe even a formula for "if i added x% profit, I deserve y% of that"

I think hollywood is ahead of us on compensation formulas imo.

tchaffee8• 3 years ago

UPS drivers just negotiated $150k TC by the end of five years. That's for unskilled labor.

Think about how much additional profit highly skilled engineers could capture from company owners if we negotiated as team against the organized team that company owners pay for.

Negotiating as an individual against a full time team seems nuts.

Why leave so much profit on the table? For what good reason?

mym1990• 3 years ago

In 2022 only about 12% of those employed in the US were part of a union...so you are pretty far off from being the only one not 'gaining benefits'.

deprecative8• 3 years ago

I never claimed exclusivity in being treated poorly as labor.

bontaq• 3 years ago

The part I've been trying to explain to coworkers is that the union isn't just for software engineers at the company, but for the support staff as well. We have it good but I have seen support and sales staff get bullied pretty hard.

Sure you might not even get a raise with a union, but perhaps those same benefits of remote work when needed, unlimited vacation, and an hour lunch can be extended to every worker at the company.

The most expensive workers teaming up with the least expensive to give them more power is a good thing, I think.

gochi• 3 years ago

Funny enough, that's probably the worst way to convince engineers due to the belief that is rooted in this field which is both rockstar qualities and a false sense of security due to companies (so far) overpaying to reduce talent pools. So bringing up support staff and sales usually results in the mindset that they should just switch fields.

Instead talk about sports unions, like the NFL Player Association, and that usually gets them re-evaluating all they've been previously understanding about unions.

nvm0n27• 3 years ago

And I've seen support and sales staff bully software engineers, often for being too white or male for their liking. So they should unionize on our behalf, for fairness and justice?

lapcat13• 3 years ago

Software engineers often have a strange attitude, thinking they don't need unions, when pro athletes who make $millions per year all have unions. There's a myth that with unions, everyone will make the same compensation, but that's not even remotely true in pro sports.

The reason to have a union is that no matter how much money you make, the owners of the business have more money and power. Collective bargaining is a counterweight to the power of ownership.

And it's not just about money, it's about working conditions. For example, labor unions could fight back against back-to-the-office demands, whereas without a union, employees are forced to individually consent or lose their job.

toldyouso20222• 3 years ago

A union turns into a guild fast. I don't want programming to be monopoly of people with a degree, slave to the cartel's rule, programming is a human right and it must remain absolutely free!

A programmers union is too dangerous in this world, especially in these times

stale20025• 3 years ago

Well us software engineers can look at some of the ways that unions are run, and decide for ourselves if we like those "benefits".

For example, seniority requirements and enforced degree or qualification requirements don't sound like something I would want, nor would the many other software engineers like myself who didn't go through the "proper" path of getting a CS degree.

jrockway• 3 years ago

I think most software engineers are a little uncomfortable with the whole arrangement of employment to begin with, and any backlash against unions is the backlash from having to face this somewhat subservient reality. The origin story of getting a computer, some library books, and spending 10,000 hours alone with your computer seems pretty common. With that mental model, why would you want someone who isn't a software engineer interfering with your career? You built it yourself, and you don't need any help. I think that's where the attitude comes from, and it's probably something worth talking yourself out of. (Nobody is discounting their hard work, but the more BS other people deal with, the more time you can spend alone with your text editor.)

The other thing that people probably worry about are protecting the net negative members on the team. Those that make more work for the team, derail meetings, block things from being submitted, etc. Nobody wants to hear "well our contract doesn't allow us to fire them".

Like all engineering, there isn't a solution with no downsides.

I think unions deserve serious consideration. Our working conditions are not perfect (know any software engineers with wrist problems, back problems, or sleep apnea?). Our benefits are not perfect (love being forced to take a mandatory vacation every year paid out of my personal vacation balance). And, we have pretty much zero sway among the government. (Do you think that if attorneys were paid in illiquid shares that every time you received them, you'd have to send a hand-signed letter to the IRS?) There is certainly something to be gained; software prints money, and the people that make it deserve their fair share.

Even on HN, commenters are shocked by the FAANG salaries, but you know lots of people are making way more money. Someone just paid $7M for the two story house behind my apartment. I'm guessing they're not a couple of software engineers. Why is that? Is it because we self-sabotage? Is there not that much money in software after all?

Someone should look into all of this, but as long as we see ourselves as individuals and not a group, we will be easy to ignore.

(Uh oh, now I sound like a communist.)

johnnyanmac6• 3 years ago

employees are forced to individually consent or lose their job.

that's the thing, software workers are used to just walking away, because their skills are versatile and demand is high. A national level athlete can also simply retire on a few year's funds (or hell, sell themselves as an influencer. You don't think a youtube channel alone of LeBron wouldn't generate a 6k income from weekly "advice"?), but they tend to have a competitive drive to stay in the game, literally. You don't grind your entire childhood's physique away because you're gambling on the chance you retire at 30 (even if that is the most likely thing to happen due to injuries).

To be frank, the vibe I get from the internet seems to be that a lot of SWE's are indeed minmaxing to get out of the workforce ASAP.

whatshisface4• 3 years ago

I can't help but wonder how much of this is "better" and how much is wage stickiness in action (inflation has a slower effect on pay than on prices because pay increases involve long, drawn-out disputes. Economists call this effect "stickiness.").

II2II• 3 years ago

Yes, that is an issue. My union (mostly non-tech workers) was negotiating for a new contract when the old when had expired 18 months prior and had been negotiated two or three years before that. It was such a long wait that a lot of good people were lost in the process, particularly since inflation has been abnormally high. It sounds like many other unions in my neck of the woods are in a similar situation.

mnd999• 3 years ago

The current model of superconcentrating wealth among fewer and fewer individuals whilst everyone else gets screwed is not sustainable. This had to happen.

candiddevmike6• 3 years ago

Rich people with GenAI workers: hold my beer

Now more than ever we need to fix the inequality before it spirals (more) out of control

PartiallyTyped2• 3 years ago

On the contrary, this is the right time to floor the gas pedal and accelerate the process before a new norm gets established. The bigger the delta, the easier it will be to establish long-term changes that work for the 99% instead of prolonging feudalism.

AnthonyMouse8• 3 years ago

"This" isn't really happening.

You get 10% inflation and the union gets you a 7% raise (which you could have also gotten by switching jobs or threatening to in a non-union shop), and they claim to have done you a favor.

To actually fix it you need to break up concentrated industries and address the regulatory capture that enables them.

Or do something about cost disease -- the thing where work that could have been done by one person in one hour instead needs a chain of seven corporations with lawyers and administrators who each contribute overhead and take a vig, and then people can't afford anything because an hour's worth of labor only buys two minutes of "real work" from someone else.

phpisthebest6• 3 years ago

You get 10% inflation and the union gets you a 7% raise , of which the union take 5% for "dues" if you are lucky, if you are unlucky, you get 10% inflation, the union gets you 7%, and takes 10%, so after unionized you are doing the same job for a reduction in purchasing power of 13%.

yea Unions

rexpop• 3 years ago

the union gets you a 7% raise (which you could have also gotten by switching jobs

Fun fact: netting yourself a little associational bargaining power doesn't negate your job marketplace bargaining power! More leverage is more leverage. This becomes much clearer when we define a few terms:

Contentions about the state of world labor are based on assumptions about the impact of contemporary globalization on workers' bargaining power. A useful starting point for differentiating types of workers' bargaining power is Erik Olin Wright's (2000: 962) distinction between associational and structural power. Associational power consists of "the various forms of power that result from the formation of collective organization of workers" (most importantly, trade unions and political parties). Structural power, in, contrast, consists of the power that accrues to workers "simply from their location... in the economic system." Wright further divides "structural" power into two subtypes. The first subtype of structural power (which we shall call marketplace bargaining power) is the power that "results directly from labor markets." The second subtype of structural power (which we shall call workplace bargaining power) is the power that results "from the strategic location of a particular group of workers within a key industrial sector."
Marketplace bargaining power can take several forms including (1) the possession of scarce skills that are in demand by employers, (2) low levels of general unemployment, and (3) the ability of workers to pull out of the labor market entirely and survive on nonwage sources of income. Workplace bargaining power, on the other hand, accrues to workers who are enmeshed in tightly integrated production processes, where a localized work stoppage in a key node can cause disruptions on a much wider scale than the stoppage itself. Such bargaining power has been in evidence when entire assembly lines have been shut down by a stoppage in one segment of the line, and when entire corporations relying on the just-in-time delivery of parts have, been brought to a standstill by railway workers' strikes.

-- Beverly J. Silver, Forces of Labor

MikusR• 3 years ago

Do you have any data that says it's happening? I looked at wikipedia and in 2000 there was 470 billionares and now there are 2,640

mustafa_pasi2• 3 years ago

Low wages result in economic stagnation. Just compare California to Germany for an example. Here in Germany, we have unions that put job security above all else including wages. And employers that offer job security as a perk rather than offering higher wages. Result: an over burdened middle class, little innovation and a stagnant economy.

asdff2• 3 years ago

One can even just look at California itself to make this example as there are very high levels of inequality there. You certainly see compensation rise astronomically in some industries in California and an overall increase of state GDP, but at the same time, other industries do not see such rises in lock step with inflation brought on by more fortunate groups, and as a result the working class are severely rent burdened and lack a means to save or pay down debt. Its like there are two economies. There is the economy about large numbers, GDPs, market caps, stock option compensation packages, increasing real estate returns. Then there is the real world economy. People selling elote on the street. People working in convenience stores. People driving pickup trucks full of tools. People looking for the cheapest rent they can find. People going to night school at a community college. It seems that the former is only able to grow so much at the expense of keeping it out of the hands of the latter.

runnerup9• 3 years ago

16% of Germans[0] and 16% of Californians[1] are in a union. 7% of Mississippians[2] are in a union.

Mississippi vs. California is also interesting. Mississippi has far less participation in unions (7% vs 16%) and much less regulation for employers to follow. Overall Mississippi looks like one of the best places in the USA for employers in terms of an accommodating regulatory environment. However, personal outcomes in Mississippi are languishing compared to even Germany! Let alone compared to California.

You chose an interesting two geographies to compare/contrast. It looks like 16-17% of Californians are in a union. It also looks like 16-17% of Germans are in a union. Perhaps it’s not the degree of union participation which drives differences in economic opportunity between these regions!

0: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD

1: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/unionmembershi....

2: https://stacker.com/mississippi/see-how-much-mississippis-wo...

jntvjnvutnuvt12• 3 years ago

Mississippi, being the poorest state in the union, is as rich as Germany (GDP/capita).

mustafa_pasi2• 3 years ago

But unions are not all the same. And I was not trying to make a point about union membership at all. I was rather lamenting economic policy. Some economists and some industrialists believe in keeping wages low to remain competitive. This thinking is present in Germany but (it seems to me) that it is less present in California. In my opinion, the long term economic effect of low wages is economic stagnation, even if you might remain economically competitive on the world stage. Eventually the rest of the world would move on and whatever role you were filling would disappear anyway.

phpisthebest6• 3 years ago

Didn't you just provide the Grand Parents point?

The unions are not the solution? That in fact unions make no difference at all in many situations and it is rather under underlying economic conditions that matter more.

Unions may be able to curb some systemic abuse for a limited time, in limited circumstances, but market forces will always win the war.

As such it best to look for foundational economics not magical unions to solve economic inequality.

candiddevmike6• 3 years ago

Germany's innovation issues stem from its ingrained love for growing bureaucracies more so than unions IMO

backendanon• 3 years ago

Trade a corporate boss for both a corporate boss and a union thug, near mafia boss? No thank you.

Contusion3532• 3 years ago

Unions have these things that you might of heard of... elections, where you can elect your leadership. How much democracy is for employees in a corporation?

kazen442• 3 years ago

this depends on the country actually.

A lot of countries have work's council[0] enshrined into law. Which actually means you have some form of democratic control over what a company wants to do.

i am still bewildered the US has nothing of the sort... in any kind of way.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

changoplatanero2• 3 years ago

In the union that I was represented by you had to pay extra money to be a voting member. So for people like me that didn't like the union they still forcibly took some of my money but without any chance for me to vote on how they spent it.

zdragnar• 3 years ago

Unions are sticky. Once you let them in, you will have a very hard time decertifying them if you feel you are not being represented well.

https://freebeacon.com/policy/labor-leaders-say-illinois-fir...

https://www.mackinac.org/26962

https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-seiu-hopes-to-plunder...

https://leadinghomecare.com/blog/2014/05/01/michigan-home-he...

Animats• 3 years ago

The real break will come when Amazon, WalMart, or McDonalds goes union nationally.

That became more likely with the new NLRB rule that employer violations of labor law during union organization forces either a quick election or the recognition of the union. Here's the view from a union-busting law firm.[1][2] They're worried.

[1] https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2023/08/new-nlrb-rules-favo...

[2] https://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/the-postal-services-uni...

jntvjnvutnuvt12• 3 years ago

There are many right to work states that don't force union membership.

aaomidi3• 3 years ago

Yeah, makes the union slightly weaker, while still keeping it a good deal. Better than refusing the union.

_delirium• 3 years ago

I'm not sure relying on that will be a very effective strategy for companies in service industries. They need their labor to mostly be near where their customers are. It was effective with heavy manufacturing like automobiles, because you could move (or threaten to move) factories to right-to-work states, and supply the whole U.S from a small number of factories. But that model doesn't really apply to Starbucks.

balderdash3• 3 years ago

I’m generally pretty happy to see people be successful with private sector unions where there is a built-in give and take (take to much and put your company out of business and yourself out of a job) - but public sector unions need to be illegalized

tchaffee8• 3 years ago

Public sector unions do seem problematic. How do you suggest public employees negotiate the highest possible wages for themselves?

balderdash3• 3 years ago

I see the as problem actually just the opposite - the public sector unions are unaccountable and have already figured out how to extract overly generous benefits at the expense of the populace.

Labor unions are pushing hard for better pay and hours – and winning

Related Stories