unitedwestand

One advantage of the current fragmented bargaining landscape is that you don't need to organize the whole company at once. You can just focus on individual workplaces ("bargaining units.") The disadvantage of this is that unionization is a slog of attrition, and you're unlikely to get a result like the Flint Sitdown Strike

You can also unionize for better conditions and more money! NBA stars do, and rightfully so! I don't understand why many engineers feel like collective bargaining for more money is somehow dirty or an appropriation of a tool that is reserved for extremely oppressed workers. Engineers are extremely valuable to their employers, and are still probably under-compensated relative to the value they bring in.

Tech companies have no problem working together, illegally, to keep wages down. Workers should work together, legally, to push wages up. This does not mean that compensation needs to be based on seniority or anything like that, and union contracts do not necessarily mean an end to worker flexibility. Engineers can propose whatever rules they think are fair.

However, I do agree that ethical concerns are a strong reason to organize, and a proper subject for union negotiations.

Sacking workers for unionizing or engaging in concerted action to address grievances is illegal. Companies (including Amazon [1]) break this law all the time, because it reduces the union's momentum and they only have to pay back pay and rehire the person if they are found to have done so. (They usually come up with threadbare pretexts and draw things out at the NLRB.)

Still, this intimidation strategy works best when there are only a few workers involved. With critical mass, it becomes much harder. Additionally, the new administration will hopefully make this standard union-busting much more expensive by passing a bill to institute treble damages for unfair labor practice violations.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/amazon-fires-staten-island-c...