>All those downsides you mention are not automatic consequences of having a union.
No, but don't try to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it. Doubly so when the employees in question are part of a national union.
>Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how things can work out.
Cool. And just as soon as you do the work to make the collective bargaining status quo in the US the same as it is in Europe, we can continue this conversation. Until then, I don't care about this tangent.
>Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
Because *I* am not gaining leverage. A bureaucracy that represents me as part of an amalgamation gains leverage. Before I toss my hat in, I need to hear a whole lot more about what that bureaucracy is planning to be, and how it's going to design itself. I don't need to be pitched the possibility this instance could be better than the stereotype. Why not show me the plan on how we're going to make sure this one is a good one?
Let's set goals. Up front and on screen. Then we can decide on the implementation details (such as unionization) needed to get there. When the cart is put before the horse, I don't see how you can tell me with a straight face that the union could ever possibly be anything but exactly the generic stereotypical union that the grandparent poster is afraid of.
> to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it
Any new organization in human society is going to be the same as previous ones? Does this apply to unions only? Or no progress ever happens in any organization?
It's true that past performance is no guarantee of future results. Nevertheless, we are well-advised to examine the history and past performance when seeking to estimate future results.
It's funny to hear such talk even as we are all members of an industry that has reinvented everything from taxis to space rocketry, payment systems to currency.
Perhaps this isn't the union that will do it, but surely the tech industry can find a way to innovate on unions and labor power. Why everything else and not that?
Perhaps we already have disrupted the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic and the re-invention of employment bargaining doesn't look exactly like the old unions?
SWEs have more bargaining power than ever right now (at least in the US, which is the market I'm most familiar with) .
SWEs have a lot of bargaining power because at the moment, it is an occupation in hot demand. That's not qualitatively different from any number of highly-sought after professions throughout history. That's not really a fundamental disruption and itself will eventually be disrupted by market forces. What we see is the summer before the fall.
1) Plenty of people in finance, lawyers, and so on have high salary and excellent conditions. Many had highly paid jobs in the same fields 50 years ago. This is nothing close with "disrupting the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic".
2) An this point it's really difficult to assume that you are arguing in good faith.
Most office workers do not get options or RSUs in their company. Most office workers cannot set a flag on their LinkedIn profile that says "looking for work", get hounded by recruiters, and land another job, with higher pay, a stock grant, and signing bonus, and start the new job next month.
> Most office workers cannot set a flag on their LinkedIn profile that says "looking for work", get hounded by recruiters, and land another job, with higher pay, a stock grant, and signing bonus, and start the new job next month.
It's nice to have your role in high demand, but all good things must come to an end.
No, but don't try to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it. Doubly so when the employees in question are part of a national union.
>Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how things can work out.
Cool. And just as soon as you do the work to make the collective bargaining status quo in the US the same as it is in Europe, we can continue this conversation. Until then, I don't care about this tangent.
>Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
Because *I* am not gaining leverage. A bureaucracy that represents me as part of an amalgamation gains leverage. Before I toss my hat in, I need to hear a whole lot more about what that bureaucracy is planning to be, and how it's going to design itself. I don't need to be pitched the possibility this instance could be better than the stereotype. Why not show me the plan on how we're going to make sure this one is a good one?
Let's set goals. Up front and on screen. Then we can decide on the implementation details (such as unionization) needed to get there. When the cart is put before the horse, I don't see how you can tell me with a straight face that the union could ever possibly be anything but exactly the generic stereotypical union that the grandparent poster is afraid of.