7 ms·

I understand why factory workers or store clerks might want a union but I'd never understand why tech workers should. I guess except the game developers but th

I understand why factory workers or store clerks might want a union but I'd never understand why tech workers should. I guess except the game developers but the most realistic threat vector for them is the studio shutting down, so a union wouldn't really help.

inigyou 2mo ago
For exactly the same reason as factory workers or store clerks: to even out the power imbalance against the owners.
unknownfuture 2mo ago
I can only assume you aren't paying attention to, and aren't personally experiencing, the impact of AI on the industry. Power has shifted dramatically in favour of the ownership class in the last couple of years. That's precisely what unions are meant to counterbalance.
- sokoloff 2mo ago
  What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? If employers have the upper hand at the moment, the union contract will be more evenly distributed perhaps, but isn’t likely to be “better” overall. That combines to have tech workers, who often have an exceptionalist view of themselves, to conclude that a union would cost them all the union overhead and prevent their exceptional talent from being properly rewarded.
  - unknownfuture 2mo ago
    Look I'm not going to teach you about the entire history of labor relations and the role of unions. But rest assured that this isn't some new, unique moment in history. The exact same questions could have been raised during the introduction of automation in literally any industry throughout modern history. And yes, unions have, through that same period, acted as a critical bulwark in protecting worker rights.
  - cool_dude85 2mo ago
    >What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? Aside from general job protection stuff, the general answer would be that they can ensure that some of the productivity gains go to employees rather than employers. Let's say the company has been so much more efficient thanks to AI that they earn an extra 100 million in revenue with the same level of spending. So, the union goes into contract negotiations asking for a 50 million increase in salaries per annum, and employees get part of that windfall.
    - sokoloff 2mo ago
      In a world where AI heavily disrupts software, a union striking over economics (to get an extra $50M paid out to union members every year) would immediately notice all the replacement tech workers (who were out of work due to AI disruption) streaming in to do the work. It's really hard for me to imagine the conjunction of significant disruption from AI and effective union bargaining.
      - cool_dude85 2mo ago
        I said contract negotiations, you said strike. Even in this example, and there is an army of scabs outside the door, if a strike and its associated costs would cost the employer 75 million, it would be rational to give the union its 50. Anyway, I agree with you that simultaneous productivity gains and deskilling as a result of AI efficiency, if it comes to pass, would work against labor power. The claim is that unions would hold no purpose under such an arrangement. I'd say if anything they'd be more important. The question is, would an employee rather have union protections if this comes to pass, or not?
        sokoloff 2mo ago
        Understanding the dynamics and likely limits of what those “union protections” would be critical to answering your last question. Contract negotiations are back-stopped by strikes. If a union is asking for an extra $50M per year for their members, they’d better have a credible threat of a strike to back that. I think most every employer would much rather fade a $75M strike expense than agree to the $50M every year expense. It breaks even in only 18 months on a cash basis, plus gives them additional union-undermining value in a very public display.
  - 8note 2mo ago
    longshoremens' unions made sure that the dock workers didnt lose jobs through the change over to containers. handling a reduction in work is one of the things a union is for
  - salawat 2mo ago
    If employers have the upper hand, you're fucked anyway. Hire 10% to keep the other 90% down. A union gets you solidarity so no one is having to weather the storm alone. You need to think long and hard about the fact capital reflexively does everything possible to resist or bust unions when these are the same people trying to pound into you that you're supposed to give more for the bottom line, and raises can't do anything but keep up with inflation this year. If they go for the law firm, the money is absolutely there, they just don't want to spend it on you. Heaven forbid.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- ymolodtsov 2mo ago
  If a union would force companies to keep positions that no longer require a human I wouldn't agree with it anyway.
cogman10 2mo ago
You can read the reasons here. [1] Honestly, all pretty reasonable demands. [1] https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/ https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/
dofm 2mo ago
> I'd never understand why tech workers should. You may unfortunately understand this soon, if the products of the tech industry do what they promise to do. But it will be too late.
Tor3 2mo ago
Tech worker here.. well, IT. One example from here (not in the US): The union took care of getting travel hours compensated, and removing the non-paid forced weekend travels, and lots of other stuff which would be impossible for an individual to negotiate. That was a huge issue and took a long time. And lots of other things which individuals have no chance of doing.
lukeschlather 2mo ago
The Wikimedia board consists of 7 seat selected by the board, 8 seat from the broader wikimedia community, and 1 founder seat. As part of the broader wikimedia community I think there should be at least one board seat selected by the employees of Wikimedia. So never mind why the workers want a union, as someone who has donated money to Wikimedia, I want the nonprofit to have a workers' union as part of its governance structure (because Wikimedia is itself a union/collective/cooperative.)
4lx87 2mo ago
To stop uncompensated overtime and on-call? I’d like that very much.
- ymolodtsov 2mo ago
  So change the job if you don't want it.
  - 4lx87 1mo ago
    So change employees if your employee doesn’t accept unpaid overtime. Employers are the ones who set working conditions in the absence of collective bargaining (either via the state or unions). Consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, unions and labor laws came about for a reason.
davkan 2mo ago
Have you ever been in a union? A union shop is the only place I have ever experienced a true inversion of the power dynamic between myself and my boss even in small part and it is liberating. It was the only time my boss has ever had to bend to my will outside of their willingness to do so in order to retain me. The only power you have over your boss’s behavior outside of a union is in your willingness to become employed. Tech workers historically have had it made in terms of compensation and work environment. Additionally good tech workers have historically had more leverage over their employer than an average worker. So it makes sense that many would be reticent to mess with a good thing. But here we are at the dawn of a new era. Nobody has any idea what tech employment will look like in ten or twenty years. I would happily be in a union in tech. Maybe I wouldn’t if i was making 300k in the Bay Area but I am not.

inigyou 2mo ago

For exactly the same reason as factory workers or store clerks: to even out the power imbalance against the owners.

unknownfuture 2mo ago

I can only assume you aren't paying attention to, and aren't personally experiencing, the impact of AI on the industry. Power has shifted dramatically in favour of the ownership class in the last couple of years. That's precisely what unions are meant to counterbalance.

sokoloff 2mo ago
What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? If employers have the upper hand at the moment, the union contract will be more evenly distributed perhaps, but isn’t likely to be “better” overall. That combines to have tech workers, who often have an exceptionalist view of themselves, to conclude that a union would cost them all the union overhead and prevent their exceptional talent from being properly rewarded.
- unknownfuture 2mo ago
  Look I'm not going to teach you about the entire history of labor relations and the role of unions. But rest assured that this isn't some new, unique moment in history. The exact same questions could have been raised during the introduction of automation in literally any industry throughout modern history. And yes, unions have, through that same period, acted as a critical bulwark in protecting worker rights.
- cool_dude85 2mo ago
  >What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? Aside from general job protection stuff, the general answer would be that they can ensure that some of the productivity gains go to employees rather than employers. Let's say the company has been so much more efficient thanks to AI that they earn an extra 100 million in revenue with the same level of spending. So, the union goes into contract negotiations asking for a 50 million increase in salaries per annum, and employees get part of that windfall.
  - sokoloff 2mo ago
    In a world where AI heavily disrupts software, a union striking over economics (to get an extra $50M paid out to union members every year) would immediately notice all the replacement tech workers (who were out of work due to AI disruption) streaming in to do the work. It's really hard for me to imagine the conjunction of significant disruption from AI and effective union bargaining.
    - cool_dude85 2mo ago
      I said contract negotiations, you said strike. Even in this example, and there is an army of scabs outside the door, if a strike and its associated costs would cost the employer 75 million, it would be rational to give the union its 50. Anyway, I agree with you that simultaneous productivity gains and deskilling as a result of AI efficiency, if it comes to pass, would work against labor power. The claim is that unions would hold no purpose under such an arrangement. I'd say if anything they'd be more important. The question is, would an employee rather have union protections if this comes to pass, or not?
      - sokoloff 2mo ago
        Understanding the dynamics and likely limits of what those “union protections” would be critical to answering your last question. Contract negotiations are back-stopped by strikes. If a union is asking for an extra $50M per year for their members, they’d better have a credible threat of a strike to back that. I think most every employer would much rather fade a $75M strike expense than agree to the $50M every year expense. It breaks even in only 18 months on a cash basis, plus gives them additional union-undermining value in a very public display.
- 8note 2mo ago
  longshoremens' unions made sure that the dock workers didnt lose jobs through the change over to containers. handling a reduction in work is one of the things a union is for
- salawat 2mo ago
  If employers have the upper hand, you're fucked anyway. Hire 10% to keep the other 90% down. A union gets you solidarity so no one is having to weather the storm alone. You need to think long and hard about the fact capital reflexively does everything possible to resist or bust unions when these are the same people trying to pound into you that you're supposed to give more for the bottom line, and raises can't do anything but keep up with inflation this year. If they go for the law firm, the money is absolutely there, they just don't want to spend it on you. Heaven forbid.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ymolodtsov 2mo ago
If a union would force companies to keep positions that no longer require a human I wouldn't agree with it anyway.

cogman10 2mo ago

You can read the reasons here. [1] Honestly, all pretty reasonable demands. [1] https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/ https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/

dofm 2mo ago

> I'd never understand why tech workers should. You may unfortunately understand this soon, if the products of the tech industry do what they promise to do. But it will be too late.

Tor3 2mo ago

Tech worker here.. well, IT. One example from here (not in the US): The union took care of getting travel hours compensated, and removing the non-paid forced weekend travels, and lots of other stuff which would be impossible for an individual to negotiate. That was a huge issue and took a long time. And lots of other things which individuals have no chance of doing.

lukeschlather 2mo ago

The Wikimedia board consists of 7 seat selected by the board, 8 seat from the broader wikimedia community, and 1 founder seat. As part of the broader wikimedia community I think there should be at least one board seat selected by the employees of Wikimedia. So never mind why the workers want a union, as someone who has donated money to Wikimedia, I want the nonprofit to have a workers' union as part of its governance structure (because Wikimedia is itself a union/collective/cooperative.)

4lx87 2mo ago

To stop uncompensated overtime and on-call? I’d like that very much.

ymolodtsov 2mo ago
So change the job if you don't want it.
- 4lx87 1mo ago
  So change employees if your employee doesn’t accept unpaid overtime. Employers are the ones who set working conditions in the absence of collective bargaining (either via the state or unions). Consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, unions and labor laws came about for a reason.

davkan 2mo ago

Have you ever been in a union? A union shop is the only place I have ever experienced a true inversion of the power dynamic between myself and my boss even in small part and it is liberating. It was the only time my boss has ever had to bend to my will outside of their willingness to do so in order to retain me. The only power you have over your boss’s behavior outside of a union is in your willingness to become employed. Tech workers historically have had it made in terms of compensation and work environment. Additionally good tech workers have historically had more leverage over their employer than an average worker. So it makes sense that many would be reticent to mess with a good thing. But here we are at the dawn of a new era. Nobody has any idea what tech employment will look like in ten or twenty years. I would happily be in a union in tech. Maybe I wouldn’t if i was making 300k in the Bay Area but I am not.