I completely understand. How do you feel about collective bargaining in general?

Consider a case where let's say the founder of an extremely successful yet 50 person software company sells the company for an ungodly sum ($250mil+) to Corporation X but as a part of that deal this founder doesn't provide any equity to 80% of his/her employees who helped build the company?

What should they do then?

> How do you feel about collective bargaining in general?

In a perfect world, where the government doesn't restrain the company from firing everyone and hiring new employees, I'm fine with it. I wouldn't want to participate, but I see no reason why it would be a unfair.

> Consider a case where let's say the founder of an extremely successful yet 50 person software company sells the company for an ungodly sum ($250mil+) to Corporation X but as a part of that deal this founder doesn't provide any equity to 80% of his/her employees who helped build the company?

> What should they do then?

Either continue working for the new owners or find employment elsewhere.

If employees wanted equity, then they should have negotiated that as part of their terms of employment.

>How do you feel about collective bargaining in general?

Call collective bargaining what it is, state-sanctioned extortion. "Give us X or we'll walk out. No, you can't hire a replacement either." Imagine if your auto mechanic or doctor or plumber could to this to you.

Not that it isn't necessarily justified; seeing the working conditions at, for example, Amazon's warehouses improved more than warrants it. But let's not pretend it's something it's not.

>...this founder doesn't provide any equity to 80% of his/her employees who helped build the company? What should they do then?

A talented, highly educated workforce of developers somehow collectively failed to read their employment contracts and understand the risks/rewards of their compensation? What they should all do is smack themselves on the forehead.

They should have negotiated their own terms better.

Would you join a police officer's union?

I would not - but then, I would never be a police officer either.

Scab!

I wish you weren't being downvoted! If you join an organization that is union you should almost certainly join. Otherwise... You're a scab. That's how it goes. Sorry HN doesn't see reality.

Extortion is the only power a union can wield. We have a name for that kind of organization and it's a hell of a lot more damning than "scab".

Extortion is not the only power a union can wield. They can also engage in collective labor action per the National Labor Relations Act[1].

[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act

"Collective labor action" is another kind of threat used against managers who might otherwise accept a better offer from other workers. We've surrendered and begin to encourage unions to perform their extortion in open court to reduce the body count.

Collective labor action is a negotiation, so I guess your point is that employees can "extort" you with the "threat" of a fair negotiation?

Using that kind of sensational language to describe something routine makes it hard to take you seriously.

The threat is not "a better deal or we'll quit", that's a perfectly fair response to unacceptable conditions (and "other people will take this deal" is a perfectly fair counter). The threat is "it'd be a shame if something were to happen to your business, like a lawsuit or a fire". That's the difference between negotiation and extortion, and that's what's behind all the union/mafia links.

A collective labor action is literally "a better deal or we all quit." Why do you assume that unionized developers would resort to violence or baseless litigation?

Medical doctors, university professors, and librarians are largely unionized. Do you believe the American Association of University Professors threatens colleges with arson when negotiations aren't going the way they want them to?

> Why do you assume that unionized developers would resort to violence or baseless litigation?

History?

> Medical doctors, university professors, and librarians are largely unionized.

Doctors aren't exactly a union - they're a licensing body. That distinction matters rather a lot for this discussion. (No licensing body has ever threatened, let alone carried out, violence to prevent outsiders from taking jobs, to the best of my knowledge, but unions have done so regularly. On the other hand, licensing bodies have the authority of the state behind them, so maybe it's just somebody else who does the violence...)

You're thinking of state medical boards, but the AMA is a non-profit that engages in extensive lobbying and, via the American Board of Medical Specilities (http://www.abms.org/about-abms/ ), exerts some degree of control of their profession. (I.e., you must join an organization and demonstrate proficiency to call yourself a "board-certified pediatrician.") The AMA calls themselves "more than just a union," and many members are self-employed, but I think it still constitutes a union.

You're right that the AMA has never threatened or carried out violence, but then again, neither have any professional unions I've ever heard of.

For the record, I've spent ~6 years in unionized workplaces and never heard the school teachers, university professors, or government employees who had union cards conspire to commit violence. I would recommend reading about professional unions before decided that they are violent based on "History?".

I'll wear the title with pride, thanks.