If only programmers could form some sort of collective to advocate for their common interests and hold their bosses accountable to ensure our profession is kept to a high ethical standard while protecting programmers from backlash when they refuse to break the law for their employers.

Yes, when I contemplate the paragon of ethics, the image which invariably comes first to mind is that of a trade union.

Who's talking about a paragon of ethics? Trade unions don't exist because they are supremely ethical. They don't even exist because they are more ethical than corporations (they're probably not.)

They exist because a corporation is inherently coordinated in a way that gives them power over workers. Unions just allow workers to adopt that same inherent coordination to seize power back. Unions aren't a moral force, they're just a counter-balance.

Programmers, unlike many other professions, are in the happy position that their skills are in high demand. They can afford to have more moral fiber, because it's easier for them to find a new job. I'd also assume that a lawsuit in case they were fired for refusing to write software which the purpose to break the law would go pretty well, but I'm not a lawyer.

>Programmers, unlike many other professions, are in the happy position that their skills are in high demand. They can afford to have more moral fiber, because it's easier for them to find a new job.

What about all those high-powered MBAs and other finance types? Most anyone who's received an Ivy League education is going to be in demand. Yet would we really expect more ethical behavior from them? Some would say we would expect worse. Programmers are no different from any other worker.

>I'd also assume that a lawsuit in case they were fired for refusing to write software which the purpose to break the law would go pretty well, but I'm not a lawyer.

Yes but if you filed that lawsuit you wouldn't exactly be 'in high demand' anymore, would you?

Actually, there is a vast surplus of MBA's.

An MBA largely has value because it acts like a cult promoting the networking between MBA's. It's arguably a great hack to extract value from organizations as opposed to customers.

>> An MBA largely has value because it acts like a cult promoting the networking between MBA's. It's arguably a great hack to extract value from organizations as opposed to customers.

I don't think this applies to the average MBA (full disclosure, I have an MBA). Most MBAs are just normal people who are just trying to do their job better.

Having said that, I guess some grads of the "most elite" business schools do that cultish thing you're talking about, but I would argue it has less to do with having an MBA than being a member of that top school. Those people tend to be the most visible representatives of MBAs while only being a very small portion of all people with MBAs.

By 'high-powered' I mean to say top 5 or 10 program graduates.

You are still talking about ~5,000 new MBA's from 'top' US schools per year even trying to be that exclusive. Over 20 years that's ~100,000 people which does not seem insane, but you can still be very selective while drawing from that pool.

Sure, they tend have high earnings, but this is the same pool that both want to and could get into a 'top' school which is a rather biased sample.

Sure but that's not really related to what I'm talking about. A top 5 MBA obviously possesses an extremely high capability to find alternative employment if they quit their current job (for ethical or other reasons.) Yet we would never expect those graduates to be more ethical than the average low-demand worker.

What you're saying seems akin to saying that a Stanford MBA is in less demand than the average programmer. (1) I think that's wrong. (2) It's really avoiding the point which his that being in demand doesn't really imply that those individuals will act more ethically.

One way of measuring demand is to look at how long the average job search lasts. In that context Stanford MBA's often take a rather long time between jobs as in 12-18 months is not uncommon.

Various euphemisms exist, like taking a break or the ever popular consulting. But, getting a job in school or being poached while employed is the happy path. Get off that path and it can be very hard to get back.

PS: I don't think demand changes the average much, but it's often outliers that stand up in the first place. So, I do think demand is meaningful as it reduces the burden of ethical behavior which impacts people at the edge.

>> They can afford to have more moral fiber,

Your assumption ignores the fact that morals are relative and can be built around individual life experiences. There are plenty of segments of the population who don't trust the government or law enforcement organizations because they've seen or experienced corruption.

Your assumption also ignores the fact that some people could have debt and mouths to feed other than their own. People who aren't sitting on a huge rainy day fund could be risk averse when it comes to career changes.

Sure, or maybe we can just accept that there are a lot of programmers that aren't saints or innocent victims of overbearing bosses, but actually are happy to use their skills to break the law?

You can make a group of programmers think they're pirates going against the establishment, and they'll do anything under that idea.

s/programmer/doctor/

Discuss...

Pressure isn't an excuse for illegal and unethical behavior; we all have pressures and responsibilities. I'm surprised so many programmers and others were willing to participate, and to do it so reliably that Uber wasn't afraid someone would leak what was going on.