> but they never really exceed the corruptness of the corporate powers they negotiate with

I'm not convinced that is the case, nor is it an either or (union or corporate powers).

Your protection by the union depends on what the union negotiates... beyond that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there. Then you are again at the mercy of your employer. I've had first had experience with "oh yeah they can do that" union situations.

Also premature organization IMO is much like premature optimization, more likely to be a bigger problem and miss any real issues.

IMO the question is--given the capacity for corruption and mismanagement in a union, is that better or worse than an individual negotiating with a corporation? Does the potential for a bad union outweigh the potential for a bad company?

I'll just say I don't think unions or the concept of a union needs to be perfect to generally have a positive effect. Maybe I'm naive.

I can see your point about premature unionization, but I do think we need to think about the future. I think there's a sense among tech workers that this period of high demand won't last. Maybe not unions now, maybe not unions in a traditional sense, maybe we do need to think of some kind of new paradigm better suited to tech work than say, a carpenter's union, but something.

>I'll just say I don't think unions or the concept of a union needs to be perfect to generally have a positive effect. Maybe I'm naive.

I can understand that.

Personally I've had experiences with two unions in different industries.

Each time the unions were IMO more of a hindrance to me than anything else. They were for me just another layer of bureaucracy with no more interest in me than a poor employer.

Worse yet they laid down policies that were so general that they were serious problems. Lots of protections for long time union members who simply didn't want to learn new things, etc.

Having said that, I would be interested in some "trade union" type things that maybe do things less traditionally compared to typical unions in the US.

Why are protections for unrpoductive shareholders and managers acceptable, but protections for unproductive workers not?

I don't understand what you are proposing.

You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them. Call it government, call it whatever but it was an organization fighting on your behalf.

> beyond that their ability to effect change pretty much stops there.

Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

Really a union fought for my unlimited vacation? I'm not being facetious but this perk is something that IME is unique (or at least originated in) silicon valley startups. Unions fought for more vacation but empirically speaking the free market led to even more.

And before we have the detractors of unlimited vacation coming in. Several of my colleagues take month long vacations, some multiple times a year, withiut reproach. It is objectively superior to my mother's union job

>You only have the current benefits because some sort of union fought for them.

I think that is a bit of a grand statement don't you think?

I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union... I wouldn't associate ALL benefits with a union, nor would that necessitate forming one simply if you thought those benefits were related.

I've worked for some nice people, I do belive they seriously want to provide their people benefits...

>Is that true? You can't negotiate even further by yourself? I think you do.

Negotiate what exactly? The Union and corporate relationship generally lays out what the lay of the land is, the the areas that the employer gets to decide are usually pretty obvious and the union isn't likely to call a general strike because an employer made a choice.

If you think that any of the labour laws, health benefits, vacation days, special leave (bereavement for example) or any of the other things you take for granted as part of your normal work day didn't come from unions continually pushing the envelope of worker's rights then I good luck with that.

The remuneration package offered by a business is typically dictated by the business sector (competitors) so saying "I've worked non union jobs and I'm pretty sure the benefits I get are not directly due to a union." is faulty logic. If half the shops are union shops or competition for staff is fierce then pay/benefits will reflects.

Unions gave us 40 weeks (as opposed to 60+), no child labour, work place health & safety (maybe not such a big deal in tech but in other industry it's critical), etc... yes, government legislation made them law but unions applied pressure to get it done. While many aspects of unions have, or appear to have, outlived their usefulness they are still a very important tool in the employer-employee relationship.

Look at it this way, if unions were really just about the money then employers wouldn't care so much and attempt to keep unions out of their businesses (sometimes illegally). An employer could just say to the union "this is how much I have to spend on labour, how would you like it budgeted" and call it a day cause at that point it's just deciding on how big your slice of pie is.

I guess I sound like a union fanboy, which I'm not, but we shouldn't discount the very real impact and ongoing influence unions have.

I just don't buy into the idea that because unions have helped generally compared to decades ago ... that means you should consider one as a solution now.

My worry is that without premature organization, the next recession is going to make the "tech worker shortage" a permanent thing of the past. We'll never have as much negotiating power as we do now.

If say there was a Tech Workers Union/Guild/Association, we might have been able to protect the older workers at IBM, or the outsourced workers at Disney. Maybe there could be a push back against open offices and poorly implemented Agile. As it is, we're just better compensated workers floating from job to better job.

This is an important and highly plausible scenario. Everyone in this thread who feels comfortable that they can get another job at the drop of a hat owes that feeling to the existing labor market, which is fueled nearly entirely by venture capital funding. If the economy goes through another Great Recession style downturn, funding will constrain, companies that aren't immediately profitable will reduce their workforces considerably, and hiring will drop.

If, today, you work for an organization with a few dozen or couple hundred employees, but it is really run by ten or twenty "Directors", "VPs" and "Executives", they likely have full control over the majority of the capital owned by the company. They are also likely to be highly paid, and own the majority of stock or RSUs. If a moonshot expansion plan fails, they will be fine. Executing on high-risk and high-reward business ideas is 100% in their best interests.

However, if employees organize, those who instead rely on the organization to feed and shelter their families will begin to have a say in whether it's worth dumping the organization's $30M Series C into some blockchain moonshot that may never pay off.

Frankly, I don't believe they'll be as inclined to say yes. The union may instead re-negotiate to redistribute that funding to workers salaries, or to invest it in training programs. This is a good thing if you're in this industry because you're an experienced and skilled worker who wants long-term stable employment, but perhaps a bad one if you're in it to hope you hit the startup lotto and get rich after selling our your stock at 26. If you run an organization, which would you rather have working for you?

What is the logic that can mak someone pro-business and not pro-union? Why is it good for management and capital to organize against workers?

> not after worker supply has increased

Ironically, not only do tech workers aren't worried about this, they embrace it and encourage it. An enormous amount of work is being done to lower the bar, make things more accessible, reduce the need for diplomas and certifications, downplay the value of experience, etc. Basically ensuring that they'll see significant competition in the future (those initiatives don't help "a little". They literally change the landscape of the industry).

So it's a bit hard to convince people that they should work to protect their job when they're already working so hard to do the opposite (with the well being of others in mind, of course)

Not only that, by expanding the industry - tech has been able to "eat" other industry, due to its inclusiveness.

20 years ago the internet was less than 0.01% of global GDP. Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly.

> Tech will continue eating industries that are structured unfairly.

Like how tech took driving a taxi from a job that (unfairly) paid a living wage to one that doesn't.

The problem is that there is a big difference in the effect Uber/Lyft had on places with functioning cab systems (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC--where Uber/Lyft should have gotten squashed by law) and those places where there wasn't (Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, etc.--where ridesharing was a boon)

While I'm not a big Uber/Lyft fan, prior to them the cab companies in the non-functional cities were atrocious.

I spent 40 minutes getting a bloody taxi at my lawyer's office in Las Vegas--and then had to wonder if I could get one back from the restaurant I went to. Getting from Monroeville to the Pittsburgh airport was a disaster. I can go on and on.

With Uber/Lyft in existence, a whole bunch of things don't happen with impunity anymore. Drivers can't refuse to pick you up. Drivers can't blow you off and not show up. Drivers can't refuse to take a credit card. etc.

Uber/Lyft aren't my favorite companies, but neither were the taxis.

Indeed, it is terrible that many more people can do a job now, with lower barriers to entry, and that the service is more easily available, more reliable and often cheaper. The medallion system of decreasing supply with employee drivers and a taxi regulator that did everything possible to protect drivers and frustrate consumer complaints about drivers not picking up black customers or refusing to drive people to places within the mandated service area was far superior for those who could buy medallions and rent them out to drivers, and for drivers who could refuse customers and still be able to pick up a fare.

Most estimates place wages for Uber and Lyft drivers at roughly the same as taxis after expenses are covered. And if you factor in the six (or at its peak, seven) figure cost of a medallion, it's basically impossible to claim that traditional taxi jobs are better than rideshare.

At the cost of billions in venture capital. The market is starting to correct itself now that most ridesharing companies are publicly traded profit seekers and cutting wages.

Not arguing its a bad thing that we make things more inclusive (my employer is very much into these initiatives and I fully support it and am involved in some of it!), but a lot of this growth happened in companies not exactly known for it. Netflix, Google, etc, were not paragons of fairness and inclusivity when they made it big.

Its much harder to go the self taught autodidact route now compared to when I started mumble decades ago.

Yes I know there are outliers but the vast majority of entrants are BSC grads.

Also it's an opportunity to put in employer paid continuing education. Lots of shops think that waterfall is a good process.