> Of course that doesn't mean that programmers shouldn't form a union.

That's potentially quite an expensive trade-off. You give up your ability to negotiate so that somebody else will collectively negotiate on your behalf.

That can work out well, at least for a while, but it's worth considering the longer-term consequences. E.g., in the longer term it can favour cheaper labour or cheaper competitors elsewhere. (Yes, you can argue that's the case even in the absence of unions, but there are stark examples of unionisation bringing about the premature demise or severe shrinkage of large industries: steel in the UK, the auto industry particularly in the UK (and also, to some extent, the US), coal in the UK, and the list goes on.)

For me outsourcing your negotiating power falls into a similar category to outsourcing your thinking: it simply doesn't feel like a good idea to me.

Yes and no. You could likely work outside the union though with their minimum pay/max hours (and a employer side of the same). A union could work for local jobs with other unions (think districts) to keep things local and provide equitable pay guidelines or openness. You likely would not be required to join anyway.

Plumbers have it mostly sorted out though. Critical tech might demand higher pay but I love this story I read of a band doing a wedding and negotiating pay for a 4 hour reception. The planner and band can't come to an agreement so the band says to call the local plumbers union, ask what the cost is for 4 guys on a 4 hours job, and use that number with some drinks tossed in.

Why do you say you lose your negotiating power? The union will ensure that you have the same basic rights (and salary) that everyone else in the field. That doesn't mean you can't ask for a raise or a higher starting salary.

I would love (seriously) to hear an example of a union that negotiates pay for its members but individuals successfully get additional raises or bonuses on top of that (not just for doing additional work). Teachers, pilots, public sector employees, all have pay contractually set. If you're a high school teacher and you ask your Principal or Vice Principal for a raise out of band you'll get laughed out of the room.

Most teachers work in public schools so even if the principal could give them a raise they wouldn't be able to but in private schools they absolutely could. Pilots are an interesting example because AFIK they negotiated terribly, i.e. they have all sorts of benefits and high salaries for the high-tenured pilots but new pilots are almost working for free. Student pilots have been told for years that there's an upcoming shortage of pilots but right now you're lucky to get a job anywhere in the world. If you're looking for examples then look at europe. In my country everyone has the right to negotiate their salary once a year even though most people are part of a union. Where I worked I would always be able to get a couple of % added to my salary.

This regularly happens at Siemens. IG Metall negotiates contracts and good engineers negotiate bonuses on top of the contract, or increases in pay grade.

SAG. The NFL Players Union. Just two examples.

But the NFLPA still hurts top performers. The joint negotiating in the NFL absolutely leads to the highest paid players being paid less than they would without a union. The revenue split, the franchise tag, the minimum salary, the rookie pay scale (arguable), and the veteran benefits all lead to less of the pie being available to the top tier players and less negotiating power. The salary escrow provision is a great example of an out-of-date rule that exists due to CBA negotiations and 100% hurts the top earners (while also providing zero actual benefits - it just existed because it has been there for decades and it's an effort to change anything when doing collective bargaining).

Not that I think any of this is bad since the NFL is brutal to its lowest earners, but it absolutely hurts the highest earners.

Yes, and democracy hurts the top aristocrats. But we don't tend to view antidemocratic aristocrats very kindly, even if maintaining antidemocratic systems are good for them.

Some people experience less optimal outcomes in a union. Those people are free to resist unionization. What I don't like is the claim that, because some specific high performers can no longer negotiate as well, everybody else should shut up about unionization.

Do you see yourself as becoming a top earner in your field?

Someone else brought these two up elsewhere in this thread. Are there no examples of regular people who aren't making tens of millions of dollars a year?

Unions have largely been crushed in the US so if you keep asking for more examples eventually things will run dry.

But the screenwriters guild is another example if you don't want to look for one where top performers are paid eight figure salaries.

I'll have to look into the writer's guild more, thanks!

What typically happens with unions is the agreement will likely contain a salary guideline adhered to most of the time, which diminishes individual leverage.

That's never been my experience with unions and wages. My salary has been based in what I negotiated but the union ensures that each year I get a raise that is at least in line with inflation so that I am not, in really terms, making less money each year. They also collectively bargain on my behalf for annual leave and provide the same function for me that HR provide for my employer.

The unions you are referring to are almost universally for blue collar workers. Most professional athletes are members of unions. Most highly paid actors are members of a union. Neither of those groups have decreased individual leverage. It's unlikely that a union for highly paid white collar workers would closely resemble a union for blue collar workers.

> Neither of those groups have decreased individual leverage.

Huh? Sure they do. The MLB negotiated agreement is terrible for top performers, who are paid close to the league minimum salary for the first three years of their career, and an arbitration-determined salary for the next two.

As soon as the union-negotiated common salary time runs out, top players’ pay jumps several times.

What were equivalent players paid before the unions existed? Sports unions are responsible for the massive increase in pay over the years. Those top performers would have been making much less in the absence of a union, both at the start and in the peak of their careers. I personally don't view that as decreased individual leverage.

> As soon as the union-negotiated common salary time runs out, top players’ pay jumps several times.

That 'several times' level only exists because of the unions.

Programmers are much closer to electricians than they are professional football players, though. Athletes and actors have star power, and considerable individual leverage. Tom Cruise is definitely in the Screen Actor's Guild but when's the last time SAG did anything for him? They're there to make sure the lowest end gets their $2k/week.

I get your point and it's a good one, I just think when we're talking about literally 100-200 people negotiating 8 and 9-figure yearly contracts it's an outlier (to say the least).

Your overall leverage is increased through the union so you are more likely to get a fair compensation than before.

not if the union negotiates upper limits on compensation.

Or it negotiates yearly raise brackets.

You can negotiate better individually if you are good and there arent union enforced guidelines, if you're not, the union deal would work out better.

Or it can do nothing of the sort, instead negotiating things like non-competes, options exercise window, etc. See screen writers or actors unions for examples.

Professional athlete unions are a strong counter example. Unions do what their members want them to do.

Then your union is bad and you should work to improve it.

No wonder if US unions always end up so bad if apparently nobody is willing to fix things and let pancilpushers do it.

I'm in europe, unions are mandatory everywhere, some are good, some are not, average just do what the company wants them to, usually the 2-3% raise every year.

Unions don't really work for software, high demand, low supply of people, here you can negotiate better then without one, and if you are not happy, next job.

They aren't mandatory everywhere, atleast in germany.

You can join the union or not. If you don't join you can still take advantage of the union negotiated rates or not if you wish. If you think you can negotiate better than the union you're still free to do so.

Do you see yourself as becoming a top earner in your field?

Do you know if you earn more than your colleagues? If so, is this because of your negotiating skills?

I know I am compensated fairly and that puts me as top earner for my current country.

It is due to demand and offer for my technical skills... I switch or ask for a raise if I get a better offer, anyone can/should do that.

It's not due to unions. Here unions are mandatory and result is what I said earlier, that plus making it hard to fire incompetent people.

If there's any sort of competition for employees then you have to be ready to offer more than the guideline to keep/attract the best people.

Do you feel you are a top earner in your field? If not, do you think you will become a top earner in your field?

Do you know if you earn more than your colleagues?

Unions only seem to benefit the union leaders. Union membership have long dropped precipitously for decades for over 50 years at least. Programmer are in no danger of being stuck like McDonald's workers. They're free to work elsewhere and the NDA are as good as toilet paper.

Unions are democratic entities. They do what their members want them to do.

At best, they do what the majority of their members want. Which may be completely at odds with your interests.

For example a union of mainly older members voting for pay-by-seniority and damaging younger people’s pay.

Democracy in a union can become a tyranny of the majority. That’s one reason many people don’t want unions.

Isn't that democracy everywhere though? And it's still better than any of the alternatives by a significant margin.

> Isn't that democracy everywhere though? And it's still better than any of the alternatives by a significant margin.

Yes it is. Which is fine for something like a country where I don't have any hope of negotiating with the government individually, and where I don't have any choice in which country I'm part of.

But I'm not sure it's what I want for my job, where I can already negotiate directly with my employer, and where I can leave for other options if I don't like the offer. I'm trading one master that I need to persuade and negotiate with (employer) for two (employer and union leaders and their majority block). That sounds worse not better to me.

A union is great if you're part of the majority. If you're part of a minority in some regard... then yikes good luck.

Yes and no. If James Damore had worked for the NY Times, the Newspaper Guild leadership might have loathed him, but it would have fought for his job.

I dont think thats the case at all. I am not sure what qualifies as a minority, but the union where I work has been instrumental in ensuring that disabled employees have access to tools they need to do their job and the support they need. They help when restructuring brings redundancies, they negotiate retraining packages for people etc.

You have fallen into the Us v Them trap that benefits employers. Your employer does not see you as significantly different to any other employee, even if you think you are. You have more in common with the other employees than you do with mid and senior level management.

Consider it this way, if you died on the way into work tomorrow, your colleagues would mourn and miss you, your employer would be typing up the job post whilst wondering if they could get someone cheaper this time.

I genuinely think you have some serious misunderstandings about what a union can and does do for its members. I don't know of one union that would prevent you from negotiating your own contract or terms and conditions. What you will find is that the bare minimum of acceptable terms has already been agreed with the union so you are starting negotiations 1-step up from where you would be without them. What this means for you is that you aren't using some of your powers of persuasion to ensure you have e.g. 14 days leave per year, you can now use that leeway to negotiate dental or medical, or whatever else you value.

I would just point out that employee unions are pretty strong in Europe, not over powered, but we have maternity pay, sick leave and generous annual leave allowances. In the US you dont like unions, have woefully inadequate annual leave, sick pay, maternity pay etc.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

In the same way it seems like US employees don't see themselves as employees but as business owners/managers who haven't quite achieved their position as yet and a union would be detrimental to them when they are in that role even if it would benefit them right now.

> instrumental in ensuring that disabled employees have access to tools they need to do their job and the support they need

Accommodating disabled employees is a majority view. The majority of people agree with it. As we said, unions are democratic so how did this action get implemented if it wasn’t a majority view? The problem is when you’re in a minority view.

> Your employer does not see you as significantly different to any other employee

And the union doesn’t see me as significantly different to any other member. Just another infinitely small vote they can disregard if they want. What’s the difference? At least there's some impact on my employer if I quit. There's none to a union!

> You have more in common with the other employees

Until you don’t. Like a more senior workforce voting for pay based on seniority when you’re younger.

> Consider it this way, if you died on the way into work tomorrow, your colleagues would mourn and miss you, your employer would be typing up the job post whilst wondering if they could get someone cheaper this time.

I don’t need people to mourn and miss me - I need good pay and conditions.

> I genuinely think you have some serious misunderstandings about what a union can and does do for its members.

I disagree so I must just be mistaken rather than genuinely having a different opinion?

> I don't know of one union that would prevent you from negotiating your own contract or terms and conditions.

Many unions agree union rates which can only be negotiated by the union and the employer. You as an individual get locked out. Not all unions do... but when it becomes the majority view...

> In the US you dont like unions

I’m British. One of the very worst things about unions here is most of them fund one particular political party! That alone is crazy to me. I think many many people would find it extremely offensive to be funding that party.

I don’t want to get involved in it.

I’m sure unions are in some cases great for individuals, just like some employers are great for individuals. But I don’t think they’re really any more benevolent. Both are looking out for their own overall interests and I’m the little guy and if I want what they don’t I’m stuck.

Given that, why get a union involved? Why do I want to negotiate with two sometimes-less-than-benevolent masters rather than one?

Can you understand I may disagree rather than just insisting I’m ignorant?

Do you feel you are a top earner in your field? If not, do you think you will become a top earner in your field?

Do you know if you earn more than your colleagues?

No and no (never realistically going to be that outside something like Google in Mountain View). No I've never asked them.

You think a union would make everyone be paid like a senior at Google? Yeah....

What does that matter?

Many governments have been built in ways to try to mitigate this. For example, in the US we have the electoral college and the Senate (where each state has an equal vote). Not saying I support the electoral college (I don't), but at least there's some thought behind it...

Another example is the parliamentary system where each party gets some type of representation in the government and where absolute majorities are rare.

Point being that governments, while democratic in flavor, have implemented some safeguards against this type of tyrany of the majority.

not sure those safeguards are working effectively in the US.

Not sure if I necessarily agree that the issue we face in the US has to do with "tyrany of the majority", but even if it does I would never claim that the system is perfect, hence the "try to mitigate this" part of the statement above.

They’re designed to provide some protection to the political minority. Seems to be working just fine from where I sit.

In this scenario, is it better to have one larger Bloc cripple the smaller one?

They are deemed unlawful when you force people to join, teachers freedom of speech was considered violated when they're forced to join but disagree with the demands of the union. Is it fair to be forced to join, your dissenting opinion ignored and pay people who work against your own interests?

HOAs are also democratic and owned by their members - yet I hear 10 people complaining about their HOA for every person I hear speaking out in support of them.

HOAs differ vastly in quality due to lack of regulation and a wide range of community challenges and needs. It would be good to get a broad survey of folks in HOAs instead of relying upon anecdata but the lack of regulations make reliable reporting on this surprisingly difficult.

I’ve known some folks with HOAs and I see an inverse correlation with HOA dues and satisfaction which is usually correlated with HOA responsibilities and enforcement. I know folks with a $50 / year HOA and the HOA I was in was about $400 / mo for a condo that was maybe $1800 / mo.

People rarely speak passionately about things they're reasonably happy with.

There are regular surveys that cover how many people are in unions and the overall perception of unions. The numbers back up the idea that unions are dying and people don't think highly of them.

There are also solid propaganda campaigns running against unions in the US. This makes the data quite difficult to interpret.

Really? The majority of Americans are pro-union and a solid majority sees their decline as a bad thing.

Huh, you're right about the popularity when asked in the abstract. It isn't at the old level of popularity, but support has risen quite a bit in the last few years and is back to a majority. That being said, popularity of a topic is often higher when you talk in the abstract - only 30% of people have 'quite a lot' or a 'great deal' of confidence in unions as an institution which is what I was remembering[1]. Also in that data - only ~40% of people want to see union influence grow.

Membership is definitely tanking.[2]

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx

[2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/union-membership-rate-10-p...

> Also in that data - only ~40% of people want to see union influence grow.

~40% want to see grow to ~30%, giving them ~57% share of people with an opinion.

The confidence stat is silly - I don't have a huge amount of confidence in unions either because of their obvious decline in the last few decades.

Don't really see how you can see the [1] poll and not think that there is clearly a fair bit of support for unions. [2] seems completely irrelevant to popular opinion, which is what we were discussing.

It's been declining for decades and over half a century. They didn't know how bad they were. Who supports unions in the US and what majority? Who said that?

The members are bribed and threatened more easily than in your typical election.

Some large unions have been corrupted, but that doesn't mean conceptually unions are bad. This is a great example, where UPS deliberately sought out a bad union for its employees to stifle more progressive organizing: https://isreview.org/issues/58/rev-ups.shtml