Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud? Or could it be like a judge in sports, you only notice it when the judge makes the wrong call, but all the correct ones are ignored?

My union in Europe doesn't really do that much in my day-to-day work. As a skilled worker in demand we're generally treated very well.

But for the broader questions they are nice to have. For instance they recently spear-headed the abolishing of anti-competitive contracts. That's something a lone worker probably cannot achieve.

When I graduated they said what I should expect to be paid. Which was useful as I really didn't have that much information (compared to the companies), and it also helped to anchor the pay as no graduates would settle for lower. And the union could reveiew the contracts and see what we should push back on before signing. That in itself probably helps keeping everything straight, as the companies know they cannot get away with abusive contracts so they won't even bother trying.

> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?

Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.

I have had this happen in many different situations when working with union members.

Anecdotally, I do not want to be a part of any union that has these types of rules.

The situation around conventions is particularly bad. The nickel and dime-ing of the venues are part of it but, as you say, many of the work rules are pretty stereotypically outrageous. Not that everything is entirely unreasonable; at convention center scale, things would descend into chaos rapidly if booth staff and others started winging things. But it's pretty bad especially in places like NYC.

It's not universally bad but, as someone else said, organizations become about themselves and their leadership. A former GF was in a union and she had very few good things to say about hers. [ADDED: That is an anecdote. I state no opinion about unions generally.]

>> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?

> Yes, they are. I've been working a booth at a convention showing off some tech and asked a passing worker for an extension cord. The response was that they asked on the radio, but the only person available to perform this role was on lunch so it'd be at least 45 minutes until I could get an extension cord.

While the anecdote is true, it's also FUD, because there's no good reason to expect a tech worker's union would work like that. It would exist to solve tech worker's problems, which are different than those of a convention center worker. If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.

> If tech workers would chafe at rigid role definitions, a tech worker's union that they control would not impose them.

Name a union, any union, that does not impose rigid role definitions.

The fact is, there aren't any. Their entire purpose is to categorize employees into roles as a basis for bargaining. If every worker was unique, then collective bargaining would be impossible. The entire point is to group people together and bargain for the rights of that group, and to sign up every member of that group to the deal that was obtained.

Does SAG have rigid role definitions?

> or is it a one-off being used to spread fud

you replied to this with a one-off anecdote to spread fud

Anyone who has ever worked events will tell you that is hardly a one-off anecdote.

Events and convention rules are absolutely different from rules for employees working inside a company.

If it had happened only once or only a few times, I'd agree. This type of thing happens at every single convention.

I am from Brazil, from what I heard unions in Brazil, US and Europe all work wildly differently from each other.

In US in particular unions seemly often have power not only to defend workers but also to define workplace rules and even to veto decisions of the CEO of the company and whatnot.

Also in US unions were first born in a extremely violent manner, with both sides actually killing each other, and the culture there is thus much more antagonistic, unions and companies are perceived as literal enemies, where even violence is actually possible (not that people would use violence currently but people might not forget violence of the past).

From what I heard European unions have a more "cooperative" relationship with the company.

I have many good things to say about unions in the US. The the BS work rules are NOT one of those things, and have been a part of every union I have dealt with. In my experience the the BS work rules are there to slow down work, and increase hiring & especially increase overtime.

> Are unions in the US really like that, or is it a one-off being used to spread fud?

I worked at Northrop Grumman a decade ago as a developer and a lot of the non-tech people were unionized. There were certain things I was not allowed to do because it was the job of some union person. For example, moving equipment was prohibited. When I changed desks I wasn't allowed to move my phone, PC, or monitors, I had to let the person whose job it was to do that, do that. It only happened twice, but in both instances I was without a computer and phone for a day or two, even though my old desk wasn't too far away. It was annoying and seemed illogical.

Since we are exchanging anecdotes, this also happened at my non-union job.

They are worse than you can imagine, at least from my anecdotal experience. Someone I know is a teacher and wanted to do clean up invasive plants overtaking some parts of the school grounds with kids, as a field trip for Environmental Science where they were studying invasive species. Alas, they cannot do that because the union of whoever is supposed to do that will not allow it. Only they can do it. Of course, they themselves haven't done it in years and have no plans to start.

I almost lost a contract with a city after union members complained that I was on their turf. Their non union bosses hired me for a job they aren't qualified for, or interested in having, to solve problems they'd been complaining about for years, but because I was using oxygen in their vicinity it became a legitimate union issue because of the language in their contracts. So, yeah. Unions do stupid stuff. I still support them. Kind of wish my contract had been cancelled, could have doubled my rate when they crawled back.

(US) Unions for many blue and white collar jobs are like this. Many folks like that type of structure, others hate it.

Can't speak for all unions but my experience with a couple of unions has been like this. One place had a rule where you (the engineer) can only have 1 CAD drawing request out to the CAD department at a time. And of course the CAD department was backlogged. So in practice it means you're sitting around waiting for the draft to come back for 4 - 6 weeks doing practically nothing.

A union is just an organization which represents the interests of workers. If we don't want BS work rules, we don't have to have them. Instead, we could have things like:

1. abolition of non-compete agreements

2. ownership of code we write when we're not at work

3. standards for privacy and security enforced by working engineers and not by management

Maybe your list is different than mine, but if you can think of anything we might want that goes against the profit motive of corporations, a union (or a guild, or whatever you want to call it) is a proven way to get these things. The Writer's Guild of America guarantees the screenwriters of a movie are credited, for example -- imagine all software had a list of the people who made it!

> A union is just an organization which represents the interests of workers.

A union isn't just that, though is it?

It's also a beast in its own right, with its own politics and power struggles and debates and meetings and people taking a paycheck from your union dues.

A union doesn't even necessarily act in your interests. It acts in the interests of the majority of members, who may be out to actively harm your interests. And versus its own survival a union is never going to put your interests first. Why would it?

> If we don't want BS work rules, we don't have to have them.

Right but what if your colleagues what these BS work rules? What if you're junior and they want pay by seniority?

This perspective is frustrating, as it paints unions as an entirely negative endeavor. They're not and there are trade offs. Those trade offs may be a net positive or a net negative, but only highlighting the negative doesn't do any good.

>with its own politics and power struggles and debates and meetings... A union doesn't even necessarily act in your interests. It acts in the interests of the majority of members

If your going to chastise the process of advocating for your views then complain that somehow they don't get taken into account then I don't know what to tell you. If your concerned that the interests of other members are outweighing yours, then participate. If you don't want to deal with it, don't join the union.

>people taking a paycheck from your union dues

Oh my gosh, contributing to something that you get value from... what a crazy concept. If you don't get value from the union, then see above; change it or don't join.

>Right but what if your colleagues what these BS work rules?

Why does the assumption automatically go towards "unions would be TERRIBLE"? Most devs don't like to put up with BS, so why do you think a union made up of devs would somehow institute a ton of BS rules just because it's a union. Again, if you don't want BS union rules, then make sure the union doesn't institute them by actually participating.

>What if you're junior and they want pay by seniority?

I hate to break it to you, but that's called the real world.

At the end of the day, a union is about shifting the balance of power and advocating for the things the union sees as valuable. What are the things you'd change about tech employment if you could? How could a union be more effective at achieving those changes? A union doesn't have to just be focused on pay scales and bureaucracy.

> don't join the union.

This isn't an option in USA unless you live in a right to work state. The US left pushes hard against right to work, meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/if they are formed. This includes basically all tech hotspots including California and New York, if your colleagues organizes a union there you will be forced to join. This include this Kickstarter union btw, likely a lot of its members don't actually want to be a part of the union.

>The US left pushes hard against right to work

Because right to work is a union-busting tactic

>meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/if they are formed

This is wrong in a number of ways. First off, the formation of a union does not require that all employees instantaneously join it. Second, the union still needs to have an agreement with an employer. So if your workplace doesn't unionize, it doesn't matter if the one on the other side of town does. It doesn't magically just flip an "isUnion" bit and completely change everyone's employment situation in one fell swoop.

>if your colleagues organizes a union there you will be forced to join

If you workplace unionizes, then you _may_ be forced to join. There is no guarantee that a union would force joining to keep your job, although historically that has been the case. Much of that was due to a lot of the improvements that unions were negotiating for being very hard to "split" between union an non-union members (i.e. safer machines in a factory were a benefit to everyone, not just union members). In a tech union, who's to say that has to be that way. If unions negotiated for things like always having the latest hardware for members, it would be easier for non-union members at the same shop to be given whatever hardware your employer decided. Basically, a tech union may not be bound to the same constraints as traditional unions might have been.

>likely a lot of its members don't actually want to be a part of the union.

But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other.

> Because right to work is a union-busting tactic

No it isn't, right to work exists in the entire EU since EU enforces it. Union participation is still way higher here than in USA. Obviously right to work isn't hurting union participation that much, or unions would be dead over here.

Banning right to work is just there to protect corrupt unions from members being able to leave a corrupt union on their own.

> But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other.

Because other members wanted to be a part of the union. If 70% wanted the union but 30% were forced to join then those 30% still didn't want the union afterwards, it is that simple.

'Just don't join' doesn't work. Unions often bully or ostracise people who refuse to join. Sometimes they're in practice closed-shops, like the Screen Actors' Guild, even though this isn't supposed to be allowed in law. In some cases unions use violence against 'scabs' and other people who resist.

I like how a non-existent tech union is instantly popping up out of nowhere with both a massive bureaucracy, and a squad of enforcers to beat people up for not joining.

Please, stop bringing up historical anecdotes as reasons why a tech union wouldn't work. It's funny how you don't bring up things like strong health care and training as anecdotes on the other side.

The question of whether or not there will be "union shops" or not is still yet to be seen. Whether or not there would be is a question of the union and the employers (i.e. TBD).

If kickstarter is an example then they forced 37 persons to join it, so it is correct to fear unions forcing you to join.

"with 46 employees voting in favor of the move and 37 opposing it".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/technology/kickstarter-un...

A vote on formation of a union does not mean employees are forced to join it. A union also doesn't mean anything if there isn't an agreement with the employer. A union also doesn't mean anything if it's members are not going to withhold their services if they don't come to an agreement that is deemed acceptable by it's members.

Unions are also about leveraging power. While someone can try to start a union with any number of people, how much they can actually negotiate is going to hinge a lot on that number. Is 55% of the workforce enough to have significant leverage? I don't know and it depends on what the union wants. Would the union be able to reach an agreement with the employer that would force the others to join the union? That would seem like quite a stretch to me.

It's not as simple as "don't join the union". Unions in the US have exclusive bargaining power; if a majority of employees form a legally recognized union, the union contract will apply to even the employees who don't want to join the union.

"If we don't want BS work rules, we don't have to have them"

Are all states right-to-work?

> I think a lot of it is that in-demand, well paid workers don't have patience for the BS work rules that unions are notorious for. It might be unfair characterization, but "you can't change/test that code, that's role X", and other such bureaucracy can be really draining.

Some existing blue-collar unions have work rules like that, but I think it's a fallacy that a tech worker union would necessarily work exactly the same. To say so would be like condemning (say) Apple (as a business) by using examples from Radio Shack.

I think the main reasons for tech workers historical opposition to unions was:

1. Tech workers had rare, in-demand skills which gave them market power not enjoyed by most workers who have unionized. This is by far the biggest reason.

2. The influence of narratives different genres of free market propaganda. I think the concept of a impersonal self-regulating free market has a special intellectual appeal to the kind of people who like to design technical systems, and a lot of the mass-market works that espouse it are written for the benefit of the capitalists that benefit most acutely from that system. This is a secondary reason, but makes the first reason far more effective.

3. The influence of startup culture, which (temporarily!) creates jobs that blend worker and capitalist. Relatively few people find themselves in these kinds of roles, but they've gotten enormous amounts of publicity relative to other tech jobs.

Yes, people always assume that only one type of union exists, and that it can only really work for low-skill interchangeable workers. That this belief is so widespread is actually a testament to the effectiveness of anti-union messaging...

However, not all unions operate on that model. One major example: the Screen Actors Guild

> According to SAG's Mission Statement, the Guild sought to: negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements that establish equitable levels of compensation, benefits, and working conditions for its performers; collect compensation for exploitation of recorded performances by its members, and provide protection against unauthorized use of those performances; and preserve and expand work opportunities for its members. (Wikipedia [0])

Actors have a lot of freedom to do what they want... For example: they can work on a big budget movie and make millions, or they can take the minimal fee and do a small low-budget artsy film. They can also write/direct/produce the movies that they act in. The guild's contracts just require that they be treated and compensated certain ways (both up front + residuals) for their acting roles.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild

I don't find the SAG a convincing example, personally.

Reasonable people might debate what should and shouldn't be a union's responsibilities and powers - would we want closed shops to exist? what about job demarcation rules? should the union set rules around hiring, firing and promotions? - but everyone could agree a union should make sure you don't have to have sex with the producer to get a role.

And yet, the Me Too movement reveals this abhorrent behaviour has gone unchecked for years? Obviously, the blame lies with the perpetrators of the crimes - but it was a damn big oversight by the SAG.

Doesn't it also prevent them from using their real names in their work if anyone already has that name? And don't you have to pay $3k to join + 1.85% of your income (for the majority of actors who make less than $200,000 per year - special rules help the members who make lots of money from having to pay too much)?

Plus you can't work on whatever you want - you are only allowed to work with producers that have an active agreement with the SAG (Global Rule One).

Yeah, but so what? Don't most organization have rules designed to allow them to function as an organization or solve specific problems they encounter? It's not like an Apple employee can freely blog about the unreleased product they're working on or simultaneously work with Samsung on a competing product.

Yeah. And the SAG rules aren't unreasonable IMO. But a union is not replacing the existing rules of your workplace, it's a second group of people who can add rules.

> Yeah. And the SAG rules aren't unreasonable IMO. But a union is not replacing the existing rules of your workplace, it's a second group of people who can add rules.

Yes and no.

1) Rules aren't interchangeable, undifferentiated things. An employer's rules are meant to mostly benefit the employer. Rules a union adds would be to mostly benefit its members.

2) A union can get employer workplace rules changed in its negotiations, if its members objected to them and they have enough negotiating power.

3) That "second group of people" could possible include you as a union member, and if it doesn't, it's a group you would have far more influence over than company management.

You can take the same rules about hollywood union rules forcing lighting technicians and camera crew to have roles, even though the big expensive and hot lights they used to safeguard are long since gone. Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices.

Everybody thinks they're the actor in the hollywood comparison, and they're not. They're more likely the tech guy holding an outdated lamp under union rules.

> You can take the same rules about hollywood union rules forcing lighting technicians and camera crew to have roles, even though the big expensive and hot lights they used to safeguard are long since gone.

I don't know. That reasoning sounds a bit like saying you don't need software engineers anymore because your application runs on a microcomputer, not a mainframe. I'm sure there's more to a lighting technician's role than "hold lights because they're hot."

> Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices.

Bosses don't like unions, and if you take the perspective of a boss, you probably won't like them either. What else is new?

> Everybody thinks they're the actor in the hollywood comparison, and they're not. They're more likely the tech guy holding an outdated lamp under union rules.

It beats getting dumped onto the street and pivoting suddenly into burger flipping. The point of unions is to protect its workers, not minimize employer costs. If a job is becoming truly obsolete, then the union could force the employer to retrain their workers (like what happened in this video: https://vimeo.com/127605643) or buy time for a more gradual transition.

Heck, if workers trusted they weren't going to get screwed by labor saving technology, they might not resist it as much.

It was once a useful role and now is not. Sure people can retrain and reapply for jobs, do we need unions for that?

Saying bosses dont like unions therefore dismissal of discussion is missing the point.

My view is too much of unionizing is underpinned by coveting other people's success and wanting to feel good after being burned.

The pareto principle and distribution of wealth isn't going to change, some unions are going to be paid off for how much discontent is felt. Which has some virtue, and not enough virtue.

> Sure people can retrain and reapply for jobs, do we need unions for that?

Because they could make it easier for those workers. It's not like the business that laid them off is going to do a good job of that, if it's not compelled to, and retraining can be expensive and perhaps unaffordably so for someone who just lost their job.

>>> Last year corridor crew did a video where niko broke down how much money he could save by moving to LED lights and cutting the mandatory crew requirement and run small films at affordable prices.

>> Bosses don't like unions, and if you take the perspective of a boss, you probably won't like them either. What else is new?

> Saying bosses dont like unions therefore dismissal of discussion is missing the point.

No it isn't. I'm sure there prosecutors that have plenty of complaints about defense attorneys. Maybe some guilty people do get off free because of them, but we don't oppose defense attorneys because they make things hard for prosecutors. Unions serve opposing interests to bosses, so bosses' gripes should not be the main focus.

> My view is too much of unionizing is underpinned by coveting other people's success and wanting to feel good after being burned.

My view is that unionization is underpinned by the fundamental imbalance between unorganized workers and organized business.

The point is dismissing anybody/somebody/everybodies' view out of hand or minimizing it down to complaints means you are missing when valid points are being made.

You are not showing a desire to discuss specific, measurable, realistic and timely issues. You and most unionists here have a view of a utopian union that is above criticism and does not need examination.

Which supports my view that this is about feelings and not about the problems people proclaim to want to solve.

What problem of unorganized workers? Healthcare? Retraining? Okay lets campaign for healthcare and lower college fees. Lets pick up the debt jubilee ticket some economists are calling for. Lets make government pay for code bootcamps and have corporations underwrite months of health insurance out of work.

No none of that will work because it does not give totalitarian control of workers to unions. Nor will it allay feelings of jealousy.

> The point is dismissing anybody/somebody/everybodies' view out of hand or minimizing it down to complaints means you are missing when valid points are being made.

I'm not "dismissing anybody/somebody/everybodies' view out of hand," but observing that you can't make everyone happy all the time. Bosses will be unhappy with unions, because oftentimes unions go against their interests and reduce the power differential when they deal with individual employees. However, there's more than just the bosses' interest at play, so it's a mistake to focus on that.

This may not be a win-win situation, and it may be just for shareholders and business owners to lose a little.

> You are not showing a desire to discuss specific, measurable, realistic and timely issues. You and most unionists here have a view of a utopian union that is above criticism and does not need examination.

No, that's not true. I don't have a utopian view of unions, but rather an objection to their out-of-hand rejection based on a couple of cliched complaints about specific instances of the type. That's also a double standard, since if we'd applied a similar standard to corporations, that concept would have been rejected long ago. I think innovation in the area of unionization is possible and welcome, but I don't have all the answers.

At this point, were at the step of merely trying to get the idea of unions put back onto the table. It is not reasonable to insist that an idea (in this case tech worker unions) be fully worked out before the first step toward it is made.

> What problem of unorganized workers?

To be blunt about it: capital is organized. When a worker deals with it, they're almost always dealing with some kind of institution, not an individual, which means they're almost always in a greatly weaker position, with all that implies. Why is it such a problem for workers to have institutions of their own to create some balance?

> No none of that will work because it does not give totalitarian control of workers to unions. Nor will it allay feelings of jealousy.

Attributing desires for worker organization to "jealousy" is a far worse dismissal than anything I did in my comments.

A power imbalance isn't a problem to be solved defacto. We're not stalin-esque egalitarians.

What would you want power for. What problem are you trying to solve. If you say individual vs collective, institute or corp for a third time without introducing an issue to be tackled, there is nothing to talk about.

Attribute the desires to anything other than power and the jealousy tag falls away.

Corporations did not start as they are, they were tiny teams of people off to do one task. How can I say any different about the implications of a new org structure like unions.

Anti union messaging or just they are more common place? Lots of examples of unions with rigid rules, corrupt practices etc. But so far everyone only points to the screen actors guild as a counter example. Are there many other unions like it?

> But so far everyone only points to the screen actors guild as a counter example. Are there many other unions like it?

IIRC, there are in the movie industry. I think writers, directors, etc. all have their own unions. Also given the nature of construction jobs, I'd be curious how construction trade unions compare.

Different companies in different industries can have quite different structures and cultures (e.g. McDonald's vs GM vs Google). The instantiated example of McDonald's didn't mean future companies had to be like it, and I see no reason why the instantiated example of the UAW means that another type of union structure/culture can't be created for another set of circumstances.

Certain what came before doesn't have to be what follows. Just that if the majority of unions people know are "bad" then the general view of unions will be negative too. Also it may be a bit of a hint on which way a particular union is more likely to turn out.

Unions are the antithesis of a meritocracy. Try promoting based on seniority over merit in a tech. business, and I doubt you'll stay competitive for very long.

I don't know if kickstarter counts as a pure "tech company". They use technology, but they don't create it. Their customers are activists, so it's not surprising that their employees are, too.

Whenever I see "meritocracy" used like this, my hair stands on end. From Wikipedia:

"Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Dunlop Young in his 1958 satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, being the combination of the root of Latin origin "merit" (from "mereō" meaning "earn") and the Ancient Greek suffix "-cracy" (meaning "power", "rule")... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group."

Meritocracy starting out as leftist satire doesn't mean the concept doesn't have merit.

Yes, it does. Unless its defenders have shown good reasons as to why the points raised by the satirists are inapplicable. Which they haven't.

The assignation of "quality" in people is a corrupt and folkloric reflection of the preferences of those in power, and that phenomenon is becoming ever more pronounced as industries consolidate.

The fact that a person can just study programming on their free time for a few years and then get a job paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is proof that at least in some cases meritocracy works. All you need is proof that you are great at programming, doesn't have to know anyone or have any kind of prestigious background to do it.

That is what I did. I studied programming for a bit, started getting among the top in online programming competitions, applied to Google and got a really high salary. Anyone who is intelligent enough can do it if they have a computer with internet access.

People sometimes counter with something along the lines of:

> Just because you could do it doesn't mean others can do it, you are just an exception!

Yeah, exactly, other people are dumb so they can't become among the best of the world in these competitions within a year. If they could they would easily get similar jobs as I did though, there was no luck or privilege in what I did just talent. So the problem isn't that meritocracy doesn't work but that merit for these tech jobs is so unevenly distributed.

Remember this post the next time there is a 500 post thread about how hiring is bs or promotions are all politics. That cannot possibly jive with the system being a meritocracy.

I don't think everything is perfect but striving for meritocracy isn't problematic in itself. The ideal should always be "given what we know of each candidate who is expected to deliver the most value in this position?". I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. And in general it seems like companies and countries with more meritocratic systems tend to do better, so as a system it seems to work great.

"Meritocracy" as a word is sometimes used by corrupt people, but that is like North Korea calling itself a democracy, it isn't a problem with meritocracy.

"Meritocracy was meant as a satire" is brought up as a rebuttal frequently but it's somehow never accompanied by an explanation of how the negatives Young brings up are relevant to the topic at hand. Based on a cursory search, a summary of Young's point in his satire seems to be that meritocracy had the undesirable consequences of demeaning/devaluing those who scored poorly on measures of merit and also triggering a societal arms race as people did whatever they could to improve their own and their children's measured merit, neither of which is salient to this discussion. He doesn't seem to say that meritocracy itself was ineffective. (Somebody please correct me if I am in error here.)

It's also worth noting that the same Wikipedia article that the parent poster points to says that the concept of meritocracy predates Young's coining of the word by centuries and also details its history of successful application by many societies in various eras.

Some unions negotiate practices regarding seniority for good and bad reasons. Others don't. A software workers union wouldn't necessarily do that, unless its membership voted for it. Which might make sense, because of rampant age discrimination - but there's nothing inherently tying that to promotion.

If you think professional sports leagues and the movie business base opportunities and compensation on seniority I don't know what to tell you. Those fields are almost completely unionized. There's no obvious reason to think that the market for high skilled technical workers would be substantially different.

If you don't think the UAW or ILWU bases opportunities and compensation on seniority I don't know what to tell you

Why would an SWE union be forced to follow the trends set by other unions? I thought tech was supposed to march to the beat of its own drum. Think different.

Of course they do.

The difference is between commodity labor and creative, talent-driven, or IP based production, and it seems clear which is a better metaphor for software engineers.

> Unions are the antithesis of a meritocracy. Try promoting based on seniority over merit in a tech.

Tech is absolutely not a meritocracy.

While your personal anecdote may vary, my personal anecdote does seem to indicate that tech is a pretty meritocracy directed industry. Maybe this is a Silicon Valley / CA trait given thing like non-compete clauses being non-enforceable.

Tech is often more of a meritocracy than other fields/industries.

It is quite possible for a talented engineer to rise quickly out of university but nearly impossible for a talented surgeon or industrial engineer without a decade+ of effort.

The tech industry has a bias for youth, which is mutually exclusive with experience. I don't know much about the medical industry, but I wager surgeons face less ageism once the gray hairs start coming in. With that age comes experience younger surgeons simply couldn't have.

Maybe that makes them better surgeons, or maybe not. But it seems to me that ageism in tech complicates comparisons to fields which value experience instead of youth.

My point was that the OPPOSITE is true in most other fields.

If you don't have grey hairs, you simply are not considered for the top jobs at all in certain industries. YOE (years of experience) is nearly everything for some professions, tech is surprisingly quite robust in that regard.

Tech is more like "reverse ageist" instead of being egalitarian.

Personally, I would be more amenable to a statement like "tech is not an absolute meritocracy". Many industries are however, roughly meritocratic. While talent may not be perfectly recognized or rewarded, it often eventually is - simply because it makes good business sense. When you have easy to recognize signals of merit and value, like in the tech industry where work can be more objectively evaluated, it makes it easier to implement a meritocratic culture.

Why would tech workers who vote on union rules, vote for a seniority advancement system? Makes no sense. Either the assumptions or the conclusion are wrong.

Unions are not perfect and unionized workers often have a complicated relationship with their union, but fundamentally a Union is just a democratic organization representing workers. The policies are set by the union on behalf of the interests of workers, however imperfectly. Without a union, the policies are set by management and there is no institutional power that workers have collectively against policies they don’t like.

Someone in a thread months ago said unions wouldn't be like that - it would be more like hollywood unions like the writers guild.

On the other hand I wonder if it might have inadvertent effects on other things, like maybe free software.

Are the "BS work rules" that unions might introduce really that much worse than what gets imposed on the average software shop these days? Scrum ceremony, planning by committee, etc, at times is the kind of bureaucracy that brings productivity down.