No, but don't try to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the unions around it. Doubly so when the employees in question are part of a national union.
>Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how things can work out.
Cool. And just as soon as you do the work to make the collective bargaining status quo in the US the same as it is in Europe, we can continue this conversation. Until then, I don't care about this tangent.
>Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on your employer?
Because *I* am not gaining leverage. A bureaucracy that represents me as part of an amalgamation gains leverage. Before I toss my hat in, I need to hear a whole lot more about what that bureaucracy is planning to be, and how it's going to design itself. I don't need to be pitched the possibility this instance could be better than the stereotype. Why not show me the plan on how we're going to make sure this one is a good one?
Let's set goals. Up front and on screen. Then we can decide on the implementation details (such as unionization) needed to get there. When the cart is put before the horse, I don't see how you can tell me with a straight face that the union could ever possibly be anything but exactly the generic stereotypical union that the grandparent poster is afraid of.
Any new organization in human society is going to be the same as previous ones? Does this apply to unions only? Or no progress ever happens in any organization?
Perhaps this isn't the union that will do it, but surely the tech industry can find a way to innovate on unions and labor power. Why everything else and not that?
SWEs have more bargaining power than ever right now (at least in the US, which is the market I'm most familiar with) .
Care to describe what disruption happened and how? Software developers contracts seem pretty similar to any other office worker.
The only big change in employment in the last 15 years happened outside of software development: the gig/sharing economy.
And it's a huge step backwards.
1) Plenty of people in finance, lawyers, and so on have high salary and excellent conditions. Many had highly paid jobs in the same fields 50 years ago. This is nothing close with "disrupting the traditional employer<->employee power dynamic".
2) An this point it's really difficult to assume that you are arguing in good faith.
It's nice to have your role in high demand, but all good things must come to an end.
Because in this case it isn't in Europe?
I like the European tradition a lot more than the frequent outcomes with US unions. I've seen US unions where what the original poster describes is totally accurate.
My main source of leverage comes from my employer's projection of what I'll do for them over the coming year/years. The better picture I paint for them on that point, the more leverage I have.
It's not at all obvious to me that my leverage would be increased by collective bargaining by more than the cost of that outsourcing.