Then suddenly today I said something and instantly got 100 upvotes...
In the end, wound up staying in a room at a friend's house that was being renovated... working small project work at barely enough to feed myself on... By the end, my truck was reposessed and I was driving a junker. All I can say is for now, keep your head down, and hit your goals.
The up side is during the down time I managed to enhance my skills, learn a new programming language (offline, with the command line compiler is so much fun /sarc).
It's cyclical... I would expect many jobs at the higher end to shift down about 30-50% in terms of base compensation. Working C2H right now, and really hoping I'm able to come in perm. Fortunately in a market not going away.
A union doesn't necessarily have to negotiate maximum ceiling salaries. It doesn't have to negotiate salaries at all. It can just be an entity to prevent the company from letting you go just because the numbers look 2% better.
I think the best of both worlds is when the union only negotiates a minimum salary.
They're more likely to empathize with the CEO who's complaining how hard it is to fire people in Europe than with the average even 10x tech worker.
I think the tech workers are generally still opposed to the idea
As the economy downturns, more and more software devs on the low end will be pushed to the point where unionization makes sense. They were never really powerful or well paid, but had hope of rising to a higher class. It’s that aspiration that lead to people discounting the ida of unionization.
LarryDarrell on July 8, 2019 | parent | context | favorite | on: Employee activism in tech stops short of organizin...
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.
I think this is a big reason tech workers are opposed to the idea.
Tech, particularly Silicon Valley tech startups, have always had rather lofty ideals and conjured visions of employee empowerment, which management then fail to deliver upon. One could imagine a tech union or guild that goes beyond the function of old-style industrial unions but actually serves as a means of protection for a company’s workforce to challenge management decisions if a majority disagree, in terms of strategy. Every engineer has felt like Dilbert working under a pointy-headed boss at some point.
I think a true middle path would be German-style co-determination, where there is active engagement and cooperation between workers and management as equals, moderated by the government.
https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/business/co-determinatio...
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/indust...
It's not really a binary choice either. With unions it just increases the probability of you being on a team of terrible engineers while lowering the probability of you getting layed off.
So the real question is which probability metric is more important to you and other engineers?
Times constantly change you won't always be in a situation where you have the finances to just quit just because you're frustrated with a job.
As a high paid SWE we often forget that A job is more then doing something you "like" to do, it is a means of survival. When times change, when hard times come or when some life changing event happens, being allowed to survive is a good thing.
What firms can't usually do to them is fire them without actually demonstrating cause.
It's hard to establish hard standards in an industry that moves as quickly as tech can, but virtually anything would be an improvement over the frat house hazing ritual that technical interviews have become.
It can be viewed from the other angle. If software engineers aren't licensed why do lawyers and plumbers have to be?
The pros of being licensed are obvious. The cons are less so. One thing licensing does is lower supply. It can be used to artificially lower supply so that prices and wages remain high.
Are you sure barbers are licensed?
- The economics of supply and demand will swing back to software engineers in the short term, because there aren't enough of us to power every tech company's product roadmap on their desired timeline.
- Laid off workers will start new companies that will threaten the companies that laid them off.
- The macro environment will swing back eventually to favor fast growth.
Long term is bad [1], though:
- Tech is going global. Europe, Latin America, India, the rest of Asia, and emerging economies all over the world are raising venture capital and hiring substantially cheaper local talent. These companies will put downwards economic pressures on US companies' unlimited growth stories, worldwide monopoly statuses, and thus their ability to pay lavish salaries.
- Also, a broader global talent pool will put downward pressures on salaries.
- Much more hypothetical, but the emergence of AI tools could put additional pressure on engineers. It's unclear how much or to what extent, but it could be a big impact.
[1] Tech going worldwide is fantastic for workers in growing economies. They'll quickly move up the socioeconomic ladder, and that's a good thing. As long as AI doesn't eat their lunch first.
That hurts the developed cities and countries more than the individuals though. Expect a lot of heat out of civic conferences the next few years as they start to re-assess their budgets/roles.
Some equalization is only fair in the end. Your output / cost should be the same as any other. Not all developing economies have talent that can fit these companies today, but there's no reason that can't change tomorrow.
The major gap from my perspective is fair and equitable ways of gauging performance (tech specifically but in general).
I think there will be a form of credential-ism and it will continue to be similar to the tech interview.
It'd take a union to force FAANG into that, though, because it'd make job mobility much easier, so tend to increase wages.
We can have a setup where everyone benefits, people who think they are top talent are free to capitalize on that fact if they truly are top talent, while also being protected from predatory employment practices if/when they aren't top talent. Even if we recognize the existence of 10x or 100x engineers surely we must also recognize that they are humans that will have family issues, mental health concerns or struggle with burnout / purpose / direction during a multi-decade career. No shortage of evidence that tech companies are working together to suppress engineering wages, why wouldn't engineers respond by working together to invigorate wages?
I can’t say why with certainty, but I suspect it’s the veneration of the idea of the mythical “10x zero to one founder” that single-handedly props up the sky and produces billions of dollars of value for their (equally venerable) VC “partners”.
It’s kind of a “temporarily embarrassed billionaire” phenomenon that I love to watch on here.
Unions are a libertarian concept. Freedom of association is the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism. Those at the other end of the spectrum stand for supply management instead.
If so, unions and the very opposite of unions are “libertarian concepts” and we’ve reached a point where we’re just talking about how words are meaningless and are entirely off-topic.
This isn't a common term where I'm from, so I am admittedly not intimately familiar with it, but as I understand its meaning, as defined by Wikipedia, it removes some degree of freedom of association. So, no, it is in stark contrast to libertarianism.
“Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.
And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed upon. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of our elections)
By US standards, in the US job market, “unions are a libertarian concept” is something that only someone unfamiliar with US labor dynamics and the local meaning of “libertarian” would say. It’s a pointless exercise of “Look how I define this word outside of meaningful context!”
> Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian.
Do you see no difference between a contract and a contract required by the government?
Anyway, I’m going to move on. It’s been fun talking about a definition of “libertarian” that has nothing to do with the practical discussion at hand. Kudos to your definition as it applies to the term outside of the US job market.
What government requirement are you talking about? There was no mention of this in previous comments and seems to have nothing to do with the discussion. As before, a union will most likely require a contract in order to enter into an association with an employer, but that's ultimately up to the parties seeking association. Strictly speaking they could associate without one, but disputes become harder to resolve later so it is not the best idea. Indeed, under libertarianism, the government will support the contracts you enter into by helping you enforce them. That is necessary for freedom of association to be a useful concept.
"Right to work" is a union-busting concept: regardless of collective bargaining agreements an individual has the right to their employment, whether or not they pay dues to a union.
Just wanted to correct a common mistake I see made often in these discussions.
Yep! “Right to work” is a way of framing union-busting rhetoric in a way that appeals to people that consider themselves to be libertarian(ish), so I’ve intentionally used that phrasing to try to highlight that both unions and union busting can fit under “libertarian” depending on a person’s intent.
That combination seems to increase (or at least leave unchanged) my freedom of association. (Others who do wish to associate with that union are still free to do so, of course.)
With freedom of association, a union and employer could reach a contractual agreement to require that all employees who enter into an association with the employer must pay into the union, regardless of membership status. Freedom of association allows an employer to reject those terms, of course, but if they do enter into that agreement then that's the terms of engagement that must be adhered to.
The government lording over saying "You can't do that", even when both parties are agreeable to the terms, removes necessary freedom. If the employer wants to associate with you without you needing to pay into a union, they can reject those terms on their own accord. If they do enter into that agreement, they have the freedom to not associate with you if you don't like the terms (as you the freedom to not associate with them).
I, an individual, could equally say "I hate that sokoloff guy and I'll work with you only if you agree to never hire him." and at that point they have to decide if I'm worth hiring under those terms or not. If they want to keep you open as an option then they can say "Nope. Sorry. Best of luck in your future endeavours."
Aside, I tend to get along with most conservatives okay, I'm just far more in favor of more limited govt than they tend to be, and more personal liberty, which tends to collide when they want to make religious views law.
As is union busting.
As the US learned a long time ago, and then eventually forgot, the freedom to organize without employer retribution can only exist with government coercion. And absent that freedom, any attempt to unionize will be (and in the last 30-40 years, has been) crushed by the capital-owning class.
What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. Probably conservatism.
That's just a No True Scotsman fallacy.
A libertarian would say that employees can choose their employers, and the employers can therefore dictate the term of employment.
One of those terms can be "you are not allowed to freely associate with your fellow employees", and the libertarian would say "if you don't like it, don't work there. #freedom"
The realist recognizes that the employer-employee relationship is one that contains a significant imbalance of power, and that it requires a government to step in and put their finger on the scale in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees. This isn't theory, it's practical reality that we learned from the post-industrial sweatshop era where child labor was the norm and employees had no rights to speak of.
Now, go ahead, feel free to define your personal belief set as "libertarian" if you want. But if you support government regulating the employer-employee relationship, you are not, by any definition I'm aware of, a libertarian.
For example, libertarians have been screaming from the rooftops about needing a flat tax for the longest time. Know what would accelerate socialist reforms in the US faster than any other?
A flat tax.
Public sentiment would turn on a dime as soon as people saw how much they were getting screwed.
Very possibly I misunderstood, but otherwise that sounds suspiciously like what a cartoon villain capitalist would propose - sure seems like they’d be the winners in the short term.
Yes, they would be short term winners until the voting public revolts. But it's not the 1980s anymore. Half the working populace doesn't have a fat pension on the other end of their working days. The people who actually have accumulated enough capital to care about the stock market are dying and are being replaced by people who can't even afford to move out of their parents homes until they're in their late 20s.
Other possibilities include the belief that a union would be ineffective. Or corrupt. Or at least unproven. Or would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Or would immediately be captured by special interests not directly related to employment at big tech.
Which isn’t to say that these concerns are valid, or couldn’t be addressed, or whatever. But they exist
>Or would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
is a re-statement of my observation! :)
One can believe none of that, but still believe that a union would sufficiently change the firm’s economics that it would no longer offer the kind of jobs it does today.
One could believe that the collective work of all the employees produces all that value—no need for embarrassed billionaires—and still think that a union would work against that value.
And I’m not sure how believing that a union is unproven fits into your theory that HN readers believe the value is produced by the Übermensch.
Times change.