You say he's a bot because he's suspicious of unions, yet you acknowledge plenty of tech people are suspicious of unions. Seems like you dont think he's a bot at all and you're just trying to delegitimize his viewpoint without actually confronting it.

It's likewise confusing when people think unions are always A Good Thing no matter what in all circumstances.

I'm glad the employees are exercising their rights to organize. Whether this turns out to be good for the business and for customers remains to be seen over time.

Any time people want to unionize, it's good for the customers even if it means the business goes under.

Sure, they won't get to be customers any longer if that happens, but at least it will increase the likelihood that the products they have available are not the cause of other people's suffering.

> it's good for the customers even if it means the business goes under

Ok then I'm just not flexible enough to do the mental gymnastics involved in understanding this statement.

Pretty simple. If the only way McDonalds could make burgers to sell you was by abusing farm animals to do it, in manners far in excess of modern farming practices, wouldn't you agree that it is better that McDonald's went out of business?

I feel that way about any business that can only survive by underpaying their employees. I would rather have the business not exist than to enjoy affordable goods that only exist because of excessive exploitation.

Not sure about "all." High earners generally do not benefit from unions as they can make more negotiating their own labor value versus participating in collective negotiation which is more likely to drag their compensation down towards the average, even if it's still higher than average.

> High earners generally do not benefit from unions as they can make more negotiating their own labor value versus participating in collective negotiation which is more likely to drag their compensation down towards the average, even if it's still higher than average.

High earners benefit from unions if union rules are made which benefit high earners.

The most well-known example of a high-earner union is SAG-AFTRA and they provide benefits to established performers, the big one being name exclusivity. e.g. even if your real life birth certificate says your name is "Tom Cruise" you cannot advertise your name as "Tom Cruise". Obviously, actors are still negotiating their own pay.

Another good one is the NFL Players Association which capped the rookie pay scale in 2011 to ensure the salary cap was going more toward veterans, people already in the union. However they still independently negotiate their compensation.

I don't know what people would want out of a tech union specifically but the idea that "union = payscale based on seniority" just plain isn't true.

Tech workers are fungible while actors or athletes are not though, so they should better be compared to more blue collar worker unions and here it is the case that wages are generally normalized.

> Tech workers are fungible while actors or athletes are not though

Strongly disagree with this, and I'm in 'tech management' now so I'm not saying this out of self-preservation.

Tech workers are similar to athletes in skill disparity IMO. A handful of superstars makes a massive difference. Look at those superstar AI developers who are allegedly getting 8 or 9 figure compensation from Meta etc. They're still technically "just" tech workers.

Those 8 and 9 figure employees are the exception that proves the rule, as I am talking about the vast majority of tech employees who largely fall within the middle of the normal curve. Athletes as well are far fewer in number and simply cost less overall (less than 2000 in the entire NFL).

> Those 8 and 9 figure employees are the exception that proves the rule

??? This doesn't make any sense. There's a hell of a lot more background actors, which you can call fungible, than there are Tom Cruises, but they're all covered by SAG-AFTRA. "Tech workers are fungible except for the ones that aren't" is tautological and doesn't support your argument.

Sure it does. I'm talking about the majority of tech employees who are fungible while you for some reason are talking about the few that aren't, I'm not sure why they're relevant to this debate. I'm sure there are some very rich tradespeople but they have unions too for the regular worker. And as I said, it's more appropriate to treat tech unions like blue collar unions over specialized unions like actor or athlete ones. And if we do so, wages will be depressed.

> Sure it does. I'm talking about the majority of tech employees who are fungible while you for some reason are talking about the few that aren't, I'm not sure why they're relevant to this debate.

Because I gave examples of unions which contain and are beneficial to high wage earners, and you dismissed them as irrelevant because tech employees are "fungible" except for the ones who aren't. Except those unions also contain far more "fungible" employees (background actors, backups, practice squad players) than they do star actors and quarterbacks, so it's a close comparison. There's currently 2,314 members of the NFL Players' Association but only 32 starting NFL quarterbacks.

Fungible means all employees are the same, that's the exact definition of fungibility. If certain employees have a measurably different impact on delivery, that is the definition of non-fungible. Just because most employees deliver near-average performance does not change this--it's tautologically expected!

Nit picked, I suppose. Regardless of the word I used (maybe it's my mistake), my overall point does not change that tech unions will depress wages for high earners.

> Nit picked, I suppose.

It's not a nitpick. There are some industries and jobs where employees truly are fungible. There's never going to be a security guard or Starbucks barista or janitor who does such an amazing job that they're able to negotiate significantly higher wages than their peers because of how much value they deliver. "Software developer" is not that kind of job, at least not right now.

> my overall point does not change that tech unions will depress wages for high earners.

And this goes back to the original point which is that unions only depress wages for high earners if the unions negotiate terms which depress wages for high earners. As has been pointed out in the thread there are many existing examples of unions for collections of high-earning employees.

You can believe that software unions will be like the actor and athlete ones but I will continue to believe that they are more like blue collar unions, with software unions in Europe as an example that currently exist. In other words, I have no reason to believe "unions negotiate terms which depress wages for high earners" will not be the case.

Athletes have a far bigger curve than you're aware of

And generally most make little money, while sometimes it's a net negative for them to participate and compete in their sport.

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/your-money-matters/going-for-go...

The Bar association for lawyers, and the MD licensing system are another two examples of a trade having a union.

Those act more like cartels to keep their own wages high while in reality there is a doctor shortage for example.