The company you work for almost always has more power in negotiations than you do. (For some hypothetical "you".)

The bigger the company is, the more power they have typically.

If you want to make more money or get better benefits or otherwise negotiate a better contract, you need more leverage.

Unionizing is one way to gain more negotiation power by negotiating together with your co-workers instead of individually.

It also makes it easier to address cross cutting concerns like safety and fairness.

▲

ryandrake 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of HN repliers think that they, out of thousands of other employees, are that One Captain Of Industry that has sufficient bargaining and negotiating power to stand toe to toe with a huge employer. And therefore, a union could never help tech employees as a class.

▲

robrenaud 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My big gripe with unions is the unwavering protection of their worst performing members.

Eg, that they necessitated so called "rubber rooms" like these in the NYC public schools, where teachers got paid to do nothing while waiting on arbitration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_center

	▲	threetonesun 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I doubt you'll find many people in favor of how bad cops get protected by police unions either. At least in the US I'd much rather a broad social net so my health care and retirement weren't so directly tied to my job than a union specific to my trade.

▲

michaelt 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of the salary figures I see thrown around for tech employees in the US are pretty wild [1] - $200k, $400k total compensation without even getting 'Senior' in the job title.

That's in a country with a median household income of $84k [2]

I think it's understandable why someone would feel they were doing well at bargaining and negotiating if they were taking home 4.7x as much as their neighbours and loved ones.

Folks in the games industry by all accounts have really shitty pay and working conditions so I can 110% understand why they'd unionise.

[1] https://www.levels.fyi/?tab=levels&compare=Google%2CMeta%2CA... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

▲

ryandrake 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Salary is only one of many workplace issues that organizing can help with. Those US tech people who make $400k, that's great for them! But how is their mental health / burnout? How good is their health insurance? Are they getting enough vacation time or time with their families? Are they regularly expected to work 12+ hour days? Do they have their weekends? Do they want to Work From Home but can't get it? What about permission to moonlight or work on side projects? Do they have satisfying autonomy at work or are they just churning through JIRA tickets?

Collective negotiation power can help with all of these, if we let it. It doesn't just stop at compensation.

▲

satvikpendem 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Generally big tech workers have very cushy jobs with excellent insurance and working conditions with many barely working over 30 hours a week, much less 40. It is why many do not see the benefits of a union because what could a union possibly give them?

▲

ryandrake 8 hours ago | parent [-]

This is far from the norm. If it's true for a small number of employees at a small number of companies in a small number of regions, that doesn't mean it's true for everyone. I don't know a single employee who thinks absolutely nothing could be made better at work.

	▲	satvikpendem 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, everyone has something they'd want to make better but I'm not sure a union is the tool that can fix them, lots of them are management issues endemic to the company.

▲

satvikpendem 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because generally they can, as software engineers had huge leverage over their employers for the past few decades, so much so that literal parodies like Silicon Valley were made of the cushiness of their jobs. Maybe that is changing now with AI but I doubt it.

▲

lovich 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have gotten a lot of mileage asking from these types once we get to the “I can negotiate my own raises” by asking them how many times they’ve actually tried negotiating much less succeeded.

▲

Lonestar1440 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The big assumption here is that the Union's interests are, in fact, aligned with You, the Worker.

If they're not, then you're just caught between two powerful, unaccountable entities. You have to join the Union, after all. I see a lot of folks in Education who feel that the Union simply Exists and does not really help them (their employers being rather sympathetic as well).

When they are, of course the Worker benefits. Healthcare and Airline employees seem to fall into this camp.

▲

glasss 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think on average it's a safer assumption that the union made up of your peers are more aligned with your interests than the owners of the company are.

All of my friends that are teachers do admit their union has flaws, but also are very grateful to have strong contracts, benefits, and people willing to fight for them when the school system tries to screw them over.

▲

baconsunday 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is that actually the case for the tech unions that actually exist, though? Historically, the people pushing for tech unionization were doing it for ideological reasons, not in response to the relatively recent layoffs, etc. and you can see this in their leadership.

I have a pretty simple litmus test for them: are they opposed to H1B hiring, and would they have defended James Damore when he got ousted from Google for basically being autistic? I think the answer for many of them is a resounding no.

▲

lovich 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It sounds like you’re just as ideologically in your opposition if you’re bringing up James Damore.

On opposing H1B as they are implemented now I agree with you, but in a hypothetical world with tech unions James Damore would still be advocating for large swathes of fellow union members to be removed. He was being misogynistic not “basically being autistic”.

▲

baconsunday 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think that Damore was stupid for writing and posting it internally and disagree with portions of it, but almost all of the reactions I saw to his manifesto were to third-hand misrepresentations of it or willful misreadings of it. (e.g. him referring to population statistics on neuroticism being interpreted as him saying that his female coworkers were neurotic). I think your reply is the perfect example: he wasn't advocating for women to be 'removed', he was arguing that DEI efforts to try to get a 50/50 male/female balance are fundamentally misguided because not as many women want to work in tech as men.

But whether or not you agree with him, you should agree with the idea that one of the primary jobs of a union would have been to give him a fair defense regardless of whether the union leadership likes him or not. I don't think any of the tech unions would do that.

edit: Let me put it this way. Suppose you make an post in an internal politics discussion forum saying that you oppose the H1B program as it is, and then get fired because people claim that you hate immigrants and want your fellow coworkers to be deported. Do you think these unions would defend you?

	▲	defrost 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Suppose you make an post in an internal politics discussion forum saying that you oppose the H1B program as it is, and then get fired because people claim that you hate immigrants and want your fellow coworkers to be deported. Do you think these unions would defend you? In the real world case of long standing Teachers Unions in Australia (they vary by state) it is literally impossible to answer such a question on the basis of such a shallow construct. The answer is both Yes and No - in any specific case the individual circumstances would be looked at - eg: as laid out Yes, they defend, however in most IRL cases the circumstances on the ground are far more complex, and it wouldn't be uncommon for a bunch of fellow peer union member coworkers to speak up in favour of not defending.
	▲	lovich 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Let me put it this way. Suppose you make an post in an internal politics discussion forum saying that you oppose the H1B program as it is, and then get fired because people claim that you hate immigrants and want your fellow coworkers to be deported. Do you think these unions would defend you? Yea. But if I made a claim that h1b holders were biologically disinclined to not be as capable of doing software, I wouldn’t. Damore was just a misogynist.

▲

Lonestar1440 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the case of many teachers, there is no "company". The union fights valiantly against the State, and against the pay structure Voters democratically select for their public servants.

Further, I posit that existence of such Unions serves as an incentive for voters not to simply assign more pay and benefits to such servants directly. Mayors and Governors know that it's always going to be a "Union game" and all they can do is negotiate - even when they're Progressives who actually want to pay teachers well.

It just gets worse when it's Cops instead of State School teachers.

Big assumption about "interests" lead to bad analysis, in my experience.

▲

kaoD 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You have to join the Union, after all

Uh, how? This might be a country thing but you don't have to join any union in my country. You do, if they represent your interests. Big companies have multiple, competing unions, and the anarchists (which refuse state subsidies and are fully self-funded) are pretty good at what they do.

If you have to join a union isn't that essentially a racket?

	▲	satvikpendem 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Of course, and that's why some people are opposed to a union, but then others say you're just falling for propaganda or some such nonsense if you deign to have any, even small, criticism of unions.
	▲	Lonestar1440 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> If you have to join a union isn't that essentially a racket? Yes, this is a big part of my critique. I'm no lawyer and can't provide a useful explanation of the "why", but literally every educator I know is in the Educator's union. Same with Cops and Nurses. I don't know any airline pilots but I understand it's the same way.
	▲	none2585 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Some jobs it is mandatory to join the union in America anyway

▲

nonethewiser 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You just described why workers should want a union. But that's not what determines whether or not unions will catch on in the industry. Thats determined by the structure of the industry. If its not critical and there are plenty of replacements waiting to take your job, unionization just wont take off on a large scale.