Slashdot Mirror
The Jungle
asterisk5 writes: "The New Republic has an article from Seattle about the unions moving into new economy companies. Good stuff about the rise and fall of the Bezos cult of personality." When the illusions are stripped away, it's not pretty...
> Talented programmers will always be in short
> supply
The same was said about aerospace engineers too.
You can pick any of the 'professional' positions
and pretty much every one of them went thru
a boom similar to programmers.
I really don't think our profession is somehow
intrinsically resistant to supply/demand.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
Well said. I think part of the problem is /.'er is relatively young.
that the typical
They have only seen the upside of the boom
and have never had to experience the eventual
fall. Supply/demand will catch up with us.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
I agree. I work for a County government in IS, and all County employees are supported by a Union, though they are not compelled to pay dues if they don't want. I am trying to convince our Union to "spin off" the tech positions to a separate bargaining unit because of the high demand for techs. And to start demanding management-type perks such as "Professional Improvement" allotments; money for home PCs, car allowances, etc. I think that a technology-saavy union could coerce our County management that it is cheaper/better to retain good talent than to have to train new people every six months. We are certainly underpaid, relative to Real World tech salaries, but there are other perks (training being paramount) that make this place attractive. If there was a clear career path and special incentives to stay long enough to reach senior positions, we would not lose so much talent to Silicon Valley. Everyone talks about mobility as if it were a great tool for techs. I do not want to relocate at all. This is my home town, I have a young child, my family is here, etc. I want to try to improve my workplace rather than having to move or commute in order to be happy. My union gives me the ability to influence my employer beyond what my single position could ever do. It extends my reach.
"I like to play with things a while... before annihilation!" Ming the Merciless
No, it's not resistent to supply/demand. But if you really look at what's out there, there's a big supply of moron programmers, and a trickle of good ones.
It's going to take years, if not a decade, for our CS programs to improve and the graduates to improve. Post-graduate technical programs will also have to proliferate since universities aren't going to teach applied technologies like how to administer Windows NT, Oracle, or how to program an enterprise system with EJB.
-Stu
"But these guys aren't trying to get that -- they're trying to go back to the old days, where philosophy majors answer the phones sipping their latte's while debating the finer points of Aristotilian thought. "
Ok I'll let this one go because it's idiotic and it's a blatant lie
"I don't believe it is in any employee's best interest to organize when it's self-defeating -- i.e. it will cripple or destroy the company."
So what? People should have the right to extract their revenge on their employers especially if the employers are acting like morons. Revenge is a perfectly good motivation for doing something. If the company is cutting costs then it's dying anyways. All the people who work there (except the management) will get screwed over when the bigwigs cash out. Once the telltale signs of inept management start the employees should immediately organize and start fighting to get any piece of the carcass they can. It's either that or get shafted. The employees of any company do not owe that company anything. No allegience, no loyalty, no mercy. If you don't like your bosses or if they are treating you like you don't want to be treated you SHOULD fight back as hard as you can. Simply quitting does no good because they will get their jollies beating up whoever replaces you. It's better to organize and fight back because it makes their lives harder and it's only fair to give them headaches. Quitting simply encourages them to treat other people like shit too.
"I think you're tremendously simplifying the situation to state that management at Amazon don't have a clue to run a business. They obviously do know how to run a business -- they've taken what was in 1994 an insane idea, and turned themselves into the leading online retailer. They're also far from going under. No I'm not an investor in Amazon, but I am a satisfied customer. "
In the entire history of the company it has never turned a profit. It's prospects for turning a profit are dimmer then ever. It has basically spent the investors money to try and establish themselves and has failed miserably. If a company is unable to make a profit in six years it's fair to call the management inept and stupid. They have not only failed their employees they have failed their stockholders as well. This company is going to die pretty soon now and hundreds of people are going to be out of jobs except of course the top level management. They have already cashed out. At this stage they have nothing to lose.
War is necrophilia.
You did not pay attention to a god damned word he said. These are unskilled workers probably making shittier wages than the average techie kid straight out of high school. It's a choice between moving boxes in Amazon's sweatshops or flipping burgers in McDonalds. These people have to feed their families. They don't have the choice of the 22 year old yuppie kid who can "bend his boss over the table" and ask for a 100% raise. If they said something stupid like that to their boss they'd be told "Fine.. there are 200 more wetbacks coming in off the boat tomorrow who can fling a box around just as good as you do. Get the hell out of here." Remember, not all people are techies in these companies. They actually have to work for a living and do manual labor to put food on their table. Just consider yourself damned lucky you learned a useful skill and aren't in their position so you have the choice.
Well, if some random anonymous person on Slashdot "knows" it's true, that's all the proof I need.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
"...'Twas I who did arrange/To pay my union dues so I'd/Not have to learn or change..." --Todd Rundgren, "Honest Work"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/Digital/Update/2 001-02/amazon030201.shtml
You will forget this sig before you next see it
My sister is an (traditional) animator and is in the Cartoonists Union.
I don't recall her ever complaining about it being expensive or hard entering the union.
The work itself was harder to get than the union membership.
In Animation you frequently get laid off at the end of the film. Then your off for several months.
Then you might be working for a different studio next time.
You get your benefits through the union.
Being in the union does not prevent you from taking non-union work.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
I'd agree that most conditions unions at one point protected workers against are now covered by other protections. We do owe a LOT to the people who helped make things as good as they are these days and in some lines of work I can where unions might still be useful.
However in tech work I refuse to pay any stupid fees to a union that may or may not work to my best interest. I am smart enough to make my own demands to my employee and if they don't meet my demands to my satisfaction I'm sure I can find someone else who will. Every day I increase my knowledge and experience which increases my value and career options. If I get to a point where my worth isn't clear enough to my employer for them to keep me happy and I can't find a better job elsewhere then to me that is a clear indication that I need to get myself in gear and find out what I'm doing wrong. Laziness is my own fault.
Rather than have a union I'd be interested in seeing not for profit groups take hold to help techies train and find jobs as well as helping people from other backgrounds revamp their careers by adding techie skills. Possibly a workers union for foreign workers at US tech companies would be useful as I've seen them exploited sometimes due to the fact they have a lot fewer options to jump to someone elses train if desired.
I guess IF the unions were available on an opt-in basis only then I'd be cool with it. If I was forced to join to work in the tech industry I'd be rather pissed and probably spend a great amount of time trying to waste the resources of the union and otherwise poisoning it.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Ok I'll let this one go because it's idiotic and it's a blatant lie
No, it's not. Read the article.
Beyond the rest of it, I disagree with you, and I think you're tremendously off base with your opinions and perception of reality. I think you're tremendously simplifying the situation by saying they should fight over the remains of the carcass, when no carcass exists. Obviously you've written Amazon off, but I think this is a trigger-happy conclusion. Top management has not cashed out. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but they're not of this world.
I think amazon's prospects for turning a profit are above average, considering its recent quarterly results and conservative plans that point to profitability in 2002. Some analysts agree, some don't. But to have as resolute an opinion as yours is tantamount to teenage naivity.
Good day.
-Stu
0xA wrote "What good will a union do for these people?"
Maybe you should have read the article you linked to:
"It's going to cost them a great deal in the short term to put the savings through," said Michael Dean, analyst with Merrill Lynch in London. "They still have to pay blue collar workers they lay off 95 percent of their wages."
How many places pay you 95% of your wages until the end of your contract if you are laid off?
> there's a big supply of moron programmers, and
> a trickle of good ones
amen brother.
> It's going to take years, if not a decade, for
> our CS programs to improve
I'll give it 2 or 3 years. Last year when
I was looking in to grad schools, I noticed that
a lot of the undergraduate MIS programs (well,
3 schools in Oklahoma) were teaching courses like
"MS Visual C++", "Visual Programming" (ie vb),
"DBMS" (oracle & sql server).
Job placement courses rather than comp. sci.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
What I'd like to know is what tech workers think of the role unions could play in eliminating certain kind of contracts employers require before hiring new workers. I'm not too familiar with the non-competing and non-disclosure agreements, but they sound like they could have a very negative impact on tech workers after being laid-off; how do these agreements affect the job opportunities of people looking for new jobs? People who work in particular industries gain experience they can use on a resume for a future job; the labor they produce helps them acquire new knowledge and new experience. But with these agreements, it appears that tech workers are forbidden to use some of these skills and knowledges in the future. Often an explanation is given that they produced technologies in time paid for by company capital, but I believe that explanation always overlooks the role of the individual workers. Unions can be a way to protect workers' rights, especially tech workers. Remember, a union is made up, organized, and governed by the workers who form it. Tech workers arguing that unions shouldn't exist in the tech industry are basically arguing they couldn't form a positive organization protecting their interests--you know, a community. I am part of a union of student workers in the UC system, and it has a great administration, a very good contract, and it's a wonderful way to protect our rights. It's funny because the only departments we can't really draw student workers from for the union is the CS department. The reasons they cite for not joining are generaly contradictory and vague; "I just don't like unions", "Why should I join since you guys already won a good contract", "I just don't want to", etc. Sometimes I ask them if they're familiar at all with these agreements tech companies require to be signed before employment, and no one yet has said they've heard of them. I explain what I do know, and how getting involved with our union (which they are already, since they have to pay Fair Share according to state law) would not only give them a voice in what we do, but give them experience they could use for later, when they enter the work force. Perhaps they're not interested because most of them come from well-off, privileged families, so they never experienced any forms of labor abuse before; their parents may be management types who are strongly anti-union. Who knows? Usually they decline because of a watered-down second-hand libertarian ethic, the kind of politics companies can really profit from by promoting. I'm interested in hearing more about hands-on experience in organizing tech workers and the ups and downs about that, rather than tech workers are in principle against organizing for their interests and don't know much about it.
You are assuming that business will always do what is right. Time and time again business has proven when left to themselves they will not do what is right either for their employees or their customers. Minimun wage, child labor laws and work place safty regulations were all implemented because business proved they could not be trusted to do what was right for their employees. The $70,000 a year engineer doesn't need much protection, he can probably get a job anywhere. But the poor sucker working down in the shipping department making $16,000 a year does, because he can be replaced easily, regardless of how well he does his job. Same goes for that Customer Service representive who makes $28,000 a year, whose job can be done by someone in India for $2,000 a year. Do you think the CEO cares whether the he is good at his job or not, no all he knows is he is saving $26,000 a year.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
And I'll say to you: Horseshit. I'm far from a manager, and I've had to deal with this situation. Can't touch it because the union is responsible for it. I'm not even going to bother mentioning details for your perusal, because I know it's commonplace. Yes, it is used as an excuse by lots of manager-types, but it's real just as often as it's a fabrication.
Slashdotters may think unions are bad, but that's likely the result of the massive spending of corporations and lobbying efforts to spread anti-union propaganda. It's been a fairly good investment, because so many people actually believe it: they think that organizing themselves and protecting their rights and interests are examples of bad behavior. The idea of a union is fairly simple, but media organizations and politicians have been successful at linking the word to images of grossly undemocratic and corrupt organizations. Of course, there have been and are corrupt unions, but that shouldn't implicate the idea itself. There is much more everday evidence implicating the structure of the modern corporation to a grossly undemocratic organization that encourage labor inequalities. But, like I said, the investment in anti-union propaganda has had a great return: now many people actually argue that the communities they spend most of their day in (corporations) shouldn't be democratic.
How exactly did unions help the 26,000 workers who just lost their jobs at Chrysler? Here's a quote from CNN telling you what a great job they did:
The United Auto Workers union, which represents hourly workers in the United States, had no immediate comment on the closings and staffing cuts.
No comment, eh? Wow, there's a powerful statement. Gotta have those guys on my side, I tell ya. I keep seeing all this pro-union schtick, but it's awfully silent about how ineffective unions seem to be these days in the places they're already in effect.
What's your damage, Heather?
Amazon is struggling to even stay in business. Do the unions care at all about that? No. Those guys don't even stop to think about how they can help make Amazon a success. Instead, all they care about is themselves. They'll take the whole company down in order to make sure that they get what they want, even if it hurts a lot of hard-working people with families to support - hard working people who are doing good things for Amazon, rather than trying to spread the cancer of a union.
As a person who's started up companies before, I know that it takes a tremendous amount of cooperation and drive to make that company a success. If everyone isn't playing on the same team, even great prospects can quickly sour. Unions act only to divide the company up between "us" and "them".
Just take the primary subject of that article, Alan Barclay. He was planning things, talking with people, firing off emails, and generally focusing himself upon setting up a union. Hey, here's a tip, Alan: Maybe if you had spent all that energy on making Amazon more of a success, you wouldn't have gotten laid off. Odds are, you and a couple malcontents were starting to make yourselves dispensable. Next time, throw some of that energy into your job.
Especially in this day and age when anyone with technical skills is highly valued throughout the market, unions are evil parasites.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Of course your opinion of a company will dramatically change when you get issued a pink slip by them. Of course his writings would change from, "I wish that every e-commerce company would adopt Amazon.com's practices," to, "DIE, BEZOS! DIE!"
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
You can believe whatever you want and I can believe whatever I want but it does not matter. What really matters is what the employees of amazon (or any other company) feel. After all they know better then anybody the pulse of the company.
The bigwigs at amazon got stock options and sold off stock at $400.00. They got cold hard cash for that. Maybe they bought a million dollar house maybe they bought a bentley maybe they spent it in las vegas it does not matter. They got their cash out fo the company. The poor slobs stuffing boxes got jack shit. All they got was their near minimum wage job. If they feel like company is about to go under it's in their best intetest to form a union and fight for whatever they can get. No it won't be a million dollar house but maybe it will be enough money to pay the bills for a month while they look for another job.
In our capitalist society it's every man for himself. Unfortunately the lowly worker has no weapons to fight the management unless they organize. Once the ship starts sinking nobody will try to haul the drowning people into their lifeboats. Not one manager or major stockholder will offer to put an employee up for a couple of weeks because they are broke and can't feed their kids. You either get organized and fight like hell or drown in the wake of the yacths the management is using to flee the wreckage.
Ask any corporation CEO (or a liberterian) and they'll tell you the same thing. The company owes you jack shit. You only get what you can negotiate. They don't like unions because it empowers the workers to negotiate better deals.
War is necrophilia.
sary still.
Unions aren't generally good, or generally bad; neither are corporations. So the argument over whether we need unions or not is pointless. We need them just as much as we need corporations and as much as we need computers, or any other product of our civilization.
I think that unions do the best job when they are not part of a company. A company is then free to organise working conditions so that workers do not need or want to unionise.
I'm fairly far along getting my Computer Engineering degree now, but I have worked as a cashier in the past. I worked for Zellers Inc in Ontario, Canada, which was a fine example of what a company does to productively fend off a union. This is a discount department store of the "old economy", and they're not as backward as you may think.
The employees had monthly meetings with management where their opinions were heard and addressed. The atmosphere was relaxed, yet schedules were made by management so that all the shift time would be appropriately covered. The store offered health coverage plans rivaling that of unionised establishments (in Canada this entails a dental plan and a drug puchase reimbursement plan - basic health coverage is "free"). They organised employee social events, and generally were nice to the employees.
This courteous and professional way of dealing with employees paid off when a union approached the employees. In Ontario it is illegal for management to attack a union even by rhetoric. All the manager could say was, "In the next few weeks you are going to see a lot of flyers and you are going to be approached by union recruiters who are going to try to unionise this store, we are not allowed to interfere with that or to discourage you from listening to them. Obviously we think that a union is not necessary, but you choose to unionise we can do nothing about it."
And so the recruiters went to work. The employees were told that they are getting paid less than their peers in unionised stores. And seniority would count more. But that's as far as the argument seemed to go.. The health benefits were great, the work environment was pleasant. The full time employees voted against unionizing in the poll.
The fact that there was a threat of a union was enough for the management of the department store to adapt appropriate workplace conditions to make a polarized union-management ensemble unnecessary. Without this threat, management would be much less inclined to compete with unionized (read diseased) companies.
The UAW, for example, does offer enormous pay to the employees. A friend of mine got $21 CAD an hour for a summer job at Toyota with no experience on the job.. But this kind of windfall is only possible because somehow the UAW became a monopoly. No car manufacturer may exist without its labour being in the UAW. Parts suppliers are also forced to belong to the UAW or else the employer may not buy parts. The only reason that the American auto makers are still in business is because somehow it is unlawful to compete with a UAW member plant.
The situation is no better - and possibly worse - than the M$ monopoly. This is because the UAW monopoly is legislated.
So unions can be just as bad, or worse, than bad corporations.
Janimal
You seem to feel that the corporation has a right to do whatever it wants to assure it's survival even if it means replacing their employees with third world labor. If that is the case why would you begrudge the employees the same right? If the corporation has the right to organize, plan and execute an operation which would financially cripple human beings why don't those human beings have the same right to organize, plan and execute a plan that may cripple the corporation?
It's a two way street. Corporation has to survive but so do the employees. The amazon.com employees know the business is going to fail any day now and they will all be on the street. This is not because they failed to pack enough books in an hour it's because the management didn't have a clue of how to run a business that can turn a profit. They have all been living high on the hog using investors money. They have already cashed out, they have their million dollar houses and bmws the employees OTOH will get jack shit when the company finally goes under.
A union represents the best (maybe only) chance they have to try and make best out of a crappy situation.
War is necrophilia.
"Unions were necessary a century or so ago, when we didn't have the tremendous opportunity of mobility and communication that we do in our present society. Today, unions are as anachronistic to a good economy as homeopathy is to good medicine."
As long as corporations organize to keep workers wages as low as possible unions will be needed to organize workers to keep wages as high as possible.
War is necrophilia.
"we all have an abundance of choices."
Shouldn't one of those choices be to form or join a union?
War is necrophilia.
Yep. Worked out swell in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. No wait, that's not quite right. The elite *STILL* had power and privilege while the disadvantaged *STILL* couldn't feed families and lived 4 families in a two bedroom apartment. But hey, the hours were great!
0 20 901.shtml
To find out what the left and Unions are up to (when not rigging elections, stealing dues and splitting to Brazil, selling missile and nuclear technology to the Chinese for Campaign cash or stealing everything not nailed down in the Whitehouse):
read Horowitz's "Politics of Bad Faith"
or
Jonah Goldberg's recent column
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
Where do you think new innovations come from? Sure, we see lots of stuff come out of commercial companies and small garages--but only if it's cheap to produce and there is a market. The people who spend the big bucks researching new technology are often professors at research universities thanks to government grant money. Who else has the means to even try some of this stuff? The commercial sector sure isn't going to waste money on advanced R&D (unless they are IBM or Bell Labs or something). Small companies don't have the resources. And besides, often advanced R&D doesn't pay for itself. So without all these supposedly leeching academia I think you'd find that life wouldn't be much better than it was 200 years ago.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Ever since the Satanic Mills of 19th century Lancashire, which were so wonderfully described in the literature of the period, companies and corporations have tried to stop their workers from unionising and gaining their rights to protect themselves from abuse by their employer. It is thanks to their struggles, and the efforts of people such as Keir Hardie, that we enjoy the freedoms we do today.
So why are people so complacent about the unions these days in the tech industry? A modern technological company has just as much motivation to deny the rights of its workers as did the coal mines and weaving mills of 1820's Britain.
Even if you have no intention of ever using your union, it is best to join it anyway, so as to provide it some support. You may need it one day, after all.
I know that many here on Slashdot consider unions to be beyond the pale, and be instruments of socialism, but in reality they are the devices of a free nation and a free minded people. This is why governments and corporations try and stamp them out.
In many ways, the modern workers union is like the 'well armed militia' described in the constitution, and we should protect it as such.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
A union can only succeed in its stated goals if it can establish a monopoly over labor. Market monopolies are rare to nonexistent. If you support the success of unions, then you support a government-propped-up monopoly of unions over labor. If you simply wish people to be free to unionize if they wish, then more power to you.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Unions in technology area BAD idea. Tech labor is still way too valuable, and techs hold most of the power. You don't /have/ to work 70 hour weeks in this industry. The people who do usually want to because they expect a big payoff (IPO what have you).
RIGHT ON! My girlfriend works for a unionized company, but I don't. My company just got taken over by a bigger one, and when I told my boss I wanted a 100% pay raise to go along to the new company, he had to scrape his jaw off the floor. I got it, because he knew I was worth it, and he didn't have a choice, because other people were jumping ship rather than relocate.
But if I'd have been a member of a union, I'd have been screwed, because my pay rates would have been locked down. I would have had to go through a chain of people to get any negotiating done, and everybody else would have wanted a piece of the same action I got. No way, folks, I work hard for ME, not for anybody else. If you want to get ahead, you just work hard. Amazing how people will take care of you if you're actually worth something to the company.
Besides, all these companies that are laying people off just plain wouldn't have hired so many if they had unions, anyway. My girlfriend is overworked to death, because her bosses would rather pay union overtime than risk hiring more union staff - people they can't lay off when times get thin. Does she like the overtime? No. Can she do anything about it? No, because her union bosses tell her that's the way the contract got negotiated, and it protects her job. Whoop-dee-doo. In the free market, she could bend her boss over the table, but not with a union.
Don't get me wrong, unions are great in certain circumstances. If you're an unskilled worker, and you want to protect your job, it's awesome. If you don't have the ability to go out and get another job easily, they're the best. But for tech people, who can find another job at the drop of a hat, they're a pain in the butt and a barrier to better wages.
What's your damage, Heather?
I've been a computer geek for over decades, and until recently have felt that labor unions have no place in the tech industry.
The reason I felt this way was largely a result of my (admittedly superficial) encounters with unions thus far. For example, if you are exhibiting at a computer show, you're not allowed to touch your own stuff. You are required to hire Teamsters to carry your stuff in and out of the building. Once your equipment is in your booth, you are not allowed to plug it in; you have to hire a member of the electrician's union to do that for you. Depending on the city in which your exhibiting, this process can be anywhere between a minor hassle and a sadistic nightmare only hinted at in Terry Gilliam's Brazil. You're busy, you're trying to get stuff done. But if you even think about doing something that's Somebody Else's Job, they'll jump down your throat.
Another fine example of excessive union activity is in the motion picture industry. This little excerpt from the film, The Wizard of Speed and Time should give you an idea of what it's like:
Director's Union Office:
"Hello, hi."
"Can I help you?"
"Uh. yeah, how do I join the Director's Union?"
"You need bring a copy of the D-O-mumble signed by your studio producer before you can pay your initiation fees and be cleared by union council, thank you..."
"Uh, excuse me, what's the initiation fee?"
"Seven thousand dollars, with a hundred dollar application fee, two hundred dollars every quarter, and ten percent of your salary."
"Seven thousand dollars! What is that for?"
"That's the amount you pay to get into our union."
"Well, what is it, like Social Security? I get it back when I retire?"
"Absolutely not! What is your classification?"
"Well, I'm directing special effects with a small crew."
"Well, then you must have an Assistant Director, a Second AD, and a UPM, all signed with the DUA."
"All I'm directing is animation!"
"Well, then discuss that with the Animator's Union."
Animator's Union Office:
"So, uh, what's your animation classification, huh?"
"Well, a lot of everything. Cartooning, kinestasis, rotoscoping, stop-motion..."
"WOAH! Well, cartoon animation alone is twenty-one hundred dollars, plus a fifty dollar entry fee, and a hundred dollar quarterly dues."
"Well, what about filming animation?"
"Well, then ya go to the Camera Union."
Camera Union Offices:
"No sir, the studio hires the next man on the roster."
"Well, how do I get on the roster?"
"You have to be in the union."
"Well, how do I get in the union?"
"When you're on the roster."
"You mean I can't join unless I'm already a member?"
"That's correct. Then you need thirty consecutive days camera operation, a complete physical exam, the producer sends a letter, and you pay your fees"
"Well, fine, I've done ten years of camera work!"
"Then you've worked in violation of seniority! You'll have to start all over as a film loader."
"Look, I'm just building a small set and filming it!"
"That's entirely another union! Set and Modelmakers. Next door."
I see software engineering as a primarily creative exercise. I don't especially want some self-appointed organization telling me what kind of work I can and can't do, and for whom.
However, I've recently come to the opinion that unions may well have a place in the tech industry, most particularly in the support sector. Some months ago, there was a Slashdot story about a guy's experience as a phone tech support person. I found the environment described utterly horrible. Individuality is forbidden; lying to customers ("Are you a supervisor?") is encouraged, the company has no loyalty toward its employees, the system is setup assuming people are going to be used up, burned out, and tossed aside. And if the quality of service sucks, that doesn't matter. Call volume is what matters; let's churn those calls through, people. Hang up in the middle if you have to, helping the customer is not the object of the game here, it's cranking those numbers...
I think that's reprehensible. This is not Dickensian England, this is 21st century America. I think a labor union representing phone tech support people would not only improve their working conditions, but also improve the quality of customer support. I'm sure there are several other low-level areas in the tech industry that could benefit from collective bargaining.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
In other words, no, you don't support the freedom to work. Why don't you just come out and say it?
Why should I have to pay for the righ to work?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the world economy goes into deep recession for a while, Deep enough to remove demand for programmers or other "computer geeks."
I know it's a stretch. Most of us have never seen a bear market before, let alone a deep recession, and so it is hard to imagine one.
Suppose now that a firm is contracting, and laying off tech workers. Do you know which ones will be the first to go? I'll tell you this much-- it won't be based on ability. It will be based on price and seniority, where price is base pay, and seniority is the degree to which an employee has ingratiated himself to his superiors. Does your boss like you?
Programming, for all of its fascinations, is not brain surgery. An average person can, in a year or less, learn enough programming to acomplish 80% of the tasks that corporations assign to programmers. For the rest of the work, graduate students are sought.
In a deep recession, and without unions, the programmers with jobs will be the ones who majored in communications (aka "advertising" or "self promotion") and then learned VB from a book or at the local community college.
Missing something? No, I suppose you have the same customer service bias most socially-clueless techboys manifest.
I'm sure that the level of technical skill involved in customer service work at Amazon varied. However, from a classification perspective, because they worked in a technical field, almost certainly performing much of their job with the assistance of computers, and probably answering at least some questions about the technology -- web-site issues, etc -- they're knowledge workers. They're using their brains, not their hands. Get it?
What concerns me more is the underlying contempt for technical support and customer service workers that seems endemic to the industry, as indicated by your post and the responses to it. It's because of such contempt that so many of the workers at this level feel under-appreciated. The fact is, most of the very people who whine about customer service being unskilled don't have the very skills that make a good customer service tech -- they may be able to hack code, but they can't hack people, or social situations.
While you could say that amounts to stereotyping geeky techboys, I can promise you the smooth, comfortable-with-customers-and-people programmers are outnumbered by the socially-inept by at least 50 to 1.
So, what does this mean? It demonstrates that the programming and IT elite have lost the courtesy of respect that has traditionally been the appropriate response tradespeople give each other. The stonemason and the glassmaker have different skills, but both can be respectful of the other. Yes, there are inept, stupid customer service folk; there are also inept, stupid programmers writing bloated inelegant code, too. However, there are wizards and gurus in both fields. The elite customer service folk deserve reciprocal respect from their programming counterparts.
I didn't get that at all from his post. All he's saying is that the "high-tech union" movement we've been hearing about recently generally involves employees in positions that correspond directly to positions in traditional industries. He didn't say those people were stupid or incopetent, just that referring to them as "high tech workers" is somewhat misleading. By your definition, everyone who is not a physcial laborer is a "knowledge worker", making the term meaningless.
I can promise you the smooth, comfortable-with-customers-and-people programmers are outnumbered by the socially-inept by at least 50 to 1.
And I'm sure you have evidence to back that up. Your complaints about alleged lack of respect would be much more effective if they were not filled with ad hominem attacks and blatant stereotyping.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Knowledge worker doesnt really mean you are knowledgeable. A lot of people that fit the description (i.e working in internal development and so on..) are not very highly educated, but just people that have some form of experience. The computer industry, and especially coders are often people who are self learned, and therefore not knowledgeable per se, if you define knowledge as something measured by public institutions, if you dont, you are probably assuming theese workers are to semi-dumb I think the definition is in what sector the persons work, what qualities are regarded as important within this business. The dominant businesses in the tech age are IT firms, and everyone working in theese businesses are "Knowledge workers" because they all make the wheels go around in that part of the economy. Unions are good ideas, because, face it; if you are 18-30 years old, and a hot shot, you pretty much can demand what you like from your employeer, but your time is short, because there are hordes of other 18 years that are ready to take your place for much less pay, not to talk about more skilled high tech workers from developing countries..wouldnt you wish you had some rights ? Who will fight for you when your firm is acking to replace you because you need some time off to take care of your family after spending 2 days at the office..
There is a difference between what you want to do, and what you can do.
Price had assured nervous employees just six weeks earlier that the company had no immediate plans for layoffs.
Should've asked him to define "Immediate"...
Having been through four mergers/takeovers, you stop believing anything management has to say, particularly when the company's going down the crapper.
He wanted to bring the company back to its early, heady days when philosophy majors eagerly manned the phones and managers worked hand in hand with frontline employees. Barclay didn't just consider Amazon's recent turn toward corporate hierarchy, rigid work rules, and outsourcing a personal betrayal; he considered it a betrayal of the company itself.
This guy is angry at Amazon because it couldn't create utopia. Doesn't this strike anyone at a tad bit unfair? There were massive political movements, much bigger and larger in historical importance than Amazon, whose purpose it was to create utopia.
Utopian politics has failed. "Salvation" will not come from society, or from a for-profit company.
What's more, the doomed Seattle division included some of Amazon's most senior employees--people like Barclay, a company old-timer at 33 months--whose institutional knowledge and superior skills supposedly made them indispensable to Amazon's mission of becoming the "earth's most customer-centric company."
This article has nothing to do with customers. It has everything to do with the opinions and grumblings of the Seattle employees.
Look, there are no *right* answers when it comes to cutting costs. Clearly the Seattle center had very qualified and talented people, but they were a DRAIN on company resources both in money and politics, from my understanding. Perhaps there's more to it than that, but clearly management had to make a trade off. Was it the right one? Probably too early to say. I usually don't support layoffs unless it means the company's existence is in jeopardy. Perhaps this was true in Amazon's case.
"As an employee," he wrote me, "any illusions I might have had about the nobility of Amazon.com have been shattered."
Companies definitely should have a higher goal beyond making money -- a goal that justifies their existence in terms of what they *do* beyond making money. Companies that are in business only to "make money" will have a difficult time of things (see GM since the 1970's -- still the world's biggest company, but still slowly dying.)
And profit is the measurement of the effectiveness of that work. A bankrupt company does no one any good. Wall Street gave Amazon a long time to operate in the red, but it slapped it with a ruler to say "get profitable -- now".
The nature of the corporation is that it is very rare be a pillar for "noble" causes. One can only be noble only if one is, and has traditionally been, a continually profitable company.
So yes, Alan Barclay & co. were hopelessly naive. So too, apparently, is Jonathan Cohn, the author of this piece.
The new, information-age economy required workers with greater skills than, say, your typical stock boy or secretary. To attract such people, companies would offer lavish benefits and unparalleled creative freedom. The regimented, top-down management structure of yesteryear would disappear, replaced by a new paradigm of fluid, democratic workplaces where even frontline workers received autonomy, high wages, and partial ownership of the company via stock options.
No, Jon, that's the romantic view of the new economy. People got really carried away with themselves. A lot of these issues really need to be thought through still.
We know the economy is changing. It's becoming more knowledge-based, which places emphasis on the brain instead of "making and moving things". Indeed, the real "scarcity" in the digital age is going to be talent and creativity.
The trick is that it's going to take time to figure out how to operate under these changes. Increasing the productivity of knowledge workers is one of the biggest problems we have right now -- and we're trying lots of ways to accomplish it, including workplace democracy, etc.
The trouble is, there are always downsides to these solutions. Workplace democracy, for instance, assumes that one can just vote managerial responsibility out of existence. This doesn't work in the real world -- there needs to be an entity in the organization that is responsible for performance.
Galli, who had spent the last 19 years at Black & Decker, wasted no time in imposing business discipline.
Certainly, Amazon has made major mistakes: bringing Galli on board was tantamount to placing a revolver against the head of the company's culture.
But at the same time, one needs to balance that with the need to be profitable. Galli probably was one of the few who knew how to impose cost conscious procedures on a company that needed them fast. What would have preserved the company's culture more would probably have been an internal movement towards cost consciousness.. but this would have taken a tremendous amount of time over hiring someone with the skills to do this -now-. Which would have been better? I think Wall Street had lost patience with Amazon's desire to be "different" and just wanted to see results, so Galli probably was the proper choice for the time.
As for his tactics, were they really that bad? Is there something particularily wrong with allowing people in New Delhi to answer email? This is providing workers in a third world country *much needed jobs* and giving Amazon a relief value for their skyrocketing costs. It's a win/win situation, with a tradeoff that it can screw over some employees. But how else does one get profitable unless it makes difficult tradeoffs?
Also, one must temper the union apologist rhetoric with the fact that the majority of workers @ Amazon.com were *NOT* in support of a union. This was an "enlightened" (ahem) minority that was supporting it.
If Michelle Gray never grew disillusioned, it's partly because she never developed illusions in the first place. She understood that capitalism can be cold, even in the new economy. A pretty jaded perspective? You bet. And it happens to be right.
Oh, please. This is one of those "Jerry Springer" moments, the ones at the end of the show where he looks at the camera and tries to make sense of the whole situation. Jonathan Cohn is blatantly trying belittle this person because she doesn't agree with his views that a union is a Good Thing. He's making light of the fact that the world is a complex place that requires complex and difficult decisions and trade-offs, with sometimes *no right answer*. A union wouldn't change that, it would merely provide an illusion.
Perhaps that's the whole point of his article -- it's somehow more intelligent and noble to have an romantic illusion of what the new economy is than to deal in reality. I don't know why, but I perfer dealing in reality -- it leads to fewer letdowns.
-Stu
If you understand that those who hold power usually abuse it, you will be pro-union. If you think that the individual can have as much power as institutional authority, you believe there is no need for unions.
All I know is that this country was built on a balance of power and checks and balances. A balance of power cannot be a bad thing. Unions are good.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
I mean, who _else_ would be so likely to accept the notion that Free Trade means, "Ever lose your job to a guy in Korea who works 18 hours a day in leg shackles for a bowl of rice, because he's cheaper to hire than you? YOU WILL!"
One thing Marx missed, however- he's assuming an _industrial_ proletariat. This is railroad-era thinking: this is a condemnation of capitalism in which the barriers for entry are as high as, say, a software company wanting to sell a new word processor. When Marx was writing this stuff, access to industrialisation was severely limited, networking was severely restricted, and your marketing was entirely a matter of brick-and-mortar installations, a whole network that had to be supported. This is why small craftsmen were ground under the wheels.
2001 turns out to have eBay and UPS and Napster and Slashdot and Linux (as examples of these _types_ of services). Marx would've loved Linux: it's controlled by the proletariat and gives all the tools of virtual industrialization to the proletariat. This is a really big difference from the industrial-age world Marx knew. How big, remains to be seen. Clearly, the bourgeoisie still retains a lot of power to put up barriers to entry- we see this most easily with Microsoft trying to technically produce obstacles for Linux, because they are unusually aggressive for bourgeoisie. But it's also seen in the consolidation of vast media empires that control what we hear and see for news and entertainment. Yet, at the same time, the foundations are crumbling, and individuals, artisans, craftsmen such as Marx talks about, begin to have an unprecedented ability to network with clients, customers, helpers across the globe, and the ability to interact AS IF they were industrial titans, in some cases.
An example: suppose you make cars, and you need a certain steel bracket. Traditionally, you need to order 100,000 of these brackets from somebody, or invest in the heavy machinery to fabricate them yourself. Either way, someone makes lots of brackets and keeps them in warehouses and they sell, or not. But with computerised order fulfillment systems (not to mention computerised fabricate-to-order systems!) you can order 100. Possibly in the future you can order 10- or 1- without nasty price hikes. Compare the history of record and CD pressing with mp3.com's pioneering 'DAM' CD system, which is now widely imitated and improved upon, and which allows fabrication of _single_ CDs for order fulfillment- or the history of T-shirt and mug printing with CafePress, which likewise allows fabrication of _single_ items for order fulfillment.
These issues _are_ the foundation of the industrial age: both ability and necessity to mass produce. Now the ability is still there- but due to the ever-increasing sophistication of the machinery, the necessity is not- which is enormously significant.
If you want the world forced into a Communist Revolution for good or ill, keep on encouraging barriers to entry, 'free trade' and the ability of large corporations to exert economic leverage against smaller players and/or individuals. Down with Napster, down with eBay, down with libraries, and everybody aboard the corporate ferryboat- which will not wait, and has no stops because you've no business choosing where you want to go!
If you want Marx to be a footnote to history, support every form of decentralisation and breaking of the barriers to entry that you can. Consider the right of a crappy garage musician to put mp3s on Napster for free as MORE important than the right of Britney Spears to earn record companies billions. Support Linux and open source and fight Microsoft's efforts to create a world where Windows is required for most internet tasks (Active Directory, etc ad infinitum). If Apple tries the same stuff, fight them too!
The only way to _make_ Marx irrelevant and useless is to _remove_ the problems he identifies, or at least have a good hard try at it. If you decide he's a creep and do everything opposite to what he demands, you are only creating the pressing need for just such a revolution as he agitates for- and that might not be the best thing. It's better to say 'No revolution here today, thank you- now here's what we'll do instead' and GO AFTER the problems he correctly identifies. Do that and all the ranting about bourgeoisie starts to look foolish. Marx is like Linux, fighting him and what he believes in only makes him stronger...
I hate big corporations, and I love the little guy, et cetera, but bigger government is not the way to go. Government power always ends up serving the powerful.
I agree - but I think we've moved into a new era where the US Government isnt even pretending to be a Free Democratic Government. "They" have abandoned the 'facade' of trying to run the country to improve the community/society.
Instead the US Gov. only concerns itself with dividing the spoils of capatalist exploitation.
I would be happy to see an end to Corporate Welfare (and end of 'Corporate Rights') and a *VERY* dramatic increase in 'Citizen Protection' Legislation (to protect environment, workers rights, etc) and a *DRAMATIC* increase in the power and scope of Anti-Trust laws.
Check out the IWW. Unions are social constructs that are beneficial to workers as corporations are social constructs that are beneficial to owner/managers. They can embody the characteristics, goals and values that those who form them have. Unions like all constructs can be useful or detrimental. I happen to believe that the existance of unions has advanced society a great deal. This is evidenced by our acceptance of 2 days off a week, payment for overtime, 40 hour work weeks and the fact that child labor is no longer accepted in developed nations.
I've read that little book, and it's complete nonsense. The central premise is that the worth of a particular philosophy or theory is derived, not from the merits of the idea itself, but from the character of its creator (i.e. - the author's opinion of him.) So, communist social theory is suspect because Marx was an indolent foreigner who pulled his statistics out of his ass and spent too much time on the couch, not because it was a vast, _vast_ oversimplification. Same goes for existentialism, which is nonsense to the author because Sartre was too free with his money and his women, and got so wrapped up in his work that he would forget to bathe. And let's not even talk about the homosexuals, like Keynes. All in all, a bad waste of time.
In other words, no, you don't support the freedom to work. Why don't you just come out and say it?
Because the phrase "freedom to work" is really just a rhetorical device -- no such freedom exists -- if it did nobody would ever be allowed to be fired because this would violate their freedom. Instead the device must be understood in terms of what it really means: enjoying the benefits of a unionized environment without actually paying for them. This is exactly like not paying taxes but enjoying the benefits of roads, police protection, and so forth.
Why should I have to pay for the righ to work?
You don't. You can always work in a non-unionized company just as you are free to move to a third world country with minimal (or no) taxes. However, taxes and dues are what provide a safer and fairer place to live or work in.
I agree with you 100% on that. But the problem here isn't that the government doesn't interfere enough, it's that the government IS interfering on the behalf of the profits. Jon Johansen was arrested by a GOVERNMENT, not a corporation that should have been stopped by the government.
I hate big corporations, and I love the little guy, et cetera, but bigger government is not the way to go. Government power always ends up serving the powerful.
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
(Keeping in mind that IANAW), maybe a new kind of union would be the solution to the tech industry. Agreed, most true knowledge jobs don't involve alot of hazardous work and usually prefer to work hours that would make the traditional 9-5 man vomit.
However, in the history of unionization, it traditionally was the more skilled jobs that unionized first. In the beginning of the century, the AFL refused to unionize unskilled workers (whom unions are most closely identified with today).
A tech union which was run by tech workers would probably respect the demands of a tech job, such as long flex hours and wavering lunch breaks. Just because it's a union doesn't mean it will turn tech jobs into unskilled jobs. They would probably be more likely to fight for things such as unlimited LAN game time and increased stock options as opposed to a set work schedule. So long as the workers can manage to curtail a union and get it to represent them (as opposed to ittself), a union would be a valueable tool in any industry.
If I could think of something pithy to say, I'd put it here. No really.
A majority of the employees in such a business as Amazon are not technology workers. They are phone support, packing, shipping, billing. Hard labor and/or mundane clerical operations. Individually, they are powerless; however, they do have the power to communicate with their fellow workers and join together to protect their rights. They should have the right to do so, read the declaration of independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Notice that governments are formed primarly to secure these unalienable Rights. Why? United we stand and divided we fall. There is no reason why Amazon should afford to pay it's top execs millions in stock options while the line workers are working in poor conditions. When you negotiate as an individual with a company, you are negotiating against a united management. It is only just and fair that individuals have the right to negotiate with management as a whole, so that the barganing power is more evenly distributed among the parties.
The author of this article is spot on. As for the author for this comment, I say, grow up.Don't tell me. Let me guess. You're the steward for your local, aren't you?
But someone who isn't a member of a union operating in a workplace shouldn't be surprised if their pay and job security is different to that of their unionised counterparts. It would seem likely that an employer looking to lay off people would seek to fire the non-unionised people (assuming the number of people in the union isn't less than the number of layoffs they want to make...) first unless they really were substantially more important than the unionised people. After all, sack 'em and what come back do they have? That's an unfortunate observation, but that's the way it would work in practice.
Well, if you're going to join a union, you should be required to pay the dues. I don't quite understand what the objection to that would be. If you want to take advantage of a service, you need to pay for your fair share. You didn't think what?--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If high tech workers are going to organize, the objective should be to become professionals like doctors rather than union members like autoworkers. Professionals are paid more, get more respect from society, and are more independent.
OpenSourcerers
Actually, I think the moral of the story was supposed to be that people tend to go with whatever is in their best interest. First, the guy had a good deal. So he laughed at the idea of unions. Then he got screwed, so he went with something that might fix his problem: a union. Ironically, this article has very little to do with unions at all. It's more about the tradgedy of those people who believed the hype.
This comment, like many in the thread, reflects the optimistic views of people that ignore history and do not yet understand how to deal with hard times.
The biggest union movement in the USA started with the great depression in the 1930's. Hiring bosses would go out in the morning and offer a wage to the lined up workers. Those that thought it too low could leave. If there were still too many people, the boss lowered the wage again and again until the work force was the right size for the day. Wages of a dollar a day, and less, were pretty common. Many hiring bosses also expected a kickback if they hired you. A job could and would be yanked at any time during the day, and there was always someone available for replacement. There were no side benefits, and injuries were the worker's problem. Safe practices were expensive, and usually ignored. Sure, being an owner or boss kept you out of this, but becoming either was no picnic. This was the province of people that had the money, and they did not welcome outsiders. They preferred passing openings to family members. Child labor was common, because some families needed every available penny to survive.
The Socialist Party, in the person of their leader, Norman Mattoon Thomas, fought these practices tooth and nail. Mr. Thomas was jailed for speaking about such radical things as a limited work week, retirement insurance for workers, no child labor, and health insurance. This extremely dangerous radical lived long enough to see every plank in his political platform become the law of the land. As an aside, he understood the evils of Russian communism, and fought it vigorously after a short visit to look at slave labor in the Russia of Stalin in 1937.
Per Mr. Thomas, Franklin Delano Roosevelt adopted all the right ideas for all the wrong reasons. The ideas worked, the depression finally broke, and unions had some legal backing. Under Harry Truman, unions were limited by the Taft-Hartley Act. The closed shop is illegal. The union shop is legal in some states. Closed shops require union membership before hiring. Union shops require membership thirty days after hiring. Unions members who do not benefit from their union have only themselves to blame. I have been as high as Shop Steward in a local, and had one of the International representatives relocated when he did not support me during a dispute.
On to the differences between companies and unions. Companies invest money and talent, and operate to make a profit. Employees invest themselves and their skills, and wish to maintain a decent standard of living. The unions organize the employees to prevent the abuses used by employers to maximize profits. This is greatly oversimplified, but basically true. Any union worth its dues will tell employees that the company must make a profit to survive. It is in the employees interest to make this profit, but see to it that it is done within the limits of the law and will allow the individual worker to make a living wage. Both sides are guilty of excess and abuses, that is why negotiations take place. Overclassification of jobs and featherbedding are known union abuses. Divide and conquer is a favorite company tactic. One ploy used by companies is,"I would pay you more, but the union won't let me." Don't listen to this. The union sets minimum wages. Any company can pay an individual more, give bonuses, and give out-of-cycle pay raises. These would cut into profits, and are quite rare. Union benefits are minimal during boom times, and priceless when the going is tough. The one point unions feel they must stand on is seniority. Other things being equal, seniority must rule. Read that sentence. Some people only read the last three words. Companies have found that establishing that things are not equal can be a legal bag of worms, and most do not try. If you are in a union, be active, and you can prosper. If you are not in a union, be very nice to the boss.
I don't want someone telling my employer that I'm only allowed to work 40 hours a week. I don't want them telling my employer that they have to keep me on staff as long as the quality of my work reaches acceptable levels of mediocrity. I want to know that the quality of my work is what matters, not the fact that I show up every once in a while and perform to a minimal acceptable standard. And most important of all, I don't want to be let go because some other employee they have can't be fired because he's been there too long, even if I am more productive.
If I want to work 80 hours a week knowing that the experience and stock options MIGHT someday make me successful, then thats my choice and not the choice of a union. If someone doesn't like it, they can switch careers. There are no illusions in the technology industry. I know that not everyone who goes into it turns out to be a millionaire after 3 years. If the fact that the average passerby thinks this and finds its not all glamour as they had expected, well SORRY. Go back to whatever it was you were doing before you made that tragic mistake. SORRY if you didn't know you might have to spend 10 years of your life sitting in your bedroom hacking on your computer into the middle of the night, forgoing a social life, to achieve what some of us have. Thats the price for some of our "overnight" successes. You should accept nothing less. And no union better tell you otherwise.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
My experience as a union member certainly isn't like this at all. Granted, it is a different environment than most union workplaces in that it is both an office environment and in the private sector, but for that it's closer to the tech environment. People do come in early or do extra unpaid work afterward. People are recognized and promoted for special effort and strong talent. One can most certainly get fired for being late or not getting one's work done. Seniority moves you up the wage grid for your particular job (provided your last yearly evaluation was positive) and gets you a better choice of vacation time and that's about it. We're certainly not having competition problems or being priced out of the market. We're highly profitable and growing strongly. Nobody would be helped by driving the company into the ground. It's about getting a fair share of the company's success even as one contributes to it. The most important benefit of having a union is that whatever happens, positive or negative, it's not arbitrary. Managers know that if they discipline someone for personal and not business reasons or if they put their best friend in a plum position without following a fair selection process, there will be trouble. I have much more confidence that things are being done fairly and for business reasons where I am now than I have in previous non-union workplaces I've been in. It is comforting to know that there is someone to turn to in the event of a dispute. That alone is well worth the dues, which at least in my case are fairly minimal (and tax-deductible). If for some reason I don't like what the union is doing, I don't have to vote for those people next year, I can support someone else with a different view for union executive or run myself. I have an equal say relative to everyone else there on what goes on, which is much more than can be said for what happens at the board of directors. Just because your skills are highly valued does not mean that you will not be treated poorly where you are now, and it always is an uncertain proposition to pick up and go elsewhere. Indeed, I understand that for very highly skilled people this is becoming harder, not easier to do due to the non-competition/non-disclosure agreements that are becoming common in the technology industry. And being highly valued now does not mean it will remain so in the future. Union negotiations now are about training and educational opportunities just as much as they are about wages and working conditions. A good union can make sure you get the opportunities and resources you need to keep your skills current. That has to be the most important priority for anyone with a technical career.
Unions tend to function in an US vs THEM atmosphere. Many small companies function in a team atmosphere, where most everyone is working more or less as an "US". Note that I did not say all small companies, because you see many variations, including the family business, and the pointy haired boss in his/her own small business. Some of these make you wonder how they survive. And if you look around, many businesses do not survive their first year.
The problem (of us vs them) can come in when the group gets sufficiently large that you do not have a chance to know everyone. It can also come in when you have people schooled exclusively in the older schools of management.
One of the problems that promotes the segregation of managers is not the sheer volume of data, but the fact of people who would be clueless as managers on the general team getting all confused and spreading that confusion to everyone else with every new bit of mis-information they create in their minds as they try to understand things.
These folks naturally tend to corrupt data, adding in their own pre-existing fixed ideas and confusions, and making a splendid mess of things. You definitely have a problem when the majority of people in the company fall in this category. This is where you get companies who need to "hire an adult" to run things for the creative types.
When you have a company that has grown to be very successful, it is easy for the various branches and depts to devolve into fiefdoms, etc. At that point you are doomed to the "us vs them" atmosphere.
Unions thrive on this and promote the Us vs Them atmosphere. Unions are a cure for abuses of management, where working conditions devolve towards a state of serfdom or slavery. They are there to make sure that the rank and file have a voice of some sort.
Unfortunately, unions can be very clueless as well. I can recall a company or two that agreed to union demands, and then went bankrupt. The owners decided that it would be easier just to cash out. And then the unions said "oops, we didn't know". This is where the unions get the reputation in management circles of being parasites.
So all and all, it is a mixed bag. It cries out for a different business model.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
So you defend the freedom to work? No union-only shops? No required union membership? No required union dues?
I didn't think so.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
But remember, for each one of us sitting comfortably in our cubes or dorm rooms there are 20 people working in a fab actually making the chips to run our computers. I'm not talking about engineers, I'm talking about the grunt-level fab operator actually running the equipment. Some companies treat this rank and file quite well, most treat them as disposable. Do they need to unionize? Possibly. /. readers have degrees or are working towards them. It is easy to forget that the majority of the nation doesn't have a four year degree and the earning potential that goes along with one and the mobility that goes along with their earning potential. /. readers, including myself, don't need unions, but there are a lot of people who do.
I know that in the short history of modern chipmaking there have been numerous cases of people being 'asked' to work more than their usual 12 hour shifts, or being routinely exposed to hazardous chemicals, or other abuses.
I'm willing to bet the vast majority of
Union workers teach our children, police our streets, deliver our Amazon.com orders, and build our cars. America has lost touch with the real reason unions exist, including the unions. But thats no reason to say that they aren't necessary.
These are breasts; this is source code.
These are breasts; this is source code.
Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
Only if other employers in the same industry are better - if, for want of a better term, 'employer oppression' is endemic throughout an industry, the ability to move between jobs conveys no advantage. Employers will only offer better terms than their competitiors if there are not enough employees with the required skills to meet the demand - if labour is easily obtainable, employers will offer as poor terms as they can get away with (in this situation, employers behave as a cartel, with an effective monopoly) Currently, skilled computer professionals are in demand, so those with the skills can, to a large extent, dictate terms to their employers ... but then, the position of the skilled in the nineteenth century was much the same. The unions were created to protect the rights and improve conditions for the workers who are not able to do this - the less skilled, the less educated, or those in a declining industry where the demand for jobs is greater than the supply. In the 21st century, this situation is still with us, and the computer industry, like any other has a large number of unskilled or semi-skilled drudge workers - these people still need unions.
Let's go ahead and snip your ad hominem and not belabor the fact that your original post tried to show that socialism was less friendly to unions because communism didn't allow unions.
And on to:
I disagree. It's easy for us, the majority of which are single and highly skilled, to assume that the freedoms that apply to us apply to everyone. If I were married with children, my mobility would be hampered by a range of factors. If I were married, with children, and without the skills I have now, I'd have to accept most jobs in the locality I was offered.
But those very people are making choices about how they live. No one forces them to get married, have children, or remain skill-less. Americans are bombarded every day with opportunities for advancement, self improvement, etc. Have you watched American television in the last twenty years? Who is to blame if someone ignores all of those opportunities and settles for a simple life of simple means?
Why should I - as a person who has worked his whole life to work, improve, and succeed - embrace a system that caters to the lowest common denominator of the work force?
My argument was that in today's society, we all have an abundance of choices. If people are making the easy choices for themselves, why should those of us making the harder choices be penalized by systems that discourage ingenuity, hard work, and productivity - like unions most certainly do?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I'm assuming by your statements that you are probably in your 20's to early 30's. You don't remember a time when there weren't lots of jobs. There will come a time again where jobs are tight. The U.S. economy is a cycle. A work force monopoly is what other people call 'bad times'. They will come again. Wait and see.
Please keep an open mind and see if you still have this opinion when you are working 70 hours a week and have resumes floating around and noone is calling you or when the company you work for outsources your job to someone else and you can't find another one because there are none.
I'm not saying unions are perfect. They have their problems just like everything else, but they do give you options. Besides, this gives us a chance to improve on the mistakes made by the old unions.
You're absolutely right. Were that we lived in Utopia.
In reality, however, many people still don't have a viable choice: they can't afford downtime between jobs, or they can't afford to move to a better job, or they can't afford to upgrade their skills, or et cetera.
And even for those people who are professionals and could leave, often can't: they love their jobs and have commitments to their clients. It's just that their employer is an ass. [I'm thinking specifically of government services, here; certainly our BC government has an appalling employer history with regards to teachers, health providers and such.]
Your points re: the downsides of unionization are pretty much on the mark. I just don't think the employment picture is as rosy as you paint.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Yeah, that's the vibe I got from the article too. It was almost like The New Republic wanted to make it look like it was a tech-workers union when it was mostly a warehouse union.
Its a little like going to NASA, pointing at a janitor, and saying he works with rocket scientists in the space industry. Technically true, but not a very accurate description.
Why is this marked as flamebait? This is a valid post. Just because he doesnt embrace the leftist idealogy, he is lambasted?
This is the problem with liberals in general; 'FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE!(Unless it is against us...)'
Mod this back to 'Interesting', have a real moment.
Marx defended the idea of the working class, but he held great contempt for the workers themselves. He synthesized statistics, rarely visited real workplaces, and spent a great deal of his life loafing on the sofa, sponging money from his friends and leaving his family to starve.
And all the talk of last years marketing and industry buzz. Where is the surprise that it wasn't all it would be cracked up to be? Did Barclay expect Bezos to give him a rubdown everynight after making his bed a putting a mint on his pillow?
Unions in technology area BAD idea. Tech labor is still way too valuable, and techs hold most of the power. You don't /have/ to work 70 hour weeks in this industry. The people who do usually want to because they expect a big payoff (IPO what have you).
This is nowhere near a situation similar to autoworkers where they are being treated with low wages and unsafe working environments.
This is nothing like the steelworkers who have been losing jobs by the thousand due to companies closing up shop.
Grow up, update your resume, and find a new job.
If he's as good as they told him he was in the first place, he shouldn't have a problem.
They are no longer useful. They promote mediocrity and stifle personal initiative. Hard work goes unrewarded. The slacker is paid the same as the good worker.
Have you ever noticed that articles that talk about this new union movement are almost always people filling semi skilled jobs?
The Republic article refers to people in Amazon's customer service center as "high tech" workers. I am not trying to put these people down, I know that that is a really tough job, but I don't understand how they become "knowledge workers".
I personally always looked at the "knowledge worker" thing as being someone in an internal development or infrastructure group with all them super leet coding skillz and stuff. While I agree that a customer service department that is well staffed and effective is crucial to a company's success, I don't get how these particular people are more "high tech" than the same people that fill this function for Sears' catalog division.
Am I missing something here or what?
So will this intensify the boycott called by RMS?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
I think many of you have missed a key point. The article was not about programmers and engineers trying to organize, it is about customer service representives trying to organize. Programmers and engineers in the new economy have it made because there is not enough of them to go around. Customer service reps are a dime a dozen, virtually anyone can be trained to do it in a couple of weeks, I include phone support technicians in this as well. These are for all intents and purposes the unskilled labor of the new economy. These types of workers can be outsourced in an instant and in the case of Amazon, they went overseas to India where they can pay $1 an hour and no benifits let alone stock options. If these worker ask for raises they are told to find another job if this one isn't paying enough. If these workers don't want to work 70 hours a week, they are not forced to, but when thier yearly review comes up they are given low scores because they are not a "Team Player" and didn't "Give 100%". I feel these types of workers do need job protection.
The very fact that the workers are trying to organize tells me a great deal about the company. If the workers are well paid and have good working conditions they probably won't organize, which is why up to this point Unions have failed in the Tech industry. But as the new economy starts looking more like the old economy, these companies are not paying their employees well, they are not providing good work environments and the Unions are now making headway.
The botton line is the best protection against Labor Unions is to compensate your employees from top to bottom for their work, ie "A fair days pay for a fair days work". If a company does not want to provide a fair days pay then a Labor Union is inevitable and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Talented programmers will always be in short supply.
And interestingly enough, the new economy is all about talent. Follow what you love, become an individual force, become the absolute best at what you specialize in, and you will succeed.
Unfortunately, this doesn't leave much room for those low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So there's a lot of action that still needs to be done about moving those people up the hierarchy.
-Stu
Unions do not equal job security, they only make it difficult to adapt to changing market conditions. If you unionized everything you wouldn't make the economy unchanging, you would merely starve everybody to death.
The only form of job security in any line of work is to do something which better serves others. After all, in a free world who would voluntarily give up their money just so you could do what you think is productive.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
..If you believe Chomsky's drivel without question. I used to, but I was 16 at the time.
A business is a balance of interests between managers, investors, and employees. Corporations in the old days were often unbalanced, so a union is needed.
In Amazon's case, I don't think the corporation was unbalanced, I think the small minority of employees who wanted to unionize were a contingent of utopiasts who thought they could use a union to make a place "cool" again.
-Stu
The easy times aren't over for those with the skill or talent to prosper. Technical people that coasted will fall -- those with the real skills will continue to prosper.
And please learn some basic economics. We were very close to a labor shortage crisis in just about *every* industry. A slowdown was immensely needed at this point, to bump up the unemployment numbers temporarily. Although no one wants a recession, a few quarters of slow-growth sure beats rocketing inflation.
-Stu
The average factory in 19th century employed a large part of all local workers, and they did not have a choice - they had to work for what the factory offered them or be unemployed.
Monopolies can onlybe dealt with by other monopolies, and so workforce monololists - unions were created.
Now, however, the situation is completely different - in workforce market there is free trade; You don't like one company, there are hundreds of others you can go to. This way people can NOT be oppressed by their employer; Abuse can only happen if it is hard to leave.
But, if the unions make it into the high-tech world, then the monopoly issues will start again, but from other side.
Unions will probably start protectionism (only union workers will work here), thus limiting specialists from other areas of education or world from working; And probably will make 'experience' (in years) matter far more than your capabilities, which is a Bad Thing.
We want a free market of workforce, where anyone can work for anyone he wants, and the best people get the best positions.
The only need free people might have to union, is to fight against a monopoly, otherwise it will just hurt anyone.
I may disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to death your right to speak it.