Slashdot Mirror
IT Unions?
aristotle2000 writes: "CNN.com has an article about IT unionization. I have generally been against the idea but the article raises some interesting issues, like training and development standards." Netslaves had a piece about the history of unionization a few days ago, good reading.
Unions today exist to give non-highly-skilled laborers artificial leverage to increase their salaries to a level which the job market would not ordinarily pay. Good IT workers are not easy to find, and because of the relatively high degree of specialization within IT professions, once a person has been in the IT field for a few years, he or she can usually command a fairly high salary by virtue of experience with a specific technology or within a specific industry. Because of this segmentation of the IT field, there just isn't the need for IT people to unionize.
Additionally, most programmers I know care very deeply about how their skills are perceived (myself included). Most of us like to think we are the top 25% of programmers (myself included)--although it isn't possible for 75% of programmers to be the top 25% :-) That being said, why would programmers want to unionize, to protect, in many posters' words, the lazy and the inept?
No, it won't happen. There will not be an effective programmers union.
BUT, I strongly believe there will be a network support/IT tech union. Those poor schlobs have it rough. Being on call and never getting paid (or whether they get paid or not is a point of debate with the employer), working long hours over outtages, not being able to take vacations. Those people will probably unionize. Especially with MCSE certification programs churning out so many, their jobs are probably in jeopardy. Whenever they start to get paid decent money for decent training, they could get fired for some fresh MCSE who is willing to be paid anything.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
1) We make a lot of money. We have lots of opportunities for raises. I'll be damned if my 20% annual raise is reduced to a "cost of living increase" by a union
2) We are not politically unified. Programmers don't fit into a single voting block as factory workers tend to do. I doubt that we're all going to get behind Tom Harkin for the next election.
3) For many people, programming is a step towards management (not me, I'm a programmer forever). What the hell are those people going to do? Fight management one day, and then become a manager the next? Talk about blowing up a bridge WELL BEFORE you even get to it...
4) We don't need unions to protect our benefits. Generally, we don't care about benefits past the medical care and 401K. We just want employers to forget the sports equipment reimbursement type of "benefit" and just give us the fuckin' money.
5) I don't want a union to tell me that I can only work 37.5 hours a week. I work as long as I want to, or as short as I want to. A union would force some kind of stifiling structure on my life. If I'm going to be at work at 9 AM, then that's because I happened to be awake all night, not because I've turned into a clock puncher.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Unions exist to get fair treatment for all laborers.
Unions seem to think that means that 'fair' means the same treatment for everyone, regardless of skill. Most of the time they only seem to think that workers should be paid according to seniority. Unions seem to defend those that are lazy and punish or try to hold back those that work harder or smarter.
I'm not interested in being part of that. I'm interested in pay based on merit, and that isn't necessarily always going to be viewed as 'fair' by everyone. I don't necessarily want to trade away my ability to bargain for myself for the tyranny of the majority.
I personally think that the reason it is so hard for unions to organize skilled technical workers is because we feel closer to management than blue-collar workers. Many of us aspire to, or know that our future will eventually make us more on the management side than we are now. Many of us hold an equity stake in the companies we work for (through options, 401K or company stock purchase plans), so we view our companies differently than does the auto worker, steel worker, rubber worker, etc. that is the typical union member. Many IT workers have an entreprenurial (sp?) spirit, and I don't think that is very compatible with unionism.
Well, guess what pal - the odds are somewhere around, say, 50-50 that you're below average. It reminds me of the stats that 80% or whatever of drivers say they are an "above average" driver...
So sure, unions are designed around the average, but given that half of all employers are below average in how they treat their employees, maybe the protections a union can offer are useful.
And given the increased power management has been given by the government and stockholders over the last few decades to screw their employees at no cost to the managers (how do you "accidentally" hire thousands of people you then decide you need to lay off and not get fired yourself), now might just be the right time.
Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
I'm no fan of traditional Unions. I'm constantly trying to take control of my own career, not have some Union decide for me when I can get my next promotion/raise/whatever. They also tend to protect deadwood in a company, which makes it harder for the rest of us. Plus, I'm at times privy to corporate info that would produce a definate conflict of interest. I really don't think a Union, in the traditional sense anyway, would serve my interests in any way.
That being said, there are times when I've wanted to speak with many voices (which is one of the reasons for my Slashdot account), and have no real recourse. I think that a real, legally sanctioned _professional_ organization would go a long way to help some of my problems (like being here since 3:00am this morning). Something like what the denstists or doctors have - not really a Union that has barganing units and such, but an org that can sanction shops that don't treat their IT workers properly.
This is meant for businesses, not for thier employees. I want something independant of any one special interest. (Oh well, might happen before I retire in 20 years. Right.)
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
"I'm so skilled/important/eL337 that the company will treat me with respect/pay me what I'm worth/never fire me."
"All unions are filled with thugs and crooks who just want to take your union dues and are effectively useless."
etc. . .
(sigh)
To begin with, being skilled does not guarantee you proper treatment by the company.There are a number of circumstances where your skills will not save you, for example:
- You get a new boss who is:
- the industry you are in suffers a panic in the stock market. To keep the stock price from tanking, Upper Management hands down the diktat, "Lay off 10%! So let it be written, so let it be done!"
- Oh heck, I could go on and on . . .
. . . but the point is there are lots of circumstances where if you are being mistreated by management, you will be unable to defend yourself despite your Mighty Coding Prowess. The company is bigger than you. It has more money than you. It does *not*, I repeat *Not!* give a Flying Fiddler's F**** about you.- Stupifyingly dumb (It happens.)
- a sadist
- a technological illiterate (and therefore doesn't understand how Very Important you are.
and is therefore quite willing to let you go/treat you miserably/etc.In which case, it would be nice for you to have a nice big organisation backing you up.
As to the point about the honesty of unions, they vary. I speak from my own experience. When I was fired by one employer (because of my political activities), the union I belonged to at that time said, effectively, "Tough luck!" The next union I belonged to had the motto, "Nobody Goes For Free!" (Which meant that if you were fired, and wanted the union to take your side, they would automatically go as far as second step grievance. After that, the union would have to spend money on lawyers, so there was an evaluation on how likely we were to win before we went to the next level of the grievance procedure.) Some unions are good and some stink -- sorta like corporations that you work for.
That's the key word, "unskilled". The movie Matewan has been discussed many times on Slashdot. Anyone who is completely opposed to unions should watch the film. Basically, it shows that without unions, companies will do anything and everything to make an extra buck. You don't like a pay cut? Fine, you're fired and someone else more desperate will be in your spot tomorrow. The tactic only works if management can replace you quickly and easily. That disqualifies most of the jobs Slashdotters have. But I think that as IT becomes larger and larger, more jobs will fall into the "replacable" category and unions may become needed.
I don't have links, but I know Amazon is at the front of the IT unionization battle. There is a guy named Mike Daisey who is behind most of the organizing. I'll leave the Google searching to the reader.
-B
The signing of the treaty ending the vi/Emacs wars
Gates and Ellison bury the hatchet and go camping together
RMS decides to switch to Solaris
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Often from what I've seen with unionizing is nothing is done by the Unions in reality. Lets see what a typical Union would do when things are erratic.
Strike for more money for so called more benefits for the people. Strike for better working conditions for the people shorter hours, and the rights to ensure an employee doesn't get fired improperly.
Sounds good so far but at what price? So as a tech union member lets see what that gets me. Being I already make a lot of money, this week my paycheck just won't come to me since I'm on strike, and at the age of 27 I'm already making close to 6 figures so this missing paycheck may hurt my lifestyle and I don't know how long I'll be on strike for.
While I picket with my "brothers" a Union rep speaks with officials to get about a %.20 salary raise for me, but then he wants to raise my union dues for this, so that raise is now null. How thrilling. While I work I see lazy people who do nothing since their unionized and can't be fired. Oh yea I'm just dying to be unionized.
IMHO I don't think the tech industry needs to be unionized. Its done great on its own for years, and unions see how much money we often make and are simply trying to get rich quick off our sweat.
Want Root?
"Geeks and Hackers local 31337"
--
314-15-9265
Why do you blame teachers when they strike? Why don't you blame the school boards who will not pay them what they deserve? Why don't you blame the citizens in that district that vote down pro-school referendums, and then complain why schools suck....and then have the nerve to blame teachers for the lack of "morals" in our teens (maybe parents should take time off of work to parent!!).
As for IT professionals.....I am a union IT pro. Two hours of pay a month goes to my union dues. In return I get a benefits package worth an additional 35% of my pay and includes full paid medical, dental and life insurance for the whole family and a generous retirment contribution that is vested immediately. Also, any overtime I work results in 1:1 comp time. All of this and our union has never had to strike! YES, unions work without strikes! Unfortunately, the only time you hear about unions in today's media is during strikes...you never hear about all of the good things they do for the employee (day care, same-sex partner rights, etc).
Finally, just becuase you are a union member does not guarantee job security....a common union myth. I can be fired just like everyone else in the world, however, there must be a reason for it. If my employer wanted to can me because I am doing a poor job, first they would have to notify me that I am doing poorly and give me a chance to improve (usually a month), and if I don't me their satisfaction I am a goner.
Being a union member does not make me a lazy, do-nothing employee. It makes me a happy, appreciative, hard-working employee....one that works to live, not lives to work.
ÕÕ
ÕÕ
While payscale and health benefits may not be the issues that inspire IT workers to unionize, there are other issues. H1-B visa workers are of course often abused and it would seem that a union would make a hell of a lot of sense for them. There is also the issue of the "IT shortage." IT unions cold lobby politicians to realize that the "IT shortage" does not exist.
I'm a union member, and no, I'm not lazy and don't sit around doing nothing all day. I do replace lots of Mickeysoft stuff with linux and BSD, however :) . I am a public sector employee, so I don't make as much money as in the private sector; however, I get better benefits.
But here are the important things, things that get even more important as you young geeks grow into middle-aged geeks and have families. 1) As I mentioned-- medical, dental, pension. 2) Overtime for working beyond 40 hours. 3) My pager stays on my desk when I go home at night; i.e., I can have a Real Life(tm) with my family (and my compilers). 4) I'm not an at-will employee-- I can't be fired just because the boss can hire someone for less money. 5) I can't be fired for my continual, unabashedly militant leftist political and union organizing activities. 6) I don't have to kiss suits' asses.
All you anti-union dittoheads need to pull your heads away from your monitors for awhile (yeah, I know 2.4 is out, but...) and read some labor history. If it wasn't for unions we'd all be working 80-hour weeks and be at the bosses' beck and call 24-hours a day-- oh, wait, this is IT, that's the way it is....
Get the connection? And you know what the really sad thing is? You know why you've got your 80-hr/wk, no overtime job? Are you ready? It's because the boss is too fscking stoopid to do your job!!!
That is a very arrogant and uninformed attitude. So you think machinists, electricians, teachers, police officers, firefighters, craftspeople, and nurses are unskilled? Come on, many working people are much more skilled than the average office worker. If fact, most unskilled laborers aren't in unions anyway, they're the guys you see in the morning hanging around 7-11 waiting for someone to pick them up for a day's work.
Unions exist to protect workers from exploitation from their employers and to promote a more equitible split of the fruits of their labor, pure and simple. And if you think unions are bad because they let working people earn a reasonable living, well, think of the alternative where our middle class evaporates and we have a somewhat sizeable well-to-do group and a HUGE poor population. Doesn't bode too well for the future, does it?
Even if you aren't in a union you benefit from their existance because they tend to normalize the employment market and keep corporations from acting too avariciously. Do you enjoy only working 5 days a week? How about getting medical insurance and retirement support? Do you like paid vacation? Thank the union movement.
Unions are not yet appropriate for the IT industry. Eventally they will be though. As the industry grows, the work will not require less skilled personel, but the skills will become more readily available. As this happens over time a union may serve to benefit te workers for than it might today.
Every industry seems to go through this cycle. An industry like the computer industry gets a tremendous boost by, say, the introduction of the PC, and a half a decade goes by without there being an academic curiculum available to churn out reasonably qualified people, then as soon as that curiculum is in place, companies feel that they have a never ending supply of grist for the mill. The same is true for the rapid growth of the internet. With the advent of an easy interface to information (the web), growth is spurred, and qualified people are difficult to find. The academic community lags about half a decade behind, but as soon as a curiculim is developed - and I saw a TV ad for a trade school advertising "become a certified webmaster" yesterday, so the time may be nearer than I'm suggesting - companies feel there is a never ending supply of talent out there.
That would be the point at which a union might be useful (once this corporate belief that IT is a comodity job, becomes prevelent). After the work becomes commodity work, for which there are many (supposidly) qualified people. Today, however, the job market is still good enough as to allow the qualified IT employee to seek out good companies and negotiate good terms of employment (with regard to required overtime and such).
As an entity for collective bargaining, the need for IT unions has not yet materialized, although I'd expect that in the next 5 years or so the need will arise. For that reason it may be valiable for a few unions to begin gathering steam, although the vast majority (the referenced poll from the article not withstanding) of IT workers will not feel the need to join. As a collective bargaining entity they just aren't needed yet.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
When I first started working with my current employer I looked at the union as a necessary evil. I was going to work for a very well respected company in my city and should get some good experience out of it so I figured I would stick with it for at least a while. Then the realization hit me. No matter how hard I worked I was not going to get much based on merit. Every year every employee gets the same percentage raise and the same perks. It made me start thinking why should I work hard? It doesn't pay off. /. readers seem to be the single male variety so they would probably prefer the Big Bucks, more hours, more pay option over a union. To each his own I guess, but I love being home by 5:00 every day.
Like the article states, it's not all about money with a union. In IT we hear so much about switching jobs and making the Big Bucks. Yes, with a union you don't get the Big Bucks. But, I work 40 hours a week, I am guaranteed training, I have great benefits, I get paid overtime, and most importantly, I see my family much more than at previous jobs.
I could go on about the pros and cons here but what it comes down to is preference. With a union you tend to have more job security and more guaranteed perks and benefits. You may get paid more at a non-union shop but you don't have much solidarity if management mandates forced overtime (which would probably be unpaid if you are salaried) or other similar negative policies.
From what I have read in the past it appears many
I don't believe that professionals should belong to unions. Unions do have their uses, but in the end they seem self serving than serving the true needs of their employees.
The best example of why professionals should never be subject to unions is the ALPA. This union, originally created to protect pilots now enslaves them. Through union rules a pilot can never go to another airline without being FORCED to the bottom of the ladder all because of rules the union fought for on the supposed behalf of the employees. If airline pilots are not "professionals" then I don't know who is. They are highly trained, rigorously tested, and entrusted with immense responsibility. Yet in turn their union makes them no better than numbers.
The worse unions are those in the public sector. Unions have no business there, there is enough protections by law for government employees, and for that matter all but the entry level regular employees, that they now have simply transformed themselves into political entities. Teacher unions constantly strike in the middle of school year, regardless of the effect on students, because suddenly they, the employee, have become more important than the students they serve. While teachers should be paid well and receive good benefits, in this case they should also be expected to not put themselves before the children entrusted to them. Want to be on strike, then show your professionalism by not doing it when children are being taught. These same unions also thwart almost every effort to require measurable results from their members. How is this a benefit to society?
This is why I don't think most IT level jobs should ever be unionized. For IT to work it requires people of demonstratable skills who are willing to work together to accomphlish the needs of the business. Considering the need for people in our field we sorely lack reason to be unionized. The common method is to scare people into believeing that they will lose everything and be constantly abused if they don't join. Why should I want to dedicate nearly 2 weeks of my pay to a union? If you don't believe that is what it costs, then I suggest you check into what some unionized people pay. Friends of mine pay more than one hour of their weekly paycheck as union dues! The unions explain away the true cost by saying things like "It only cost you xxxx per week, but look at the benifits. However look at the xxxx * 52 and see just how much money you really are paying!
The real money makers in unions are those employees in businesses that cannot afford to cheat their employees in the first place. The number of qualified people is way to low for them to get away with running them into the ground. Through networking I know which companies to avoid, and as should be they are always understaffed. It takes time, but they do come around.
With a unionized staff we would not have had the ability to rid the company I work for of people who thought the whole day was for smoke breaks and surfing. Thats the cost of a union, you will end up with people in your IT department who don't contribute, forcing those who do to pick up the pace.
No, the cost of losing my professionalism is not worth the benefits of joining a union. I take pride in doing my job, and learning to do it better everyday. I don't need a crutch, and fear having one available.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.