Aussie Techs Threaten Chaos

tintinaujapon writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that NCR staff with key responsibility (among other things) for fast food & supermarket chains, banking ATMs, schools and baggage handling at Sydney airport are preparing to walk off the job next week, in industrial action aimed at resolving a pay dispute. NCR's general manager thinks few people in the general community will care about the plight of the palest workforce, but the union claims potential disruption and financial losses could be huge. The strike could last up to a week and is the most significant action yet taken in Australia by the techie workforce."

Comments

E.A.

[Watson Ladd]

This looks a lot like the E.A. games problem, with an added twist: Aussie law penalizes staying at work if negotiations take long.

Thats a nice computer you got yourself there

[Anonymous Coward]

be a shame if nothing was to happen to it egh ?

Biased headline

[mrraven]

Shouldn't that be Aussie tech workers threaten walkout? Why is the Slashdot headline FUDing managements position? Without labor unions we wouldn't have ever gained a 40 hour work week or an end to child labor. Is that really the way we want to go? Further labor unions are way for workers to gain rights without government interference which ought to be just fine with the Libertarians among you unless you are really just hypocritical cheap labor conservatives.

Re:Biased headline

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Unfortunately there's a strong "unions == bad" meme among a lot of geeks. I think it's because tech workers' conditions have, until quite recently, been very very good by overall work-conditions standards: comfortable environments, low risk of physical injury, reasonable work hours, etc. What tech workers, and office workers in general, have failed to grasp is that these conditions exist because of the efforts of organized labor over the last century or so; and now, inevitably, with the decline in the power of unions, we're starting to see work environments become less and less comfortable with work hours extending to the point where exhaustion and burnout are inevitable and physical injury, particularly RSI, becomes a serious risk. Whether this will lead to more organizing efforts like the one in Australia is anyone's guess, but I'd sure like to see it happen.

Complicating this is that a lot of geeks are libertarians, and a lot of self-styled libertarians think unions have the smell of socialism. Which is stupid, of course; unions are in fact an admirably free-market solution to the problem of employer-employee conflicts. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that asking someone who calls himself a libertarian about his opinion of organized labor is a good way to distinguish between true libertarians on the one hand, and right-wingers who call themselves libertarians because it's fashionable in certain circles on the other.

Re:Biased headline

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Silly analogy. There aren't a whole lot of Indians left in Manhattan (or anywhere else, for that matter.) Corporations that treat employers like disposable supplies, OTOH, are at least as numerous as they were in the heyday of unions in the early-to-mid 20th c.

Re:Biased headline

[Ironsides]

Without labor unions we wouldn't have ever gained a 40 hour work week or an end to child labor.

I think you need to retake history. The 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford, prior to any unions being formed in his company (in fact he was very much against unions). Child labor laws weren't fully implemented enofrced until the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act in the US. Again, this had nothing to do with unions, instead coming from the more "socially concious" individuals.

What unions HAVE been good for is improving workplace safety, working conditions and a few other things. While there are unions out there that actually work for the members, there are also a lot of them that are fully corupt as well.

Further labor unions are way for workers to gain rights without government interference

Half true, half false. It is not a way for them to gain rights, it is a way for them to gain more pay, privlidges and better working conditions without government interference, which I fully support over the government having a hand in it.

Re:Biased headline

[mrraven]

You may laugh at labor unions now but when the corporations say your software engineering/coding/sys admin/systems integration/hardware design job is worth 8 dollars an hour on the world market and you have NO ONE to back you up when you renegotiate your job contract perhaps you won't be laughing so loud?

And again to Libertarians tell me exactly what is wrong with a non governmental organization representing workers in negotiating job contracts? How else are we going to see a minarchist society that provides a living wage for families? For I assure you if the globalists get their way their goal is to pay you as close to the prevailing wage in India and China as possible, don't let them get away with it.

Re:Biased headline

[mrraven]

That's not FUD it's reality, cooperations right now as we speak are using the threat of lower prevailing wages in other countries to reduce peoples wages and benefits here in the U.S. A race to the bottom not only screws American workers but allows cooperations to exert downward pressure on wages globally as they frantically search for the cheapest labor market. Their goal is a return to the working conditions seen in Dicken's England, working conditions we are already seeing at U.S. owned multinationals like Nike in Indonesia, China, and Vietnam.

Globilization is just beginning to hit tech workers but if we let global corporations get away with it without organizing labor coders and other geeks will be the next victims of the global sweatshop. Hint a software engineer is paid about 15 dollars an hour in India. If that becomes the prevailing wage of IT work you can kiss your nice house and endless supply of cool new gadgets goodbye. Thomas Friedman's "flat earth" means YOU get flattned my friend.

Re:Biased headline

[Marlor]

I think you need to retake history. The 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford, prior to any unions being formed in his company...

Maybe this was the case in the USA, but in Australia and most of the rest of the industrialized world, the 40 hour work week was earned by unions. In Australia, the "8-hour day" was earned by a collective organization of stonemasons and building workers in Victoria in 1856. Demonstrations were then held by unions to win the same rights for other trades. By the 1880s, the 8-hour day was commonplace in Australia, and "8-hour day" parades were held throughout the late 19th century to celebrate the fact.

Re:Biased headline

[paulthomas]

It should be pointed out that Unions in America are not an example of completely free market action. They depend on the government to enforce certain rules via National Labor Relations Board.

There are too many regulations that give positive rights to the employees in such situations to call unions in America a market solution.

I, too would find them admirable (much like I find voluntary collective consumer action to be admirable), if the playing-field were __actually__ level (instead of ostensibly so for the benefit of bureaucrats).

Unions without government-intervention would work. Instead of the unions we see now, we would find unions organizing as independent for-profit bargaining/insurance companies.

At the same time, the union company's risk and reward would come from providing some degree of insurance (out of union dues) to newly organized employees.

a thought.

Paul

Re:Biased headline

[NormalVisual]

Complicating this is that a lot of geeks are libertarians, and a lot of self-styled libertarians think unions have the smell of socialism. Which is stupid, of course; unions are in fact an admirably free-market solution to the problem of employer-employee conflicts.

I consider myself to be something of a libertarian, but I have mixed feelings about unions. On the one hand, collective bargaining can be truly necessary in those situations where the disparity in power between the employer and employee is such that the employer looks upon their workers as faceless, replaceable biological machines that perform a given task and refuses to treat them as human beings. On the other hand, I've seen firsthand the productivity hit and general attitude of entitlement that can result from a strong union, and many unions appear to embody an "us vs. them" mentality that makes it difficult to come to a compromise when the employer's needs/wants need to be taken into consideration, even when they're entirely reasonable.

Having said all of that, one thing that a lot of self-styled libertarians seem to gloss over is the inherent advantage that government confers upon corporations, specifically corporate personhood and all of the stuff that falls out from that, and the fact that corporations exist without fear of any kind of real punishment for criminal acts. I fail to see why some people don't see that for the government intrusion that it is, and then turn around and complain about other government involvement in free markets such as tariffs on imported goods.

Re:Biased headline

[screaser]

reasonable work hours, etc.

Seriously? All the geeks I know work 70+ hour work weeks... then again I think a lot of that is self-imposed...

More on-topic, though, I've seen many examples of unions just going way too far. They were a good idea, and have wrought many benefits. However the only 2 things they are responsible for are:

(a) Provide for their own survival.
(b) Increase benefits to their members.

Point being, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to act reasonably. Members only making $160,000/year? Strike and get more (see longshoremen). Company on the brink of bankruptcy? Screw 'em. Demand more wages and benefits (See big 3 automatkers).

Clearly when the little people are getting screwed unions can serve the greater good. But there needs to be some point at which they can say "we've done our job, things are reasonable, goodbye" and stop the drain on the companies they have become parasites to.

At some point, the companies are the "little people" being screwed by the unions, which is not really any better.

Re:Biased headline

[shreevatsa]

There aren't a whole lot of Indians left in Manhattan (or anywhere else, for that matter.)

There are more than a billion of us, and I resent that statement! ;)

Re:Biased headline

[mrraven]

Nice try stooge for the owners, you are off by about 30 years, with accuracy like that your labor should be worth about 4 dollars an hour on the global market. It's all good until YOUR ox gets gored, right?

"The struggle for the shorter work week is the thread that ties together the history of American labor. The country's first union 1;the National Labor Union in 1866 issued its primary demand, "8 hours shall bethe normal work day." The NLU died. But the demand prompted action. In 1872 in New York City thousands of building trades workers stuck for the 40 hour week. Some won. But their g~~h-s were lost in a tide of depression. In 1877 Pittsburgh workers, led by striking rail workers, seized the city and adopted a shorter day. They were shot back to work by federal troops.

1886. Chicago. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (later the AFL) called for a national strike for the 8 hour day on May 1. Nearly one million American workers stopped work that day. The nations industrial centers were hushed. Transportation halted. Some employers yielded concessions. Others sighted their targets.

*******

In the 1890's, as wealthy families like the Morgans and Rockefellers tightened their monopolies in industry , Spies' words stood true. The first general strike in the deep south, led by an integrated workforce in New Orleans, won a shorter work day. In this period the U.S. waged two wars. We fought Spain. And the government waged a war on the Western Federation of Miners led by Big Bill Haywood. Casualties in the hundreds. couldn't stop the miners, historically among the most militant of all workers. They won the 8 hour day near the turn of the century."

http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/ShorterWorkWeek.h tml

Re:Biased headline

[CSHARP123]

The strike has been called following a breakdown in negotiations over pay, Ms McManus said. "[The workers] are concerned that NCR is attempting to stonewall so they can use the Howard Government's new WorkChoices laws to cut away at wages and conditions. These workers do not want to inconvenience the public, but have no option to achieve pay increases."
I was googling on workchoice law. This is as per Queensland govt under "What does it mean for employees"

• Agreement making under the new laws will lead to a reduction in wages and conditions for workers.
• All work, whether currently covered by an award or not, can be offered to a worker conditional on them signing an agreement that signs away basic entitlements.
• Employees can lose basic entitlements such as:
• • rest and meal breaks;
  • incentive-based pay;
  • annual leave loading;
  • allowances;
  • penalty rates and overtime; and
  • control over hours and rosters.
• Employees may not be entitled to penalty rates for working on public holidays. However, an employee will have the right to refuse a request to work on a public holiday if he/she has reasonable grounds for doing so.
• Employers will also have the right to dismiss staff due to operational requirements and then offer employment to the same workers under a new agreement.
• Employees may lose the extra money they currently enjoy for shift work and overtime and time off to spend with their family over the weekend.
• The only legally enforceable minimum conditions are annual leave, personal leave, parental leave and ordinary hours. These replace the no-disadvantage test and agreements will no longer undergo any formal approval process.
• The federal Government has led workers to believe that they will be protected by award conditions when making agreements.

With these kind of laws I dont think they are doing anything wrong. Show solidarity to our tech brothers and sisters down under.

Re:Biased headline

[KenSeymour]

While it is true that Henry Ford took it upon himself to institute an 8 hour work day in 1914, it was not in a vacuum. Some unions were demanding first a 10 hour day, then later an 8 hour day throughout the 1800s.

The interesting thing is that after Ford started the 8 hour day, his competitors followed suit because Ford was achieving higher productivity as a result.

The Wikipedia article has more detail.

In 1924, a consitutional ammendment banning child labor failed to pass.

In 1938, the Wages and Hours (later Fair Labor Standards) Act was passed, banning child labor and setting the 40-hour work week.
There was a court challenge and and the Supreme Court upheld the law in 1941.

In 1835, child workers in employed in the silk mills in Paterson, NJ went on strike for the 11 hour day/6 day week.

In the 1886, the Knights of Labour marched with 80,000 people marched in support of the 8 hour day and in subsequent days, 350,000 workers went on strike.

It is true that Henry Ford paid better and had a shorter work day than other captains of industry.
He also hated unions and hoped treating workers better would help keep unions out of his factories.

But thousands and thousands of workers struck and marched before and after this. Both private police and workers were shot or beaten to death
as part of the struggle.
Many of the events had names like Bayview Massacre, and Thibodaux Massacre.
Local police, National Guard and federal troops have been called in to end strikes.
For their part, early unions hired people to beat up "scabs" and were not afraid of mob violence.

It seems so different than the world we live in today. I have ancestors who worked in the mills in Fall River, Massachusetts.
They were recent immigrants from Ireland and French Canada.
I went there once and visited a museum about the mills, there were pictures
of children with missing fingers working in the mills.

For the most part, people had to fight for an 8 hour day, overtime pay, and to have a childhood.

Re:Biased headline

[timeOday]

However the only 2 things they [unions] are responsible for are:

(a) Provide for their own survival.
(b) Increase benefits to their members.

Which one of those do you disagree with? Both a) and b) seem to apply even moreso to the corporations (if you interpret "members" as "shareholders"). Companies' heirarchial structure gives them inherent unified/collective bargaining power. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for workers to exercise the same power.

When workers want as much money for as little work as possible, they're spoiled and greedy. When companies want long hours for low pay they're "lean and efficient." How some people can hold both these views simultaneously and fail to see the hypocrisy is beyond me.

Finally on a related note, allowing companies to slash pensions for those who already earned them is legalized theft.

Re:Biased headline

[sjames]

Sorry, but if the market decides that all programming is worth is $8 an hour, no government or labor union is going to be able to change this, at least over a long term.

"The market" makes these "decisions" because of bargaining between potential employer and potential employee. If no potential employee will accept $8.00/hr, the potential employer will have to offer $9.00.

The problem of offshoring is one of differing economies. For now, workers in India can work for a fraction of the U.S. wage because their cost of living is a fraction of that for U.S. workers.

Of course, even if nothing is done to alter the natural cause and effect, eventually things will equalize, but not before a great deal of suffering happens, and quite possibly not before the U.S. is made a shadow of it's former self.

There are, of course counterbalancing forces that will come into play as well. I predict that if the trend continues, it won't be long before some Indian outsourcing provider realizes that they have all of the expertise they need in-house, so there's no reason they shouldn't just 'in-source' the management and crush their former client (that no longer has anything but a building, a bunch of managers, and a worthless unenforcable contract). That will trigger a big rush of on-shore in-sourcing.

Re:Biased headline

[Scudsucker]

But the only way I can see a union using "free market" means to get its way is to threaten to quit en masse if the employer didn't meet their demands.

Because that would be stupid for both parties. The workers want a job, the company wants workers. Actually quitting en mass wouldn't do either any good. This is what strikes are for - employees refuse to work, giving managment the option of negotiating or firing the strikers and hiring a new workforce.

They block enterances and refuse to leave. They harass customers and resort to violence.

Okay, how many times has this actually happened in the last 50 years. Besides, this is one of those boilerplate anti-union arguments out of a bad Jimmy Hoffa movie. Union X did bad deed Y in 19XX, so therefore...we shouldn't have unions! If we applied the same logic to business, we wouldn't allow any companies because they would all cheat on their taxes, dumb toxic chemicals into the river and fondle their secretaries.

First of all, wage growth was much faster in late 19th century America vs. Europe, while the former was virtually devoid of unions, while the latter was heavily unionized.

Of course you have economic facts to back this up, such as ratio of worker to executive pay, adjusting for different currencies and industries, right?

Would you really want to invest somewhere where your employees will randomly decide to just shut down at a critical moment?

And you seriously asked why you got modded down?

Re:Biased headline

[mabhatter654]

It should be pointed out that CORPORATIONS in America are not an example of completely free market action. CORPORATIONS depend on the government to enforce certain rules via INSERT RELEVENT LAWS HERE. There are too many regulations that give positive rights to the CORPOERATIONS in such situations to call CORPORATIONS in America a market solution. I, too would find them admirable (much like I find voluntary collective consumer action to be admirable), if the playing-field were __actually__ level (instead of ostensibly so for the benefit of bureaucrats). CORPORATIONS without government-intervention would work. Instead of the CORPORATIONS we see now, we would find CORPORATIONS organizing as independent for-profit bargaining/insurance companies.... Get the idea, corporations enjoy far too many benifits also [DMCA, Patriot act, low income tax, etc] , why should one CEO have control over hundreds of individuals jobs without some counter-balance to it. Remember, it's not the CEO's money, he is an "elecected" offical too. After all, Corporations are just "unions" where people pool their money [labor] so they don't have to be responsible to make it grow [like union contracts to keep benifits, hours, etc].

Headline after the strike

[Pao|o]

More Australian Companies Outsource to India & the Philippines

Re:We should do that in the US

[E IS mC(Square)]

What a better way to further the need of H1-B workers?

"Thanks you very much for the strike. Now you all are fired. Please hand over your knowledge and terminals to Mr. Venkat and his company arriving from India on H1-B this morning to take over you jobs. They have promised not to bitch about how less they get, while agreed to work 60 hours a week without even a lunch break."

solidarity!

[berseken]

I propose a strike of all techies in the US to show solidarity with our brothers and sisters down under. The days off work would only be ancillary benefits.

Another type of "Geek Strike"

[vudufixit]

How about we announce that we will never, ever do another "computer favor" for a gal that we like, in hopes of "hooking up with them."
    One day, when their machines are hopelessly infected with spyware and their rockhead boyfriends can't do a damned thing, they'll finally value us... right???

Fight Club Reference

[HangingChad]

We run your financial networks, your ATM's, schools, airports and supermarkets. Every system, no matter how important or secure, has to trust someone and we're it.

Do not fuck with us.

well, in my case...

[YesIAmAScript]

I subscribe to this "unions=bad" "meme" because I grew up in Flint, Michigan (birthplace of the modern labor movement in the US) and experienced first hand unions driving the city into the ground and the UAW driving GM into the ground. You may have heard of this time and place in Michael Moore's "Roger and Me".

Every union struck every workplace as often as possible. In the mall, there would be at least one store which was being struck every time you went. The workers didn't seem to notice that a strike is a (legal) act of industrial sabotage, one which will hurt your employer and thus you also. It should be used as rarely as possible, or else you'll just put the company you work for out of business.

GM workers were apparently in need of new contracts, despite having work rules so lax that many would show up to work drunk, or not show up at all. Workers would clock each other in, then work their own job plus that of another, then next week the roles would reverse. This of course led to awful product quality. I do realize there was also a good dose of poor engineering going on at GM at the time too, but that wasn't why you'd get a car with the windshield wipers not properly attached or a wrench thrown into a closed space before it is welded shut.

It was during this time that the UAW agreed to changes which should have changed things so that the most desireable job occupied by the highest-paid workers wasn't a chip handler (floor sweeper). And so that it didn't take 13 people just to repair a press (the mechanical-expert repairman would not be allowed to even flip the switch to turn it back on afer he was done, that was against work rules, it required an electrical specialist). See, the union liked it when a press couldn't be repaired, because then the workers on the line still had to be paid, but didn't have to do any work. Because of this, often equipment would break on Friday, right when some services became unavailable until Monday. If the line was behind on production, the workers would sometimes be paid overtime to man the presses all weekend so that when it was repaired (which it couldn't be), the line could be restarted to catch up.

It was during this time that the UAW extracted the concessions from GM that are strangling them right now. Those are very very high-levels of expensive health care, and the "jobs bank" which pays workers 92% of their salary for up to two years to do nothing but show up at the union hall and not work. GM knew these would be expensive, but the UAW's side of the deal was to work toward a Jobs Classification Reduction to fix the problems I mentioned above. Well, as soon as the contract was signed, the UAW forgot about what they were supposed to do, and GM took it in the shorts badly. They know how much this would cost them in the future, and so they were trying to move out of union strongholds like Michigan and to the south. Meanwhile, Michael Moore reports why is GM closing plants in Michigan when they are profitable (on a current account basis)?

And as to the government not being involved? It's just not true at all. Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws so they can work across state lines and company lines to extract higher wages and benefits. Whereas employers cannot collude to maintain their end (see the rulings against major sports leagues, even though one of them is exempt). Also, some states (Michigan being one of them) have a "union shop" law that says that if a workplace is declared a union shop, you must join the union to work there whether you want to or not. Every grocery store is a union shop in Michigan.

Finally, if there actually is a strike, the unions employ thuggery and illegal sabotage. My grandfather personally beat up replacement workers (called "scabs" even though many aren't even replacement workers, just people who want to continue working) on the strike lines against Westinghouse in Ohio (of course, Ohio doesn't do nearly as much manufacturing now, and Westinghouse is destroyed as a manufacturing company and the last useful

Re:well, in my case...

[bheer]

> Wrapping up, I would mention that unions are most useful for unskilled and semi-skilled labor.

I realize this may sound like flamebait, but _most_ of the people asking for unionizaion of IT come from the least skilled end of the curve. You won't see the guys who run Google's data centers sweating it over unionization -- they don't care, they're irreplaceable (apart from HR violations, I guess) and they know it.

Now, most IT guys aren't irreplaceable -- hard to admit but it's true, especially in a company for which IT is a core/strategic area. 50 years ago a punch card operator used to be a big deal. Today they have been replaced by people who keep our networks running, our OSes patched, our backup tapes safe. They are the equivalent of clerical staff in an 1880s office (being a clerk then was a big deal, btw) -- not key to the business but essential to keeping things moving.

Ultimately, the issue is also one of trust. IT has to necessarily deal with some of the biggest secrets of the company. They get access to the CEO's laptop, they get to guard the salary database, the works. I don't know if managers would be comfortable having unionized employees in those roles.

Re:well, in my case...

[Mike1024]

That's why I don't like unions, because I've seen the end game, not because of some "meme" or because I'm pro-employee-exploitation.

The union you describe in your post certainly sounds bad, I'd agree.

However, I'm not sure its true to say that "at least one union is bad, hence all unions are bad". That seems as incorrect as saying "at least one company is bad, hence all companies are bad".

Michael

Re:one example?

[ScrewMaster]

I've spent the better part of twenty-five years in and out of manufacturing plants around the country, developing and installing industrial data acquisition and control systems. I've had run-ins with unions on more than one occasion, generally having nothing to do with what I was trying to accomplish other than that it "wasn't the way we do things around here." This is what happens when overempowered employees decide that they get to decide how a company operates. I once had a 7-foot NEMA-12 air-conditioned enclosure with some thousands of dollars of computer and interface hardware inside impaled by a pair of forklift tines. Nobody knew anything about it, of course ... the report I got on the phone was, "your compouter ain't workin' right." Sure ... when you jam a pair of forklift tines front-to-back through your 19" rackmount CPU it don't work right. This was a stamping plant for one of the Big Three, as it happens. And I agree with the original poster: the laziness and general inefficiency I've seen at major union shops was absolutely appalling. Granted, that's not true of all unions but it certainly seems to apply to the big ones.

Another aspect to this that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the origin of the labor union. A century and a half ago, there were no labor laws, no workers' rights, no OSHA, no government busybodies of any kind doing anything for the worker. Working children 'til they dropped (or died) was perfectly acceptable. In that environment it would have been surprising if the workers hadn't banded together to form a mutual defense. But times change, and whether unions are still deserving of the power they currently wield is a question that needs to be answered.