Should IT Unionize?

snydeq writes "Sixty-hour work weeks with no overtime or comp time, a BlackBerry hitched to your belt 24/7, mandates from managers who have no clue what you actually do — all for a job that could be outsourced tomorrow. 'Is it finally time for technology workers to form a union and demand better working conditions?' InfoWorld's Dan Tynan asks. To some, the odds against IT unions are long, in large part because the 'lone gunman' culture is pervasive. Diversity of skills and job objectives is another hurdle for rallying around common goals. But that has not dissuaded several union-minded groups from cropping up across the industry as of late, Tynan reports. In the end, the best bet for IT may be a professional organization modeled after the American Bar Association or the American Medical Association, one that could give IT professionals a single voice for speaking out on issues that affect everyone — such as H-1B visa limits or tax incentives to keep IT jobs onshore."

Comments

shouldn't bother ..

[rs232]

"the best bet for IT may be .. one that could give IT professionals a single voice for speaking out on issues that affects everyone -- such as H-1B visa limits or tax incentives to keep IT jobs onshore"

Sounds good except the Union will most probably end up being run for the sole benefit of the executive officers and keeping the staff compliant on behalf of management, just like they do here.

Re:Speak for yourself

[nysus]

There will always be the workers who are management favorites, like a teacher's pet. Good for you if are able to achieve that. Instead of working out in the fields, you get to work inside and maybe even become a master someday if you please the current master well enough.

But, on the whole, I'm talking on a societal level here, unions have done more to lift ALL boats, not just your personal dinghy, than any other institution.

Re:Hell no.

[Awptimus Prime]

Well sir, I respond to your "blah blah blah" with this:

BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

I see we are going places with this.

Re:Exactly

[jmorris42]

> Nobody knows what's exactly going to go down in an Obama presidency,

And that doesn't bother you? Doesn't it bother you that this idiot has been campaigning for almost two years and nobody has a fricking clue? But I'm going into even more unPC territory and am going to ask you a question I have been asking of Obama supporters for a couple of months and never received a response....

Every other person who has seriously placed themselves into consideration for POTUS can point to at least ONE accomplishment in their lives. What is Obama's? Hint: Getting elected to the Senate against Alan Keyes doesn't count, I could pull that off.

> but I can tell you exactly what's going to happen to a McCain presidency;

Oh really? I'm planning on voting for the bastard and other than killing terrorists I can't with any certainty figure out what the hell he will do.

> four more years of failed policies and lock-step agreement with the GOP.

I wish. You guys chant 'failed administration' but I just don't see it. Hell yes I have disagreements with Bush policies, hell yes he made some major league cockups. But compared to previous administrations Bush has been pretty good. The economy was circling the crapper when he came in (lookup exactly when the .bomb blew. Compare and contrast to economic coverage leading up to the election. Uh huh.) and then stuff went FOOM! just a few months into his term. So when you factor in a flaky congress flipping hands several times and having razor thin margins throughout, I'll give a solid B- for a grade. Demerits for total failure to stand up to excess spending, but bonus points for Alito and Roberts.... even if we had to nudge him a bit re: Harriet. So if McCain can manage to be as good as Bush it would be a net win compared to the almost certain disaster of Carter proportions if Obama the empty suit wins.