Tech Firms Oppose Union Organizing

cedarhillbilly passes along a piece from TheHill.com on the chilly reception that tech firms and lobbying groups are giving to a bill promoting union formation, which has a chance of passing in a more strongly Democratic congress and with a Democratic president. "Up to now, large tech groups have been on the sidelines in what is likely to be one of the roughest fights in Congress next year. A few, however, are preparing to weigh in. That makes other tech lobbyists nervous that, by doing so, the industry could sacrifice relatively good relationships with Democrats and, therefore, jeopardize some of their other legislative priorities."

Comments

heh

[stoolpigeon]

It's interesting that every single person in the article is against it except for a dnc congressman. The end of the article says he bemoans the lack of union growth. Why would he be concerned about union growth? Why would he be so concerned about union growth that he would try and take steps to lower the bar on organizing groups of people who probably don't even want it? Oh yeah - money. This is why I hate politics. This has nothing to do with serving people it is all about finding revenue streams to fund their next election. Maybe they can get the rest of the country to be like the state of Washington and force people into unions, fire the ones that wont join and rack up plenty of contributions that way.
 
I was a union member for a number of years. (UFCW) Fortunately it was in a right to work state and it was my choice. And fortunately it was possible to relatively private about joining or not joining. None of this harassment that can come in other environments. Unions are just like employers - they are good to keep in check against one another but I think it is a mistake to think they are purely for the employee. They quickly fall to Pournelle's Iron Law. This whole affair is a marked reminder of that fact.
 
I don't think the Republicans are any better for what it is worth - but I think at least the discussion on what this is all about out to be frank rather than draped in a bunch of spin. Being cautious about unions is not being anti employee.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

I had some run ins with store managers that had napoleon complexes and the union got my back. I could never have worked for the union though because they had to spend a lot of time trying to help people who deserved to get fired keep their jobs.
 
But it was a time and place when the employers really didn't care if they kept you or not and didn't want to give us decent insurance and the union helped that to happen - so I felt they provided more pros than cons. But it's easy for it to tip the other way.

Re:heh

[Martin Blank]

Term limits have their own set of problems. California did this back in the 1990s, and I was an enthusiastic supporter of the concept. The problem is that it tends to bring in ideologues who have to run on their professed beliefs rather than their track record. I would gladly scrap term limits to get back politicians that can actually compromise with each other instead of walk the party line.

Re:heh

[josecanuc]

Just thinking here... What about the limit being only 2 consecutive terms, but either no upper limit on number of terms or a high limit like 6 or 8 terms?

That might allow a chance to see something different, but allow the opportunity to bring back a good person if change didn't work out.

Re:heh

[Martin Blank]

I suspect that you'll end up with professional place-holders, or you'll end up with politicians working in circles in places like California where the legislative bodies use the same term lengths and election cycles. The Assembly becomes the Senate and vice versa every eight years. It adds complexity where it doesn't really need to be.

Re:heh

[d3ac0n]

Indeed. This is why I'm for straight-up term limits. 2 terms for Senate, 4 for House (keeping in mind, a House term is only 2 years). That way a Senator can serve a maximum of 12 years, a House member, 8. I suppose you could up the limit to 6 for a House member if you want to keep the "maximum years to serve" even, I'm open to debate on that one.

As far as "Only electing ideologues" issue, I'd say that we don't have ENOUGH of them at the federal level beyond the "big spender" type, which I don't find terribly exciting or desirable. I would WELCOME some ACTUAL ideologues to the ring. People who wish to serve as a politicians because they have a PASSION for their country and a PASSION for an idea. Even if I disagreed with the idea, AT LEAST I would be able to respect their passion. (Of course, I would oppose them just as passionately, but I would still respect them.) Instead we get the Blagojevich's of the world who could care LESS about ideas and good government, and are only there to line their pockets.

Re:heh

[dkleinsc]

A lot of the anti-union sentiment has to do with attitudes towards fellow techies: a vast majority of drivers consider themselves to be better-than-average drivers, and in a similar vein a vast majority of programmers and admins think that they're better-than-average at what they do. That illusion means that they think that they can get better salary and benefits on their own.

Another issue is that most people see unions as part of a blue-collar system, and programmers as white-collar employees.

They may be right, they may not be. But there's definitely a lot of BS that goes around.

Re:UAW

[maxume]

They worked extremely well for the people who have been members for the last 40 years. And the government is either going to make their pensions whole or loan the auto companies the money to do it, so pretty much, they (the 40 year members) don't have any downside at all.

Management vs Labor

[Doc Ruby]

Of course the owners of the corporations are against their labor organizing. The purpose of a union is to spend more of the corporation's profits on labor, leaving less for the owners.

What's interesting is how often the union's improved terms for labor increases labor's productivity. Which means a larger total profit, so even a smaller share of it to the owners can be a larger total amount than before the union, when worse working conditions produced less profit for everyone.

Which shows that sometimes, the owners are not maximizing profit, but just maximizing their power.

Re:Unions aren't the answer

[sesshomaru]

Look, if your from the UK you mostly won't understand how this works. The American working class, at least the anti-union ones posting here, have been propagandized since birth to think "Union Bad!"

On the other hand, it eventually penetrates through this fog that IT people aren't treated very well. So, the anti-union IT people have a dilemma, "I wasn't able to take my vacation this year, I have to work weekends, holidays and long hours everyday. Oh, and my boss is threatening to replace me with cheap overseas labor. Hmm... maybe if I was part of some organization of all the other IT workers, my life wouldn't be so miserable."

Amongst this group, some will fear offending their god, "But if there are unions, then plutocrats will have less opulent luxury. Since one day, my faith in free markets, low taxes, and zero regulation will be rewarded by me being raised to the ranks of the plutocrats I don't want my opulent luxury reduced. Therefore, I will continue to keep my nose to the grindstone and forget this silly union nonsense."

Another part of the group will think, "Maybe our holy plutocrats just don't know about how miserable they are making us. That's it, they actually like and care about us, but we have no way to approach them about the unintended misery they are causing. If we had an organization, we could let them know how crummy it makes us feel that they are depressing wages and forcing us to work insane hours. But... but... Union Bad! Well, maybe if we just don't call our organization a union it will be ok."

The third part of the group thinks, "You know, my parents have healthcare, a pension and the ability to enjoy their retirement and take cruises and things. Meanwhile my retirement plan consists of a straight razor and a warm bath. You know, my Dad was in a union, and when he had to come in on weekends or work holidays he got paid extra money. Maybe the holy plutocrats are actually evil parasitic scumbags, and... I know this is heresy... unions are actually good and a path to prosperity for the working class."

Re:Globilization

[falcon5768]

Or it can work to protect your job. I cant say I dont understand at all the disgust against unions (I do know, its mostly lies and its mostly thanks to Reagan republicans and democrats who where swindled and then swindled their kids into listening to the bullshit) but what I do know is IT workers, training their Indian and Asian replacements in the US WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING if unions where present. One of the biggest reasons its cheaper for companies to move to a new country has everything to do with willing Tech idiots training these people who will do their current job for LESS.

One of the biggest reasons I enjoy being a tech in the education sector is because I know even though I myself am not tenured like teachers are, my job is protected as long as I do it and do it right. I wont be outsourced, and I wont be replaced by someone who is more willing to do it cheaper, and I will make my FAIR wage, and not have some asshole come up with bullshit pulled out of his ass why I shouldn't make more money while they gets a 4,000 dollar raise.