Slashdot Mirror
NYT on High Tech Unions
Rob sent us a New York
Times article (this means you need a free registration) that talks about something we've addressed here in the past. Its tech unions. It talks about the struggle of the MS Temps,
as well as the fact that techies are often paid well (cash, stock options and benefits) that the 70 hour work weeks just don't seem so
bad.
How one makes the leap from "I think usions are bad" and "Unions are not needed" to "therefore I oppose the creation of any union even if I have no intention of joining" puzzles me.Like unions? Join up or create one! Don't like 'em? Don't Join? Want to tell other people that they can't form a union? Then you're a control-freak and a moron.
It's really that simple. Choice people. It's why the free market works. Make your own choices. Don't try to make mine for me.
Nevada comes to mind, which must be ironic in your view that the supposed organized crime run unions and hotels cannot require workers to join the union (the cullinary union in this case).
If you say you support "right to work" laws, then this is where you should be directing your efforts, not slamming unions for what "might happen". Supporting the former would do the nation far more good than ranting about the latter.
Who are you to tell other other people what they can and cannot do wrt to forming a union? No one is telling you that you should join or work to create a union. Why are you trying to forcibly impose your will on others? Don't I have the right to make my own choices?
Amen brother. Just asking for health insurance here in the South (south-eastern United States for you international readers) can easily mean that you won't get the job. I've given-up on finding a job with health insurance, so I'm paying for it myself. I'd hate to imagine how quickly I'd be asked to leave if I mentioned the word "union" and/or any demands that this "union" would make. The guy from Microsoft complained about paying for health insurance out of $60K per year. Try doing the same on a $22K per year job in the South designing monitoring equipment for textile machinery. I've got a $1,000 deductable, but I don't have a $1,000 in the bank. What do I do if I get sick? Put the $1,000 on a credit card? After all of my fixed costs, I only have about $150 per month to pay for food, entertainment, and gas. I went to a concert last month (woohoo Ozzy), and I had to eat white bread and liver mush (hey, it was less than a $1 for a pound) for the rest of the month. It's not that bad, except that on my way home, I have to pass by more than a dozen restaurants that I've never been able to go to. Someone w/ a degree from a good school (hint, it's in Atlanta GA and it rhymes w/ wreck) shouldn't have to get a part-time job working at a GNC just so I can eat a meal or two a week in a restaurant. I make about half of what the uneducated machine operators make, and I'm the one building the circuits and writing the software that schedules their production and computes their production pay. Bah!
Yes, I remember working at Hughes Aircraft quite some time
ago, where the factory workers were unionized while us techies
weren't.
They had all kinds of stupid rules prohibiting engineers
from doing any physical labor whatsoever. You could get in
trouble for moving a box of computer paper from one room to
another. Instead, you were supposed to arrange for a union
"move" person to do it, which could take hours.
Not too long back an M.D. was almost a license to
print money. But oversupply, HMOs, gov, cost
control has reigned this in. Some HMOs are so
tightfisted that their doctors make less than
programmers. Believe or not kiddies, high tech
has had its down cycles in the past too.
Once you have a life (wife and kids), you'll find that you can't work 70 weeks without (1) alienating your kids or (2) alienating and pissing off your wife. Then when you reduce your hours to 40, you'll be fired and replaced with a fresh college geek who has no life and more time on his hands. You'll also find that you can't get hired elsewhere since you cannot put in the same number of hours that you used to. Or if you do get hired, it'll be at substantially less pay than you're used to. Sucks, yes? Still think there's no place for unions? Think again.
As a professional tech worker I seriously doubt that any union could represent me as well as I can represent myself. I would never join a union, nor would I work for a company that would require me to.
As a professional tech worker I seriously doubt that any union could represent me as well as I can represent myself. I would never join a union, nor would I work in a job that would require me to. It would guarantee me less pay and fewer benefits than I can acquire on my own. I'm sure a lot of tech workers feel the same way.
Fast-food is an interesting one. Some workers at a McDonalds in Canada fought for union representation for a year or so recently. When they finally won, McDonalds responded by closing that 'shop'
A quick, OT factual correction...
The unionized McDonald's in Squamish, BC, was not closed. However, a few weeks ago, workers there voted to de-certify. Of course, the union and the employees who had pushed certification in the first place claimed that McDick's had used all sorts of underhanded tactics to achieve that. I don't know how much of that is true.
It's a good thing they didn't close it down. If they had, where would we stop to pee when traveling between Vancouver and Whistler?
If you truly are a high-school dropout, I would be more then willing to bet there are VERY FEW 35 year old college grads that you can outperfom. Maybe not in your mind, but in 99.9999% of the rest of the worlds. If you are so good, get yourself some kind of certification or degree, it will help you out later on.
Gosh, it sure is sunny out... why waste your time building a roof on your house. You won't need it until it starts raining -- build it then.
As for poor Bill Gates losing a small chunk of his *Billions* because of those nasty uppity workers that should just move. Whatever happened to capitalism? You know, Bill tries to pay as little as possible for the most possible hours, and the people that do the work try to get paid as much as possible for the least amount of work.
If getting together with your coworkers can be used to get in a better bargaining position, more power to you. You can bet that Bill will try to keep you apart so that *he* is in a better bargaining position.
Dude get another job. As a former MIS employee of a large textile company, I can only say get out, get out, get out! The market is way to good to waste your time on those old-fashioned bone-heads.
Given the current U.S. school system, I imagine most of the posters on slashdot know little about the first 8-hour day fight (or the 10 and 12 hour day fights that preceded it), beyond the fact that it involved dirty people in the 19th century.
Few people then or now "choose" to work 70+ hours each week. Some work that long because their boss pays them less if they slack off and only work 40-50 hours, others work that long because it is the industry standard -- and if you want to do the sort of work you like, you have little choice. Back then, workers would "choose" to work 70 hour weeks because they needed the "extra" money to feed their families.
Well, guess what, the 8 hour fight was for the "8 hour day, no cut in pay" -- and they won! Of course, over the years, everyone got lazy and forgot that the 8 hour day wasn't a gift from god or their boss, and now (in the U.S.) the 8 hour day is gone. Of course, even though everyone is working harder than people were 20, 30 years ago, we're still getting paid about the same. And expect those days to get longer... until we get together and stop it.
And it doesn't matter whether you have a charter from the an established union, or if you just got together with your coworkers and told your boss "enough!", that's a union.
People need to rethink what a "strike" might mean in the high-tech industry. Sure, standing out on the sidewalk for weeks won't get you anything, but a well-timed 1 day or even 1 hour strike might get you everything you want.
If you have a team of 10 coders, I'm sure you can think of plenty of pressure-point times where your value is suddenly in tens of millions of dollars. If one person walks off for a day, they'll be fired and the others will be required to take up the slack -- in that case you aren't worth much to the boss, so they can get rid of you. But if all 10 walk out even for a very short time, then you are suddenly worth a lot more -- why shouldn't you be able to demand that you get treated with the respect you deserve, whether that be issues about your work and how you'd like it done, or about the work environment.
And please, nobody give me sob stories about poor Bill Gates and how it wouldn't be nice to put him in a difficult position. You think bosses think twice about firing someone? (well, we'll make a better profit if we fire him now, but I hear he just put a downpayment on a house, and that wouldn't be nice)
A few people have pointed out that companies now see tech works as just labor. Well, that is true, but if you want to unionize, you might want to think about a few changes. How about...
1) Being layed off while the next project is gearing up and then being rehired to implement it. Sure you might get a little pay while being layed-off, but you still must pay your full union dues.
2) So you the best programmer in the shop. Why are you not getting any recognition? Well, the union rep is the most important programmer in the shop.
3) You think your not being paid enough. Well, the union implemented pay scales and grades. You're a G7 and according to the contract this is what you make.
If you are good at what you do unions will get in the way. If you are not, unions are the great equalizer.
I don't really have a problem with someone working extra hours if they enjoy their work, but when you consider that high-tech people are getting bought off with dubious stock options, frisbee games, and free soda, it makes you wonder how malleable people are.
I particularly like the guy interviewed in the article who said something like "If they don't like the way they get treated they should just get hired as permanent employees." Ooh, clever. I don't suppose it occurred to the guy that M$ hires temps *because* they're more malleable, and *because* they're cheaper and M$ is therefore not exactly likely to hand out permanent jobs to every temp who asks for one?
I wonder how much "free will" your average entry-level programmer actually has, in the big Tech Towns. It's not like you can walk off a job with 4 months experience and have multiple headhunters vying for your attention. In which case I think they convince themselves that the "cool" corporate culture is somehow worth 25 extra hours a week and $20K less a year. I've been wondering for a while if M$ et al hire spin doctors and PR people to convince people that they really WANT to forego sleep for camaraderie and coding mayhem.
So, let me get this straight... If your boss says that you have to work 80 hour weeks or you're fired, then he's not forcing you to do anything because you can just quit.
But if your coworkers decide that 80 hours is bullshit and get together to pressure the boss to lower hours with no cut in pay, and to make sure that they can keep the shorter hours, they sign a contract with the boss saying that he can't hire non-union workers. In that case, you are being forced to join the union? Can't you just get a job at some other company?
Make up your mind, is it force or choice?
I'm worth my pay, and refuse to subsidize some lazy buffoon my boss no longer wants to employ.
The way I see it the union should not be permitted to interfere in the contract between the worker and the employer. There should be a federal law eliminating the "collective bargaining" states. If you work for my employer and don't want to compete with me, you're free to quit.
Oh, you were definately exploited, not by MS, but by your contract agency. You were getting $19.38 per hour? Well MS was probably paying your agency $35-40 per hour, even though you're doing all the work.
This is one example of what tech unions like Washtech are trying to fight. This isn't a union vs. company war or a "we want more money" war, this is a "you can only screw us so much" war.
In any industry standards can become skewed beyond acceptable levels. 60-80hr work weeks are an example. Changing jobs doesn't change the standards you are forced to work with. Unions try to battle the wacked out standards and find a nicer equilibrium for both the workers and the employers.
I expect it'd be Me and My Boss versus The Union. "That's not your job" rules, incompetents with seniority, sympathy strikes for flunkies I don't give a damn about, low-level sabotage and terrorism ... we've all heard what unions become.
70+ hours in a mill or at a poorly-engineered assembly line was grueling and life-threatening. 70+ hours at a keyboard means you have to keep an eye on your wrists and your diet. Boo hoo.
My coworkers and I telling our boss "enough!" is just collective bargaining. It doesn't become a Union until we kill people and destroy stuff if he finds more agreeable workers.
I care about my own work; I don't want to waste it for an employer who isn't happy to have me. There's no reason to lose touch with people worth knowing (even when they aren't coworkers anymore), and a desk is a desk.
Yeah and slashdot is only in it for the money.
Unions are not some money grubbing con artists, unions are non-profit organizations formed and run by the workers themselves.
I don't think unions ruin workers or towns, I think big companies with unsuccessful business practices do. The companies failed because "the unions demanded too much" you say, well the companies were probably in a world of hurt long before any demands were made.
Product liability and gross negligence can handle that. It's not as if the individuals involved need to be banned from writing for pinball machines or Web browsers for life.
I'd argue that good coders know what not to waste time memorizing because you can just look it up on occasion. "Scratch code into a coconut husk on a desert island" isn't high in most job descriptions.
It's perfectly natural to assume that one has the right to purchase labor as one chooses--one can purchase anything else without having to justify one's actions to the Equal Opportunies Commission. What is it about paying someone to work for you that makes it philosophically different? And, more importantly, what is it that gives YOU the right to decide what the appropriate criteria are for hiring and firing?
And you're boasting as if your experience had been a Good Thing! The fact is, you conned them into paying you to waste time, aided by a thinly-veiled threat of a catastrophe of violence and bankruptcy. I'm glad you're doing something worthwhile with your gains, but that doesn't make up for the way they were stolen.
Tell that to the Teamsters. The mobsters they just got rid of skimmed millions off dues, didn't they?
Damn right I'm gonna complain about having to buy my own insurance. When my contract agency makes $30k+ per year off me why the hell should I have to pay a damn dime for thier near nonexistent services to me when I'm doing all of the work and getting all of the raises. I should be keeping the money to buy other things... like a house and in this housing market $60k a year won't get you much... this isn't Georgia where you can get a mansion for $150-200k, around here you get a run-down shack an hour commute from work for that much.
How do you suppose the 40-hour work week, paid
vacation, and the abolition of child labor came
about? It didn't happen because captains of industry just woke up one morning and decided to give them to working people. Workers organized and fought for them, often putting their lives and livelihoods at risk. Union wages during the forties and fifties created a huge consumer market that fueled the post-WWII economic expansion. Ignoring the contributions of Union men and women in the thirties, forties, and fifties to our quality of working life is like ignoring the contribution of WWII veterans to protecting the liberties we routinely take for granted.
Thank you for your personal account. I think your experience is more common than a reader of Slashdot might indicate. My mother was a public school teacher, and I have no illusions about what our lives would have been like without the teacher's union to represent her.
Not all Slashdot readers are narrow-minded Social Darwinists who have been sheltered from many of the grim economic realities of life in America.
"Solidarity works when you have large numbers of people living in absolute squalor, top management taking home millions of dollars each year in compensation"
Sounds a bit like Microsoft...
Finally someone sees reality and doesn't hide behind the "ideal world" mentality of "just find a job that doesn't screw you over and let the bad employers die out".
I'm tired of hearing things like "you're not dumb, you don't need a union to help you". If you're smart and make a good amount of money it doesn't necessarily mean that you are getting everything and more than you deserve, everybody can get equally screwed over by all types of employers. It's not usually even a possibility to negotiate with an employer by yourself when it comes to major issues.
Unions are not the answer, they are a tool to get the answer.
Why was the previous comment moderated to -1? The comment was clearly not Trolling. It is a simple statement of fact. This abuse of moderation is scary.
Check out Confessions of a Union Buster for more information about these guys.
Well said... Union zeolots want a cushy job, with no risk that any hotshot with some ambition and talent will replace them...
Funny, you never see the 'stars' of a company whinning about wanting to unionize...
Why do geeks work 70 hour weeks? Maybe because
of the rush we feel staying up late, fixing
that last bug, implementing that last cool feature, or meeting our deadline so we can
show our cool product to the client, boss, or
world.
Maybe we don't do it because we were threatened or will be fired.
The fundamental fact that union people miss is that GEEKS LIKE GETTING CREDIT. It's one of the big reasons we contribute to open source.
Union's are not based on merit, they are based on seniority. Unions get between your boss and you. You're boss won't give a damn how hard you worked, and neither will the union.
This may be fine if you work at Safeway checking groceries (like my mom), but as Steve Jobs would say in Pirates of Silicon Valley "I NEED ARTISTS, NOT A BUNCH OF CLOCK-PUNCHING-LOSERS"
As manager of my own new startup, I want employees who work for the benefit of the company, who actually CARE about the QUALITY of their work and the company.
I don't want a bunch of 9-to-5 union-due-paying senionity based CLOCK-PUNCHING-LOSERS!
hell, I wouldn't want ANY employee who doesn't have the guts and balls to demand the most he wants from me.
Whenever I went into a job interview, I would always ask for double what I wanted, and any downward negotiating would be coupled with other benefits (signing bonus, options, vacation days, etc)
If you like unions, move to France -- home of government jobs, mandatory work week limitations, striking farmers who riot, and a failing economy with no prospects of social mobility.
> It talks about the struggle of the MS Temps, as
> well as the fact that techies are often paid
> well (cash, stock options and benefits) that
> the 70 hour work weeks just don't seem so bad.
Hmmm. AFAIK we're restricted to 48 hours per week(with rules on just how much of that you can do at once) here in Europe. The French are even proposing having a 35 hour working week.
For me this is a good thing. People generally work much harder and smarter when they aren't trying to out-psyche each other with "macho" programming marathons....which usually have to be rewritten anyway.
Dave
>I've heard horror stories - not about what management is doing to the employees, but how the employees
> are screwing the company *because* they belong to a union.
For a humorous look at this sort of activity, check out the movie "I'm All Right, Jack".
Damn right. How can the unions push their old divisive "us and them" politics-of-envy when the workers between them actually own a fairly significant percentage of the company, have great benefits and training, and a huge amount of flexibility in their working practices?
Unions are simply a facade over mob rule, the sooner they are eliminated the better it will be for the entire industry. Unions typically have rules of seniority, inferior workers who simply happen to have served longer are judged as more worthy highly skilled and motivated staff, for example. Unionism is so laughable I can scarcely believe high tech workers would even consider it!
As for the microtemps, they knew what they were getting into, and have no cause for complaint now. Envy is their sole motivation, and the desire to take by force that which they have not earned.
Whether or not you or I think this is a good policy is irrelevant. The company is the private property of the owner (or the shareholders) and they have the absolute right to determine their own policies. If you don't like it, you are free to start your own company and compete with them.
If you are unwilling to do so, you have absolutely no right to criticise someone who has.
AMEN!
If I were given the choice of working pro or con union, it would be con. I will fight for my own rights, thank you very much.
I work *with* management, not against them. Perhaps I have a bit of a slanted view, since the company I work for is a great place to work and management is actually sane.
However, I *would* move on if I couldn't come to agreement with management, irregardless of family ties. My job is to support my family in all areas; I can't do that if my work is demanding 70+ hour weeks or other familial benefits. These people who whine "I can't move" aren't hungry enough or pissed off / fed up enough. Especially/B in the computing/programming biz.
Every one seems to think that unions are not neccecary, I disagree. Unions could fight the 100 hour work weeks that are just killing some workers (go read that hitech sweatshop story). You might get paid a lot even without the help of unions, but there really is more to it than just the amount of money you make.
No. The Worker has the right to refuse 100hr work weeks. The Worker has the right to tell employment to shove this job so far up their arse the next guy's gonna need a toilet snake to get it out. The Worker (in the tech industry at least) has the freedom to move on if Management is too stupid. Unions are a Bad Idea in tech. Think about it. It's not like there are any lack of jobs.
Fuck even where I live (2hrs northwest of Toronto) I can find dozens of tech. jobs without going to the city. Think about it! It's not like it's a one or two industry town and if you aren't in with the steel mills or lumber mills you're no good.
Unions in tech. are for weak minded people who don't want to fight for their rights. The guy in that "horror" story this morning had every right to leave. Management comes screaming in the next day because it isn't done you throw a bundle of Cat5 at him and tell him to do it himself if he thinks he can do a better job.
Poor management doesn't breed this kind of worker, it's the worker who doesn't have enough self-esteem to stand up for himself that allows management to say "you're only getting paid 40hrs no matter how long you stay."
God people, think about it. Stand up for yourselves.
If they were truly sincere about bettering wages and working conditions, you'd see a massive attempt to unionize fast-food workers and 7-11 cashiers. No, there isn't much money to be skimmed there so they ignore those folks.
Actually, the organizing effort around high-tech is fairly tiny compared to organizing going on around janitors, home health care workers, and other 15k/yr jobs. (Fast-food is an interesting one. Some workers at a McDonalds in Canada fought for union representation for a year or so recently. When they finally won, McDonalds responded by closing that 'shop'.) Tech labor just makes for better copy in the NYT.
Not that unions can ignore well paid fields, either. One of the more interesting growth areas for unions now is with disgruntled medical professionals. Didn't the AMA or something recently endorse unions in concept?
I wish articles like this focused less on "oh, what will these hapless unions do in the Brand New Economy?", and reported more on what is or isn't working for tech workers. Like the hiring hall idea -- really interesting. Is it working? Why? Why not? Oh well, I can dream, can't I?
Besides the objection in the other reply here, this assumes that the employer believes you're willing to make good on that threat. They may well know that you are, for reasons of family or otherwise, tied to a place with few available options. They may call your bluff. Then what?
My other point was, who wants to move, even to the company next door, just to gain a few simple demands. Starting anew at a company is a pain. You don't know the people or the place or the culture. If you care about your own work, you don't want to take that kind of hit to your productivity and effectiveness.
Remember, your employer is, on the one hand, the manager you see around, who may care deeply about their employees; your employer is, on the other hand, the company's owners who care about ROI and not much else. If treating you with respect is more profitable, great, if not, tough. So who do you want to work for again?
When you're young and in a booming sector of the economy, it's easier to just pack up for better prospects, true. But neither will always be. A lot of software jobs will relocate to the third world in the next decade. If you're not a star programmer yourself, will you just relocate too?
(Related: you might enjoy a new book "Corrosion of Character" by Richard Sennett about the effects on people's personal lives of 'non-committal' work environments. How does one practice trust/committment with friends and family, while doing the opposite with work?...)
I'm not saying unions are the only answer to this -- just that I think the 'simply move' argument is chickenshit crap.
I work in the South at a non union manufacturing plant. I enjoy twice the average family wage, the company pays for health insurance, provides 100% vesting in profit sharing, and is a good company to work for. I continue working at my place of employment, because they are good employers. If I didn't like my job, I'd quit!
We did have a union (IBEW) try to hijack the plant again last year and it took us a year to kick them back out. I do not want the violence that they showed at one of our smelters to come to our plant and cause us grief in the workplace. Over 70% of us signed a petition *twice* to remove them and finally the company listened to kick them out.
Unions might be good in places, but not where I work. I sure would like to see them represent fast food workers, but we pay more and they want a cut. They want to offer us protection, you see.
What kind of post is that? You can spout off about choice all you want, but choice is a union's worst fear. If choice was even a factor, then whiny employees would choose a different employer. Do unions accept choice when a worker crosses a picket line?
And as far as free markets, your post shows a serious lack of understanding. If in fact free markets worked, then employers could fire striking workers and replace them with people who want the jobs. But unions require government intervention here to provide artificial job security mechanisms.
The fact that "labor movement leaders" have to scramble to find a way to survive indicates that the need for unions must be waning. If they were truly sincere about bettering wages and working conditions, you'd see a massive attempt to unionize fast-food workers and 7-11 cashiers. No, there isn't much money to be skimmed there so they ignore those folks.
This whole unionization of the tech-sector is a big joke. If you're good, you'll make it. Hell, if your even mediocre you'll make it. You gotta love the M$ temp who is making $60k/yr and complaining about not getting the benefits that M$ employees get. Didn't he know those were the terms when he accepted the assignment?
rant...rave...fume!
When I was flipping burgers at McDonald's I wanted something better. So I worked harder. Then I left it for a better paying job with benefits and better working conditions. I also busted my ass 50+ hrs/wk while taking 12 - 15 credits of college (paid for out of my pocket) for four years. I then left that employer for greener pastures. I have had several employers since graduation, but each time I have set myself up for a better position.
Unions use the gang mentality, which is in direct contrast to my work ethic. So yes, I am opposed to unions. If you think you should be able to bully an employer for conditions that I have worked for, then I will oppose you.
Ever notice the "right to work" states in the U.S. tend to have generally lower living standards than the states in which the unions are allowed to negotiate closed shops. All it takes is a few scared employees to break the solidarity that a union needs to negotiate beneficial contracts for its members. Employers play one state against the other, threatening constantly to move to a state with laws that assist the employer in maintaining lower labor costs. The way I see it the state should not be permitted to interfere in the contract between the union and the employer. There should be a federal law eliminating the "right to work" states. If you work with me and you don't want to join a union go work somewhere else. You're free to quit.
Well, in truth, I have to pick the other side of that statement. I worked in theatre for a nice long time, both in educational settings, and professional environments. While i understand a lot of the frustration that unions can cause, let me turn it around. It guaranteed a minimum safety and intelligence level. When i was hanging upside down out of a truss, trying to focus a light, the last thing i wanted to have to worry about was whether the bonehead next to me knew what a light WAS! The only real experience i have with unions (in case you couldn't guess) is the I.A.T.S.E. (Internat'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees). It saved my hide i don't know how many times.
In many ways the Theatre Industry is a lot like the computer industry. There are deadlines that have to be met, and tons of clueless people to work around to meet said deadlines. Not to mention people that would be more than willing to run the local help into the ground because they could. Does this sound familiar?
I'll pick an example, where we, the IA workers for the day, showed up to unload a show. It didn't show up for 5 HOURS after the time it was scheduled. While we stood around waiting. Why? Because they'd gotten drunk (and other) the city before and hadn't left on time. They then proceeded to try and work everyone straight through to the out, and complained mightily about food breaks, rest breaks, et al. Turns out they even tried to not pay the union for the 5 hours we were standing around waiting for them. The union paid us for the time we waited, enforced meal breaks and rest breaks, and, consequently,ended up preventing several accidents. People that don't take a break become a danger. Even in computers. At a bare minimum level, they become less effective. Whle in an ideal world, everyone would take a break when they need it, i will not complain if someone enforces it. I also won't complain about a forced fair wage. Yeah, there are times it's inconvenient, and it's another level of beaurocracy, but this one is there to protect us. The worker. The show happened, and the audience had NO IDEA about the truama that went on backstage. That's the way it's supposed to work. In our world as well. As long as the Union is managed intelligently, it can save a lot of truama.
If you are curious about the IA, try going here: History of the 100 years of the Union
Take a drive through Flint Michigan sometime. One of the birthing places of the UAW is just a 20 mile long slum now. The unions are interested in us because theyve already ruined the auto worker.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
I don't work in a high-tech job, but I think that the same ideas apply here... Last year I was working 70+ hour work weeks w/o overtime and w/o any reason not to. Did I ask for representation? No... The reason that I was working so many hours wasn't because I wasn't doing my job... Not because someone was standing over me telling me to... It was b/c I needed to.
I am a swim coach for a summer swim team. 75 kids staring at me every morning from a freezing cold pool hanging on whatever I say... Now... It is kinda like what the guy in the NYT story was talking about. He said that he was doing it for the love of the industry, and the knowledge that the people that are using his software are getting what they want out of what he has created. He is helping out other people, as I am helping out these kids.
I was thinking about going into the computer industry and working these sweat-shop hours and working for whatever pay, but I didn't... I don't love computers the way I love the way that the kids appreciate what I have done for them... The only time you need to be represented is if you don't love what you are doing, if you don't want to do what you are doing, and if you don't have the brains yourself to change your situation...
I am not trying to say that Unions haven't served their purpose, but why when you already have benefits, money, and good stock options would you need someone else to fight for the number of hours you are working on something that you should be loving?
Think about that...
Christ, I'm a furking anarchocapitalist, and I don't hide it. But I do my damndest to use those moderator points wisely when I get them, and mark things up appropriately, and concentrate on upgrading rather than down. And that doesn't mean slapping Troll and Flamebait labels on posts just because I don't agree with the philosophy or politics of the poster.
Fuck Slashdot
Why shouldn't the employers be able to hire or fire anyone they want? It's THEIR company, for chrissakes!
If I owned a company, I'd absolutely favor independant employees over union members. Why bring in another layer of management that's going to be hostile to me?
I recognise that there was a need for unions in some industries in the past. But nowadays I feel the unions cause as many problems as they solve.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Because once the union is in place, you often don't have a choice NOT to join. Closed shop rules.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
That is what's known as a closed shop, if unions had their way every union shop would be a closed shop.
In college, I worked at a supermarket that was a closed shop. For a $4.50/hour job with 12hrs/week, I had to pay the union $17/ week, $7 dues, and $10 initiation. After Taxes and Union dues I had maybe $25 spending money. I guess I was supposed to be grateful that I didn't make minimum wage (4.25/hour at the time).
To make things worse, one day a union rep showed, and tried to get us to donate money to their preferred political candidate. I told him, "Thanks, now I know who NOT to vote for."
I didn't stay at that job long
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
You obviously don't understand unions, either that or you're a union thug spreading misinformation. It is quite common for union membership to be manditory as a condition of employment. If we had universal "right to work" laws in place (laws that ban closed shops) then you'd have a point.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
What happened to the post that this was attached to?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Solidarity works when you have large numbers of people living in absolute squalor, top management taking home millions of dollars each year in compensation, and no alternatives.
I've done some support-related work for large companies that have a strong union presence, and I've heard horror stories - not about what management is doing to the employees, but how the employees are screwing the company *because* they belong to a union. In the wrong place, unions have the potential to become little more than private welfare programs for the terminally incompetent.
My father was a union man, My grandfather is a union man, My stepfather was a union man until he started his own construction business.
Unions are great for protecting the people from assholes in management, however when they end up doing is protecting asshole IN labor.
My grandfather works with a guy who caused an accident because he smoked crack before work and the union SAVED HIS JOB!
Unions also reward seniority over ability. If I've got twice the ability of someone who has been there 15 years longer than I have, I get fscked.
Unions get contracts written is such a way as to benefit those who've been there the longest. The new guys have to "pay their dues" in order for the union to represent them fully.
Unions have contributed to their own downfall. I'm from Pittsburgh, and I watched the Steel Industry die here because the unions were too demanding.
At the Westinghouse Air Brake Company (WABCO) a guy fell asleep at his station and when his boss sent him home the other union guys WALKED OUT!
Because some cretin fell asleep at his station the union shut WABCO down for a day.
During the 70's the union men at the steel mills would break the windows out of foreign cars that they found parked in their lots.
Unions can be good under certain circumstances, but let's not delude ourselves, they have just as much potential to go bad.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Gee, NYT runs a story on how unions are irrelevant to (some) high-tech workers. Well, duh. Consider the source. Ya think there just might be a bit of a slant?
I dont deny that the temps at MS are getting shafted in some way, but something makes them stay. Whether it's the paychecks or the environment or whatever, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If you dont like it, quit. If you dont want to quit, there must be something that makes it worth it to you. Feel free to vent and bitch and moan and complain, but remember that you're the one who is staying there for one reason or another, and in the end you have to remember that working long hours for good money and then complaining about it is not going to endear you to the majority of the wage earning public.
I worked construction when I was younger and I can tell you now, You're not going to get pity from these guys when you're making 60 large a year.
-Rich
Bingo! This is *exactly* the reason that I don't like unions. If I could go to work at a shop with a Union and be given the choice to join or not. I would be all for them (might not join, but I'd support their right to exist).
I'd even take it a step farther...Unions seem to use the rhetoric of competition being a good thing. So let's see them put their money where their mouth is. Why not have two unions competing for the membership of workers at any one place? If the Union can convince the workers that they will benefit from joining the Union, then they will get membership...but if the Union can't show that they have any relevance to the situation, they'll loose membership. Seems like a pretty nice set of checks and balances on Union vs. Management power.
So, for example, if mgmt is treating workers like crap, they're more likely to join the union, and with more workers in the union, the union will have more clout with mgmt. If mgmt is being cool towards the workers, then there is less incentive for them to join the union, and with fewer members, the union looses clout with mgmt, and thus looses the ability to abuse their clout.
Jeff
Every one seems to think that unions are not neccecary, I disagree. Unions could fight the 100 hour work weeks that are just killing some workers (go read that hitech sweatshop story). You might get paid a lot even without the help of unions, but there really is more to it than just the amount of money you make.
In college, I worked at a supermarket that was a closed shop. For a $4.50/hour job with 12hrs/week, I had to pay the union $17/ week, $7 dues, and $10 initiation. After Taxes and Union dues I had maybe $25 spending money. I guess I was supposed to be grateful that I didn't make minimum wage (4.25/hour at the time).
When I was in high school, I worked at a supermarket that was a non-union shop. I started out making $3.50, but was up to $5 an hour by the time I had been there two years.The minimum wage was $3.35 in those days. I also got more benefits than were typically given to part time people. Obviously some employers know how to treat their employees.
Make your own choices. Don't try to make mine for me.
I sure hope you are a supporter of 'right to work' laws then (laws that prevent 'closed shops' where you have to join a union to get a job).
Amen brother. Just asking for health insurance here in the South
:-( At any rate, my deductable is much smaller than that.
Here in the midwest, any sort of decent white collar job includes health insurance (although you may have to pay part of it, its generally $15-$60 a month).
(south-eastern United States for you international readers) can easily mean that you won't get the job.
Around here the real unemployment rate is less than 3%. Basically anyone who can and will work has a job. Other than people who are temporarily between jobs, anyone able bodied (or minded) around here who isn't working is either too picky or too lazy. Jobs for people with actual skills or experience are hard for employers to fill because there aren't sufficient quality people.
I've given-up on finding a job with health insurance, so I'm paying for it myself. I'd hate to imagine how quickly I'd be asked to leave if I mentioned the word "union" and/or any demands that this "union" would make. The guy from Microsoft complained about paying for health insurance out of $60K per year. Try doing the same on a $22K per year job in the South designing monitoring equipment for textile machinery. I've got a $1,000 deductable, but I don't have a $1,000 in the bank.
Who does? I may make good money, but I have a wife that knows how to spend it.
What do I do if I get sick? Put the $1,000 on a credit card? After all of my fixed costs, I only have about $150 per month to pay for food, entertainment, and gas. I went to a concert last month (woohoo Ozzy), and I had to eat white bread and liver mush (hey, it was less than a $1 for a pound) for the rest of the month. It's not that bad, except that on my way home, I have to pass by more than a dozen restaurants that I've never been able to go to. Someone w/ a degree from a good school (hint, it's in Atlanta GA and it rhymes w/ wreck)
I don't have a degree at all, and I manage to pull down considerably more than you are. That is not unusual. You need to switch jobs, yesterday.
shouldn't have to get a part-time job working at a GNC just so I can eat a meal or two a week in a restaurant. I make about half of what the uneducated machine operators make,
Entry level PC techs are making about double what you are getting around here, and most of them don't know one end of a soldering iron from the other. Get out of there now, before you screw up your career for good (if you stay in a bad job too long, it becomes more difficult to get a good one).
and I'm the one building the circuits and writing the software that schedules their production and computes their production pay. Bah!
Once again, get out. You don't have to put up with that. If you don't, then I will not feel sorry for you.
Right on brother. I don't like it when people I can outperform with one frontal lobe tied behind my back get paid more than I do because they are 35yr old college grads and I'm a 22yr old high school dropout. Unions would tend to enforce a salary scale that makes that happen. That's bad.
People should be able to band together to bargain with their employers. This is true. The argument that people should ALWAYS band together and make demands is ridiculous. This line of reasoning benefits the managers of the unions at the expense of the workers. In short, those workers who cling blindly to the union idea are encouraging the union to exploit them instead of allowing the capitalists to exploit them. Sort of like exchanging facism for stalinism. Nice.
Ok, guilty confession time. I used to work on the main MS campus. It sucked. I made $19.38/hr doing the same work that full time MS employees made 50K + stock doing, and other temps made $30-$40/hr. So I was one of them poor exploited underpaid temps. But wait... I was 20 years old and making more $$$ than my father ever did. That's pretty good. And it took me a week to make as much $$$ as the average hatian makes in a year. Even better. Then I quit and got a job with a different company for lots more money. Funny, I don't seem to be able to convince anyone that I was exploited.
--Shoeboy
Here in Ireland, we've got an interesting situation regarding hi-tech companies and unions; the two don't mix. If you want to join a union, you lose your job. This is with the biggie companies; Gateway et al; the government spends so much money attracting them to the country that they're not going to complain if the company acts in a way that some feel is less than ethical.
Maybe their Sysadmins are on strike!
Nah. If that were true, it'd say "Our tea ladies have been notified and are working to fix the problem."
Interestingly, I was on the site at approximately the same time as you; but I could get in.
I'm definitely gonna have to change the Nice setting on netscape.
I agree with you completely. I would like to add that the time of the highly paid programmer is coming to an end. Right now programmers over age 35 are having trouble getting hired. After the year 2000, every programmer working on the Y2K problem will be fired or transfered creating a small glut of programmers. It seems unlikely now; but, in Canada today, engineers who are not in electrical or computer science start at 10$ US / hour if they can get a job at all.
I suggest that programmers save all the money they can now, learn about investing and tax shelters to ride out the coming drought. It won't be pretty, it won't be fair; but it will happen.
Cheers,
Enrique
You're right about strikes being the most publicized thing unions can do.
A year ago union representatives of a large steel mill around here met with management to discuss salaries and working conditions during the weekend. Management knew about the union's demands and were prepared to give in to the main issues if need be. It turned out however that the union had *already* organized a strike for the following monday and were fighting to keep from reaching an agreement with management. They wanted the publicity of a strike because of decreasing membership.
How's that for screwing both the company that provides your livelihood and your own members at the same time?
Managers at the company I work for sometimes makes misinformed or clueless decisions. But rather than join a union, pay my dues and sit back letting the union take care of someone's interest (not necessarily mine), I'd rather talk to management and get other people to do so as well, if I have a problem or two.
I work at a large telecommunications company. At this location, the unskilled factory workers are union. While those of with true skills work for the company. Union people feel they work for the union. High tech people feel they work for themselves. I am going to list some of my major problems with unions in relation to our location.
All factory workers are required to join the Union. I Think this is unethical, and I don't see how we let this happen in America.
Factory workers are less likely to think about the good of the company. Unions perpetuate the idea of doing as little as possible. Not doing what is the best.
Unions do away with your ability to negotiate with your employer.With the current demand for high-tech employees, I like being able to convice my boss that if I stay till 2 A.M. I deserve an extra weekend on the next business trip. You don't have that with unions
Unions are only neccesary when employees have no true skill, only on the job training. Anyone can learn how to put a door on a car. Yet GM cannot afford to replace everyone at once, so unions make sense. However, Microsoft pays their employees well, and makes them millionaires in a few years.
We don't want or need labor unions. The labour unions promote what is best for them, like any other coorporation. Do you reall want another coorporation running your life?
I don't!
geach
No one should be forced to join a union. If you don't like your job, quit. Don't force me to join a union. Choice is always good. Be it an OS, or a Job
geach
The Therac-25 controller, and similarly bunged pieces of software, have killed people.
Secondly, the training required for programming has a short half-life. Many programmers don't learn this trade through the traditional channels, and I doubt that those who do are measurably better than those who don't. This, combined with the antiauthoritarianism of some programmers, would keep some of the brightest geeks out of the biz.
True, and this brings up the problem of how to do the initial certification. The best we have so far are the current CS standardized tests (the AP test, the GRE), and these are fantastically bad. Good coders, IMHO, are not measured by an encyclopaedic memory of the archaic facts of languages. This is, however, the only thing that we can objectively test.
Third, we have a serious programmer defecit in this country. Even bad programmers can help, improving under the wings of better programmers.
Yes, that would be a danger -- companies outsourcing everything to India or some other generally tech-savvy nation. But let's think about how this sort of certification has affected other professions. I recall from an Anthro class that when doctors first decided to become a certified profession, it elevated the prestige of doctors, and lowered the status of non-doctor medical workers (such as nurses and midwives). This actually attracted people to the profession, because it was seen as a really exclusive, high-class job. The same could well happen with programmers. And a stigma might develop about software developed outside the U.S. (for companies inside the U.S.), just as most U.S. people would balk at going to another country to get cheaper medical care.
Finally, imagine what a regulated programmer's association would do to free software. Regulation of programmers would necessarily transfer to regulation of software. Linux might get canned for not being 100% association-compliant!
True; the other worry is about code written exclusively for personal use. I think an association such as this ought to only cover code written for money that is (ever) used by other people. (This is still vague, but you get the idea.) (And of course, there should be an ex post facto clause for legacy code like Linux.)
The use of such an association would be for identification, not regulation. A smart company could hire both associated programmers and disaccociated programmers, specifically putting the former over the latter. Part of the "oath" of such an association might be to help unassociated programmers gain their certification.
How would this be different from the ACM or Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility?
The key words here are "a smart company"; it's not the smart companies we need to worry about.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Yes, one would certainly think a certification exam could cover all of those things. Except that in a multiple-choice exam, you really can't cover those things, not in depth. Ever see the CS GRE test? (I have a casual interest in grad school, but I live in fear of that damn thing.) It doesn't really ask questions about analyzing algorithms, it asks: "Which of the following is the asymptotic complexity of shaker sort?" So if you can regurgitate shaker sort, and swiftly analyze its complexity, the test gives you points for algorithm analysis -- as if this shallow knowledge of trivia were really indicative of how reliable a coder is.
Programming is probably more suited to the master/apprentice model practiced by craftsmen in the middle ages (and by the Sith a long time ago). I don't know how practical this would be, although it is how doctor training works.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
These days, coders are doing fine in leveraging management for high pay. What they don't necessarily have a lot of leverage in is product design, code quality, the ability to refuse to release an imperfect program, et cetera. This *is* because of a rift between labor and management -- we all know that PHBs tend to care less about quality than they ought to.
Now, what powers does a union have? Unions can strike. So a tech worker union's power would stem from its popularity -- whether the union had a pervasive enough membership to effectively blacklist a company from hiring coders.
What powers does a professional organization like the Bar Association have? The Bar Association has the legal authority to select which people may practice law. Those who practice law incorrectly lose their privilege to practice law, under penalty of fine or imprisonment.
This second model strikes me as more appropriate for the programming industry. We don't really have labor problems in this industry. Most problems in the industry stem from (for example) dopes in the marketing department dictating the design of programs. A professional association's backing would be damned helpful in these sorts of disputes. ("Put automagically-executed macros into the email documents? I could be disbarred for that!") Coders need the same legally-protected autonomy that doctors, lawyers, and other such professionals have; this would be a lot more powerful than the socially-protected autonomy of labor unions.
(Labor disputes could fall under this Bar-association-equivalent as well, but I doubt that labor disputes come up in the tech industry as much as the would in, say, the mining industry, where whole town are/were owned by single corporations. Most of the labor griping here seems to center around working a long number of consecutive hours; in theory, this could be regulated for programmers the same way it is for pilots.)
In conclusion, I think that an industry-wide organization is needed to unite programmers, but a union is not the right model for that organization.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Sure, I might not be in a need of a unions at the moment. But I'm here for the people that might not be as lucky as I am right now. And so I can count on them being there for me should I ever need their help!
Being backed by a union can be of great value, that I now from what friends of mine have told me.
Think of it as an IRC channel for Linux support! I might hang out there all day hoping to be of help to someone. Even though I do not myself need any help, at the moment, I know I will be very glad the channel is there should I run into trouble.
If everybody thought "A linux support channel? I don't need no goddamn help, I'm a hacker!" there would be no such channels.
So if you're not doing it to help other people out, do it to help yourself!
One day you will be glad you did.
Don't hate the media, become the media.
Look, several folks have commented on working for a "temp agency" that takes most of what the corp pays for their services, leaving them with 30-35% (about typical.)
Even the worst-case union dues are a teeny fraction of what a body shop skims off. So, start your own body shop.
Advertise: "Don't go to work for the corp, come to work for us. Our skim is less than anybody's--and we'll carry you when you're out of work, and send our lawyer to help when the PHB wants the other 108 hours."
Being a temp is a good position -- and the ideal would fit precisely with the Management Theory of the Week, which is "outsource it all." Fine. Go to company xx and say, "Hey. Give us the job descriptions, fire HR, and sign the contract. We'll screen the people and see the job gets done." They'll love you for it!
Of course you can't do that, can you?
It's what Henry Ford wanted "unions" to do, and you're too fskin' busy printing "rather push a Chevy than drive a Ford" t-shirts.
And don't protest, seen too much of it.
Regards,
Ric
In general, I believe unions do nothing but protect the lazy worker. I have many friends that have worked in union factories, union stores, and even union offices. None of them have ever seen any benefit from belonging to a union. If anything, the union just took their hard earned dollars, or "dues" as they like to call it.
Those same friends would tell me about various workers who would take naps during their shift, sit in the TV isle at the store and watch their favorite soap, and then complain when they couldn't take their 15 minute break. These people could not be fired because the union would protect them! Unions protect the lazy worker, not the honest hard working people. Thats one of the reasons why there are very few unions in the tech industry. Everybody that I know is an extremely hard worker. They enjoy their job, and have no need for "union protection".
In the article they state that "unions cannot afford to be shut out of the glamorous, powerful high-tech industry, which accounts for an ever-larger share of the work force." Notice that they use the phrase "cannot afford". That's all they want. The unions just want to tap the high-tech market to suck union dues out of you.
I really dislike unions and have absolutely no sympathy for the people on the street holding the "ON STRIKE" banners.
This subject irritates me so much that I wrote a little essay on my website a while ago. I'm not a writer, so don't expect it to be elegant. Check it out if you want.
"Our systems administrators have been notified and are working to fix the problem."
Maybe their Sysadmins are on strike!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Even though strikes are rare they remain the bargaining power of unions. Take away that power and you have a toothless union. Worse, you have a union that has no real bargaining leverage on behalf of its members but is capable of bargaining away benefits!
I've actually seen this in practice. I am a member of a non-striking union that, some years ago, bargained for moving our COLA raise up from January to November. We gained two months of raise but the union accepted a lower amount, having no other leverage to apply toward their goal. I calculated the break-even point to be April or May... and we've lost money ever since as a result of this "union" action on our behalf. A union that cannot strike is not a union. Management will never confuse such a "union" with a real one that has the power to strike but doesn't use it often.
Similarly, a company must retain the right to fire striking union members or it loses its leverage -- and, ultimately, its competitive advantage. If a company fires its striking workforce it is either making a big mistake or it has calculated that they can be replaced at lower cost. This latter option must be allowed in order to keep the economic house in order.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Sure, that's the most publicized thing that some unions can do. But believe it or not, strikes (and lockouts for that matter) are rare and are used as a last resort in a contract dispute.
For that matter, many unions (the one my father was president of, and the unions associated with the university I used to work for are two examples) specifically do not allow their employees to strike. It is part of their contract.
In the case of my father's union, one of the major things they had to do was take the cluebat to management on various technological subjects. The people who were actually having to work with the stuff were in a position to make the decisions, or at least to point out when something made no logical sense.
Case in point: management was trying to get away with not paying extra for a course that is simultaneously taught in a classroom and broadcast via distance-learning technology. Um, right. Never mind that you'll have double the tests to give, papers to grade, etc; you're only teaching the course once, ergo you should only get paid for it once. Nice logic, that.
I do understand that unionizing programmers will be akin to trying to herd cats, and I do understand that there can be severe problems with union management. However, whether or not what gets together is a union per se, these unwilling-to-be-herded cats are going to have to learn to work together eventually, or employers' expectations are going to get less and less realistic.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
OK, so it doesn't have the work-stopping impact of an actual strike, but what college president wants to have himself and his policies painted in an embarassing light by the local media? That, and picketing the aforementioned prez's house on Christmas Eve ... *grin*
....
There are plenty of ways to be disruptive and call attention to the problems without stopping work. I remember when I was younger and my father wore his "MVCC: Not a Happy Family" button to work every day for most of a YEAR, and was only too happy to explain it to anyone who asked
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
If the situation on a job site gets bad enough, then unions start to look like a good idea. When people are used and exploited, basically treated no better than interchangeable parts, then you have a good environment for unions to take hold.
Often times it is less a matter of pay than a matter of respect and working conditions. 70 hours a week is excessive, it will people. I have been there and even though I was getting good rewards it wasn't worth. I ended up spending most of my money on convience (e.g. fast food) because I did not have any free time at all.
Excessive work weeks are also a sign of poor management. It means:
1) under staffed
and/or
2) your processes are so hosed that people are not working at 100% possible effectiveness (e.g. solving the problem the first time)
and/or
3) you are not hiring the right people for the job
and/or
4) The people managing the situation don't have a clue how to organize it.
All 3 of these feed off of each other: being understaffed increases over-time which increases turnover, often just as people are learning their job. Since you are scrambling for people you often will hire anybody and end up with just a bunch of warm bodies, which causes training difficulties and insures that you have to fix things 3 times over etc.
In the tech support game, tech support is a cost shifting situation. Instead of taking extra time and money for tesing and developement, you are ending up spending more money on tech support.
The only way MS and other companies are pulling it off right now is the eonomy is hot and people will spend lavishly on technology. Anybody can make mone in a booming economy, the question is who can make money in a slow economy. And the way we are organizing software support right now is extremely wasteful.
If a company is plauged by unions, it is management's fault. as Demming put it "The woker works IN the system, the manager works ON the system." And if you are out there working 60+
hours a week, stop it immediately. You are only rewarding companies for poor management and ruining your health to boot.
(rant/rave....)
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Who says a union cannot adapt to the demands of the high-tech industry? A union can be most anything you want it to be, just as long as there is solidarity.
You versus the Company, or You and Your Union versus the Company...in a sticky situation, which would you rather have? Of course, situations that would be considered sticky are rare now in the tech industry, but what about a few years from now?
There is more to life than working 80 hours a week for a startup. If my employer expects me to do it "Because every other software engineer is anymore", I would tell them to stick it, no matter who I was working for. If I had a union backing me, I would not have to lose my job over the whole thing, and that would save me a lot of stress. We all know how stressful looking for a new job is, especially if it means moving to another city, or state.
EverCode
The book Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder is definately topical. It roughly describes a similar story as in Microserfs, but as an external/managment view analysis. Furthermore, it is non-fiction.
... somehow.
Roughly it points out how the employees were exploited and how they convinced themselves that they were okay with being exploited. After the project was complete, many of the workers left the team or the company, often because they were too burnt out to continue.
This book is relevant to the discussion as it deals with both how the high tech industry exploits its employees, and how those employees convince themselves it is okay to be exploited. Personally I doubt that unions are the best solution but the problem is very real. I myself am in a reasonable company but there is still no overtime pay. Some areas are well managed and little overtime is needed but others do have late night sessions. The "midnight oil" projects are quite common in companies. For instance, the Alpha chip at DEC was a "black ops" project for a while (no budget, not acknowledge to exist, done at night/on weekends). These issues should be dealt with
As a former contract worker and former temp, I can identify with the lack of health insurance, time off and sick days, but I never blamed the company where I worked.
When I was a contract worker for a defense contractor I found out what the agency's billing rate for my time was. At the time I was making $7/hr with no benefits. The rate the agency was charging was $19/hr. Had the agency cared about keeping its people, they could have found a way to set aside some of the $12/hr they were taking off the top to pay for health care. The agency offered health care, but they didn't contribute, and the monthly premium for me and my wife was close to $500. Hmm, $6000 insurance from a $14,000 salary or $3,300 from a $60,000 salary. It doesn't require the services of a financial analyst to figure out which I'd pick (but I'm not bitter).
In some areas, like Central New York, the job market is very weak, especially for people with technical skills who don't care to assemble transfer cases or bottle beer (and you can't get into those jobs anyway because the unions have closed them out by allowing the employees to put their children **as young as 9** on the waiting list for jobs). It seems to me that the "MS Temps" live in an area where their skills would be at a premium.
Yes, I understand that you enjoy your job and like your managers, but it's not exactly a closed job market. If benefits are so important to you, go somewhere that offers them.
You know, for being a web site for the Linux and OSS crowd, it's amazing to see how many morons there are chiming in on this bbs with the same half-truths and cheap shots about unions that corporations (and corporate-owned media) spoon feed us every day.
A union does not equal contracts, or strikes or workplace rules. If those things exist, that's because that's what a majority of workers in those workplaces negotiated in their contract. But those are not the things that define a union, and you can form a union and have no negotiated pay scale, no negotiated benefits package, and never go on strike.
What is a union, really? It is is a group of workers who have come together to try and address their issues collectively, rather than as isolated individuals. That can happen in high-tech, just as it can happen in any other industry.
I can tell you that high-tech workers around Seattle have plenty of workplace issues. We talk to workers everyday about lopsided agency contracts, overtime, benefits, training, job placement and a wide array of other issues. These workers aren't clamoring to join a "union," because that word has been poisoned. By some union missteps, sure, but primarily by a concerted, decades-long frontal attack on organized labor by corporations and the union-busting mercenary attorneys they sic on workers any time they try to organize. But these workers do want to address the issues they are facing and many of them realize that they are better off working with others who are facing the same issues than going it entirely alone.
Mike Blain
Washington Alliance of Technology Workers
www.washtech.org