Yeah, I got a deal breaker for Vista. I'm a network administrator and we have Exchange server. The mmc snap-in (admin tools) that allow me to change exchange settings on mailbox doesn't work in vista. I can't administrate Microsoft server software on vista, which is absolutely ridiculous! The only solution they have at preseant time is quote: "Work on exchange through Terminal Service" and the rumor is it won't be fixed to SP1 for Vista.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931903/en-us
There is a very identifiable reason why unions in IT are so scarce -- intelligence. The intelligence of IT people across the board is significantly higher than most likely any other profession. The lack of unions isn't the result of greedy corporate executives, since the executives of current international companies don't have nearly the strangle hold on business as the Robber Barons of the 1900's did, and unions flourished at that time. No, IT personnel themselves understand the economic system of world far better than the average citizen and moreover, they know that. IT people know they are also more intelligent than the corporate executives themselves, those wielders of the mighty hammer of business that call IT when they are panicking because they accidently reduced the size of their start bar.
To answer the question though, no I would never join a union, IT union or company specific union. Unions I find are far more destructive to both company and employee than companies themselves. Additionally, I almost shudder to think of what an IT union would do. What would they try to control? Obviously first would be salary. Would they equate someone who fixes printers and someone who is a SQL manager the same? How about a "manager" that technically knows CISCO router programming and the people under him that ACTUALLY know CISCO router programming. The thought process only gets worse...How about programs? OS? Can the union stop me from installing Office 12 pre-release just so I can learn it, because it "Might reduce functionality" How about server upgrades? I have a hard enough time convincing my boss why we should migrate our servers to 2003 from NT without having to convince a union to agree with me first.
Another reason is unions are inherently based off of seniority. In IT that system wouldn't work. For insistence, in my profession I am the 3rd in line under my boss; yet I make most of the budget and buying decisions and my co-worker (or the one right above me) is in charge of the databases and websites. The first person under my boss is utterly incompetent and even worse, is infatuated with the status-quo. If our actions resulted in him getting a raise, or he was in charge of reviewing my decisions I would quit tomorrow. I am positive very similar scenarios exists all around the IT world, a large percentage that truly understand technology and embrace it, and a few that fell into IT by accident and don't understand, appreciate, or care about technology; and having both of those in a union which wouldn't be aware and/or care about that difference would be poisonous to IT departments around the world.
Lastly, IT is a somewhat unique profession; we share the trade skills of master carpenters and sometimes what seem to be the responsibilities of brain surgeons. Because of this IT needs a far more free hand to explore and understand the bounders of the digital world without the trappings of inept bosses sticking their ignorant fingers into it; adding unions to IT would just be multiplying those already numerous ignorant fingers.
Here is a quick way to tell, 90% of all those people in IT who are "a large percentage that truly understand technology and embrace it" read Slashdot. And 90% of all those people in IT who are "a few that fell into IT by accident and don't understand, appreciate, or care about technology" don't read Slashdot. So look around, figure out who in your IT department doesn't read Slashdot, and just make believe they are in charge of your union, look inviting? Didn't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I got a deal breaker for Vista. I'm a network administrator and we have Exchange server. The mmc snap-in (admin tools) that allow me to change exchange settings on mailbox doesn't work in vista. I can't administrate Microsoft server software on vista, which is absolutely ridiculous! The only solution they have at preseant time is quote: "Work on exchange through Terminal Service" and the rumor is it won't be fixed to SP1 for Vista. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931903/en-us
There is a very identifiable reason why unions in IT are so scarce -- intelligence. The intelligence of IT people across the board is significantly higher than most likely any other profession. The lack of unions isn't the result of greedy corporate executives, since the executives of current international companies don't have nearly the strangle hold on business as the Robber Barons of the 1900's did, and unions flourished at that time. No, IT personnel themselves understand the economic system of world far better than the average citizen and moreover, they know that. IT people know they are also more intelligent than the corporate executives themselves, those wielders of the mighty hammer of business that call IT when they are panicking because they accidently reduced the size of their start bar.
To answer the question though, no I would never join a union, IT union or company specific union. Unions I find are far more destructive to both company and employee than companies themselves. Additionally, I almost shudder to think of what an IT union would do. What would they try to control? Obviously first would be salary. Would they equate someone who fixes printers and someone who is a SQL manager the same? How about a "manager" that technically knows CISCO router programming and the people under him that ACTUALLY know CISCO router programming. The thought process only gets worse...How about programs? OS? Can the union stop me from installing Office 12 pre-release just so I can learn it, because it "Might reduce functionality" How about server upgrades? I have a hard enough time convincing my boss why we should migrate our servers to 2003 from NT without having to convince a union to agree with me first.
Another reason is unions are inherently based off of seniority. In IT that system wouldn't work. For insistence, in my profession I am the 3rd in line under my boss; yet I make most of the budget and buying decisions and my co-worker (or the one right above me) is in charge of the databases and websites. The first person under my boss is utterly incompetent and even worse, is infatuated with the status-quo. If our actions resulted in him getting a raise, or he was in charge of reviewing my decisions I would quit tomorrow. I am positive very similar scenarios exists all around the IT world, a large percentage that truly understand technology and embrace it, and a few that fell into IT by accident and don't understand, appreciate, or care about technology; and having both of those in a union which wouldn't be aware and/or care about that difference would be poisonous to IT departments around the world.
Lastly, IT is a somewhat unique profession; we share the trade skills of master carpenters and sometimes what seem to be the responsibilities of brain surgeons. Because of this IT needs a far more free hand to explore and understand the bounders of the digital world without the trappings of inept bosses sticking their ignorant fingers into it; adding unions to IT would just be multiplying those already numerous ignorant fingers.
Here is a quick way to tell, 90% of all those people in IT who are "a large percentage that truly understand technology and embrace it" read Slashdot. And 90% of all those people in IT who are "a few that fell into IT by accident and don't understand, appreciate, or care about technology" don't read Slashdot. So look around, figure out who in your IT department doesn't read Slashdot, and just make believe they are in charge of your union, look inviting? Didn't think so.