How abusive bosses and Slack led software engineers to unionize and demand justice

[tlwest]

@gracchus

The most common form of exploitation I see is the eternal crunch time shops.

Indeed. They certainly exist, and I think unionization is a rational and correct response to a situation where you can no longer trust your employer (either because they are malignant or incompetent), especially if exit is not an option.

My experience has been, however, that a union makes the relationship with management more transactional in nature. In many circumstances, that’s a very good thing. The management is not to be trusted, and exit is not a realistic option.

However, for me personally (and only personally), I suspect that I would find the change in the workplace tone makes my workplace somewhat less enjoyable, and the benefits that unionization would bring to me pretty minimal. (Ontario Labour Law covers most of my concerns for my protection.)

Like everything else, I consider the cost-benefit contextually. I’m very happy to see unionization succeed elsewhere because obviously there’s a call for it, but I certainly don’t think it impossible for people to realistically look at the cost/benefit and feel that unionization doesn’t fit their personal context.

@L0ki

That is in fact all of them. Some just get to have the illusion of being able to protect themselves for longer.

Really? I’m a programmer in a major metropolitan area. Most of us are in the 90th percentile of Canadian salaries ($80K) and well into the global 1% ($34K).

I’d rather see efforts go to unionization of shops that desperately need it rather than waste efforts trying to unionize over-privileged people like me who aren’t clamoring for it.

And honestly, I’d say at our salary level, it would benefit Canada far more to protect the world against our bargaining power by massively increasing skilled immigration and boosting the lifestyle of maybe a million people current toiling away in India and China for 1/5th to 1/10th my salary. Canada would benefit from a much bigger middle class rather than coddling my completely unearned privilege.

@jeezers

But he’s never personally had a bad experience, so obviously all of recorded history of the labor movement is wrong.
libertarian.txt.

Wait, I thought I was a Nazi. (I know, I know. Why not both?)

@Medievalist

Pardon my crudeness, but screw that noise. My day job is the most efficient and effective way I could find to fund things that really matter.

Indeed, I would hope that I made it clear that this is my personal preference, not “how things should be done”. As I said above, I’m incredibly fortunate that what entertains me also pays the bills. (Although I’m not quite in the “I’d do this for free” camp. If I had never-work-again money, I’d be writing different programs.)

[gracchus]

@tlwest

My experience has been, however, that a union makes the relationship with management more transactional in nature

So is the relationship with an employee who’s paid a wage for his time. That’s about as transactional as it gets.

Perhaps the term “adversarial” better describes the situation that definitely can emerge between labour and management when a union gets involved.

@tlwest

Ontario Labour Law covers most of my concerns for my protection

Yes, if the state has your back and you enjoy your work and your employer doesn’t engage in exploitative or abusive practises then I’d agree you could do without a union. That’s not the case for many if not most workers in the U.S., including tech workers.

[tlwest]

@gracchus

So is the relationship with an employee who’s paid a wage for his time. That’s about as transactional as it gets.

I think you’ve hit upon a very important point - it’s really got me thinking.

In almost all workplaces I’ve worked at, that (very real) aspect is underplayed as much as possible by both the employees and employers. Both sides wants to maintain the fiction of simply a group of people working towards a single goal.

For example, in my current workplace, I’ve probably worked 5% more hours than I’m paid for. On the other hand, the employer basically paid an employee for a year while he was caring for his terminally ill wife instead of coming into work. All those elements disguise the payer-payee aspect.

I suspect my discomfort with being unionized is that it disrupts that fiction by placing the fundamental “I pay for your service - I perform that service” aspect front and center by formalizing the responsibilities, and often forbidding steps beyond that.

(In fact, I think it’s deeper than that. I suspect much of the embrace of automation is that most of us are fundamentally uncomfortable being on either end of a employer-employee transactional relationship. We’d vastly prefer to employ no-one at all - not necessarily because of cost, but because it feels uncomfortable.)

Now, that fiction can be used to abuse the employer-employee relationship, which I think is a very valid concern. But I do think that eliminating that avenue for abuse comes at a cost of changing the nature of the workplace.

I suppose an analogy is that eliminating the ability of teachers to physically comfort small children may be a price that we need to pay to reduce incidents of abuse, but it is a price.

@gracchus

Perhaps the term “adversarial” better describes the situation that definitely can emerge between labour and management when a union gets involved.

Well, at the point the union is actively involved, then it is probably adversarial for a reason, so that’s not a strike against unions.

[L0ki]

@tlwest

Really? I’m a programmer in a major metropolitan area. Most of us are in the 90th percentile of Canadian salaries ($80K) and well into the global 1% ($34K).

Well, yes. Really. You have a lot more scope to be able to deal with crappy employers than others but your ability to do so still has limits.

At the end of the day, if all or even most of the major employers decided to blacklist you, you would be able to do little about it on your own.

There are any number of other scenarios where no matter how skilled, how well paid you are - eventually you come up against the fact that other people get to decide whether and how you get to use those skills and how much you should be paid.

Is it likely that you will ever come up against those? Perhaps not.

That’s why I said some people get to keep their illusion of being able to deal with everything on their own for longer.

For some people it lasts their entire career. Doesn’t mean it’s not an illusion.

@tlwest

I’d rather see efforts go to unionization of shops that desperately need it rather than waste efforts trying to unionize over-privileged people like me who aren’t clamoring for it.

That I’d definitely agree with. As you say, there are enough places and people who would benefit more from unionising than you.

Some of those may of course work in IT, just not be as lucky as you.

@tlwest

Ontario Labour Law covers most of my concerns for my protection.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to why those laws are as they are?

[fnordius]

That’s the problem with having a culture built upon the myth of disruption: forming something like a “guild” becomes anathema. It’s a job where the pirates and rebels are feted, and the actual craftsmanship is ignored.

It’s the thing that makes my job so frustrating: I love elegant code, but all anyone wants is quick out the door, and maintainability is a problem for the next manager. In fact, it’s even better if it’s a mess for both so that they can bad-mouth each other (“My successor can’t keep up my good work!” “My predecessor left behind an unmaintainable mess that doesn’t meet today’s standards!”).