Hacker News Reader

I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Another quote I've heard is that "extremists become more extreme, not less, as problems come closer to solutions."

"Socialism" and "extremists" don't really apply but the sentiments do. Unions sprang up in the United States as a counterweight to outright and absolute worker abuse. Things we--those resident in the U.S.--now take as "absolute," like child labor laws and the 40-hour workweek, were earned as a result of those early struggles.

We've had it really good here for really long, comparatively, so I think that a lot of people see these kinds of abuses as "won't happen to me"-ism so they're not interested in sacrificing even a little to ensure that the abuses happen to virtually[0] no one.

Going back to unions, a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing because jobs, salaries, and opportunities are all plentiful. We're not "abused" because employers know that we can just hop jobs and recover. (Never mind things like the gaming industry or the "crunch" period or, say, Uber.) Because of the illusion of choice, unions aren't valued. (I say "illusion" because witness what happened in the doldrums of the early 2000s. When every employer, or even a bunch of large employers, pull back at the same time, there is no choice.)

For others, things like unions or some form of collective action or even just "group health care run by the government" are seen as impinging on the basic rights to shoot--metaphor intentionally chosen--our own feet off however we like, consequences be damned because other countries are just wrong and the United States is a Special Snowflake.

Or something like that but maybe with a little less bite.

0 - I say virtually because people will always find a way to take advantage of others but there's a lot to be said for pushing to prevent that as much as possible. America doesn't seem to do that very much.

> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing

Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices.

A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover something, then leave it out. Charter the union to only address the specific problems that need to be addressed. Maybe limit "crunch" periods to healthy lengths of time near an actual product release? Maybe include a specific deterrent against extreme problems like collusion to fix salaries while otherwise ignoring salary completely?

As for dues and management costs, isn't that the kind of problem that is easy with modern computers and telecommunication? How much management is even needed for an IT union? In the past dues were needed to hire people to do the paperwork, send out notices, etc. Today, that work is a weekend Ruby On Rails project. After a specific purpose union is setup, are dues even necessary?

It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices.

It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. Organizations aren't created in a vacuum, they require bringing in others, and if you're starting an union, you'll attract people who are already predisposed to all the ideas of what makes up a union, and you'll attract offers of help from existing unions, which will try to co-opt you. And there's no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process. Finally, once that it created, it's not just a matter of distancing yourself; once a union grows, it affects every worker, even non-unionized - in some cases, even banning them outright from working.

So it's not surprising that workers which still have it pretty good aren't interest in opening that can of worms, and you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one.

> It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will.

To add to everything you just said, the NLRA sets very rigid rules regarding how unions can form and how employees and employers can interact with them. So you can't just charter it however you want and assume all the problems are solved - the NLRA imposes a number of requirements and protections for the union (not the members, but the union itself as a corporate structure) which way be at odds with the employees.

As a result, once a union forms, it's very difficult (practically) for its members to deunionize, even if a majority of the membership opposes the union representing them.

So people are very hesitant to go down a road which is essentially seen as a one-way street, except as a last resort.

> no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process

People aren't interested in small-scale organizing for specific purposes because strong, traditional unions are too popular? Why aren't the same people you claim will "control [the] process" making a union now?

Yes, just like every other type of organization, a union - or business - can evolve beyond it's original purpose. There are no guarantees in most collective actions. However, arguments that assume an inevitable strong union in industries where unions are very unpopular do not seem to be based in reality.

> you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one

The tech industry has been very successful at inventing new types of organizations over the last several decades. The "gig economy" and Bitcoin/Etherium are obvious examples. Silicon Valley is popular because of how easy it is to invent new businesses. Sometimes this creativity extends to new ways to fund startups. A lot of the tech itself revolves around new types of social interaction.

I find it very hard to believe that unions - or collective bargaining in general - are somehow immune from "disruption" and creative reinterpretation.

Look, we weren't discussing whether unions were good or bad; we were discussing why people don't believe it's in their best interest to form or join one. I'm telling you why I think you are mistaken about their motivations, not that you are mistaken in your belief that a union would in fact be a positive thing for tech workers.

SAP in Germany was getting union representation just when I was doing an internship there about 10 year ago. The move wasn't popular with employees.

Why was that? Unionized engineers in Germany (like in the automotive industry) are the highest paid and get the most benefits. Why would they be against it, given that if you don't enjoy red tape, you probably won't work at SAP to begin with?

I was only an intern. The food was good, but the work was boring.

German law says that union representatives can get an almost equal say in company matters. SAP had a vote, most people were against union representation, but by German law any nine (9!) employees in favour in the whole company is enough. So SAP got some people from IG Metal (ostensibly a metal workers union!) on their board.

Most of my coworkers saw the union representatives as busy-bodies who were interested in political power rather than real work. People had higher opinions of management than of them.

To get a bit more general:

It does help that programmers are broadly in wide demand, and can mostly get a new job at a drop off a hat. So instead of forming a cartel and `fighting' for their rights, they can just vote with their feet.

Same as what people do to make sure they get quality groceries: go shop at a different venue. If unemployment ever gets low enough, the general population would be elevated into a similar exalted position for their jobs.

> [...] given that if you don't enjoy red tape, you probably won't work at SAP to begin with?

It's a decent company. If you can put up with Java, they are OK to work for.

(That doesn't mean that I enjoy using their products. In that regard they are the opposite of the video game industry: I'd rather play a computer game, but I'd also rather work for SAP than finish a game in a death march.)

Electrical and mechanical engineers are in high demand too, and afaik they don't complain too much about their strong unions. And I know SAP is a decent company.

Anyway the comparison with the situation in the US is a bit pointless. More than unions, they need basic workers' rights.

The US has enough poisonous unions. (The German and Scandinavian ones tend to be more bearable on the whole.)

The US has a lot of problems, but what makes you think they need more workers' rights? A saner tax system would be a good start---so that eg health insurance and employment can decouple. (Right now, their employer provided health insurance is subsidized, so individuals are rationally stuck with that model.)

Besides health insurance: retirement pensions, short-term/long-term disability/incapacity, unemployment benefits, reasonable notice periods and severance pay, parental leave, ... all these things are a given in Germany and in most 1st world countries.

All those benefits have to be paid for. (And the US does have quite a lot of people on long term disability benefits.)

Restrictions on firing just make companies less likely to hire.

People can negotiate reasonable notice periods, and parental leave, severance pay etc, if they rather want that than more money every month. (But that negotiation / demand only works if the economy is humming along fine. So that is way more important.)

Germany and the US could both become more like Singapore. That would be a step forward.

I find it a very weird streak in Germany that they have a lot of mandatory `insurance' that mixes up some actual insurance aspects with welfare and redistribution. I think it would be cleaner to separate these two aspects.

(And Germans do have quite a high appetite for redistribution via their taxation and benefit systems, and vote accordingly. Nothing wrong with that preference in a democracy.)

I am more sympathetic to the nordic countries that marry their social safety nets with reasonable free economies.

And I'd really like to see a country try and rely on Land Value Taxes instead of taxing labour and capital. An LVT can raise an enormous amount of revenue without any deadweight losses to the economy. So you could run a lavish welfare state, and have a dynamic economy without a large wedge between gross and net pay for workers.

Henry George in America was a major proponent of these. In Germany Silvio Gesell wrote some interesting books a hundred years ago.

> People can negotiate reasonable notice periods, and parental leave, severance pay etc, if they rather want that than more money every month. (But that negotiation / demand only works if the economy is humming along fine. So that is way more important.)

Vulnerable workers aren't in a position to negotiate anything.

Yes, hence my qualification that it's important the economy be booming.

Alas, government protection doesn't help that much: just like you see greedy landlords in the US haze people who are paying below market rates in rent controlled apartments, you see bosses quietly make people's lives hell in some jobs in Germany.

> But your politics and attitudes towards work, workers and their rights is abhorrent and disgusting.

Because the government providing anything for you is seen as a form of welfare or regulation that "kills jobs."

Never mind that any senior in the US benefits hugely from Social Security and Medicare, making any proposed reform of those programs nearly political suicide. Just look at efforts to raise the retirement age if you think I'm kidding.

So, not to sound like a whiney millennial, but the older generation already has programs which are quite socialist. However some Americans have still been duped into believing the "American dream" applies to them (it probably did if you were male and white in the 1950s) and thus anything that helps other people is "socialism" or "government overreach"

Nevermind that the Republicans will happily reach into bedrooms (abortion) and bathrooms (transgender rights) to affect people's life.

It's a complete farce to watch this unfolding in the US from Canada. Yeah, our healthcare isn't perfect, I don't think anyone said it was, but I don't have to worry about bankruptcy if I go to the hospital. Nor do I have to worry about politicians fucking me over w.r.t. healthcare.

As an American, I believe the fundamental reason you don't see widespread organized resistance against lack of universal healthcare and employer benefiting work legislation is due to the absolute lack of social programs.

Americans cannot organize because of the lack of universal healthcare and work legislation such as "at will employment." Doing such would risk one's job and healthcare. There is no recourse once one is unemployed in the US, especially if one does not have a significant amount of money saved. The government and corporations have our back against the wall.

Corporate and elite interests get away with this because of the propaganda of 'American exceptionalism' - people are brainwashed into thinking that we have it so much better that other countries, so don't complain. The news media is a powerful tool of control. Not watching any news at all on TV would yield a more accurate world view, that is, the news is a negative information source.