Hacker News Reader

> put in more hours

I'm skeptical of unionization in tech, but the one thing I can imagine unions would fix is the constant unpaid overtime that's associate with tech jobs. In a union situation, you'd be paid more if you were working more hours period, rather than hoping somebody would notice and give you a pay raise at some indeterminate time in the future.

It's not a huge stretch to imagine the following scenario play out though:

1. Tech workers unionize, negotiate with employer that any work > 40 hours / week get paid overtime.

2. The company now has two choices: A) Pay their employees more than their competitors for the same work. Or B) Don't authorize any overtime.

3. In scenario A, they're either running at (much) higher cost than their competitors, and thus a disadvantage. In Scenario B, they're either slower to ship products, or there's a bunch of "off the books" work done by engineers trying to ship things anyways (which is basically the status quo today, except now it would cost you 1% of your salary).

I could see the first scenario potentially attracting better talent for the significantly higher pay in the short term. But it's also a perverse incentive structure where if my 8 hours of work suddenly takes 9 hours, I get paid more, so why would I finish it early? Oh and because I'm in a union, it's now much harder to get rid of me, even if I'm half-assing it.

Maybe B) will lead to fewer poorly-run projects that lead to unnecessary overtime.

B) is basically what we have already. Contractually only required to work 40 hour weeks, no [official] pressure from management to work more, but anyone who does will most likely have higher output / receive better performance bonuses and recognition, etc.

The only thing a union brings to the table in this situation is now I'm either explicitly forbidden from working more on a project even if I want to, or I have to hide what I'm doing and go all cloak-and-dagger about it, probably breaking some kind of labor laws in the process. All for 1% of my salary. Doesn't seem like a good trade for me?

It seems like in the scenario B) has the added teeth of deterring leadership from forcing unpaid overtime, as some management do, though it is possible even with the union-enacted mandate they will still try to sneak it in, as you suggested.

> I'm either explicitly forbidden from working more on a project even if I want to

This sort of nitpicking is always cited as a reason for why unions are bad but would a union really get up in your case over something like that? And furthermore, would a tech union birthed natively in this industry, created and populated by tech workers who have also worked spent evenings or weekends voluntarily to work on projects they themselves were passionate enough to finish, really penalize its all members for doing the same? Wouldn't they, you know, have an insider's insight of the needs and interests of working in tech?

I think not. The idea is to guard against when management oversteps its boundaries, not to police other workers. And if the union inevitably does fall short and do the latter, then by being part of a union, you would have the power to make changes within it.

One unfortunate consequence in A is that it may cause the unscrupulous to delay work in order to work overtime at a higher rate. This was sometimes an issue with (non-software) maintenance

Salaried employees usually get paid straight time for overtime rather than time and a half. (That's my personal experience - I've always been paid straight time for overtime) That at least takes away one incentive to delay work to work overtime - you still get paid more, but you don't increase your hourly rate.

Why is it harder to fire people that don't meet performance standards of they're in a union? Which union members are striking to support poorly performing colleagues aren't union members and bosses aligned here - in general people don't want to carry their colleagues (if they're performing badly because they're lazy/incapable)?

To be fair, there are other avenues to fix this. I came into a job that just settled a lawsuit over this for the very small number on non-union workers it applied to. From then on, that small group received increased overtime pay despite being non-union

White collar unionized workers have higher compensation than their non-union counterparts. They also have better benefits and more time off.

But the single most important thing, to me, is that white collar union members report higher life satisfaction than their non-union peers.

> I never liked the mandatory nature of unions, either.

No one is forcing you to work a union job.

On average, sure, unionized workers may make more; I explicitly acknowledged that. But it also reduces the higher wages the top performers are paid. I've generally been in that group.

> No one is forcing you to work a union job.

They kind of are. While this one is a minority union, those are usually steps towards mandatory ones. I shouldn't be forced to join a union because enough of my coworkers voted on it; they have no say in a private agreement between me and my employer.

I think we can just end the whole thread with this comment (the parent’s). It’s perfect.

To summarize: unions might in general be good or bad, but any talk of tech unions on HN will be controversial because of how massively—and this cannot be overstated—, stupendously better the average HN reader is compared to the average tech worker. Thread over.

The irony of this reply is I can't tell if it's a tongue in cheek piece about the hubris of the HN community or 100% serious.

I think there's something to be said about quality, but if we look at unionization at just the company level, you are likely to get a much higher average at some companies. Even if the assumption on the average HN reader's ability is true, this doesn't end the conversation: it refocuses it onto other levels than a union over the entire industry.

Yep, that is an accurate summary of every thread I've read on software developers and unions since I first joined Slashdot in 2000. The only thing missing might be "better and whiter" lol.

Tech already uses seniority as a factor much more than they want to admit. I resent it too, but don't act like it's not already basically the de facto standard.

As far as pay goes, the ubiquity of software engineering roles is already causing a down pressure on salaries. In the next decade it's only going to get worse. We might as well get ahead of the curve and use our current leverage to put us in a better position when it inevitably arrives at our door.

Do high performers get paid less? Unions are ultimately democratic, besides job hopping not promotions were always the best way to get ahead in tech

Also unions are democratic, and you only even have to pay agency fees

I suppose this is one way to make it clear you haven't studied the history of collective action.