Unions historically were organized by people that were individually very replaceable, could not find easily another job if fired, had limited education and means to fight for their rights and improve their condition.
For this reasons ther employers could force upon them punishing work conditions and contracts, and unions allowed workers to leverage their number electing representatives that could organize them and would be better suited to negotiate with the employers.
I fail to see any connection with engineers which can easily move between jobs, command decent salaries and benefits and are more than able to negotiate better conditons individually with their employers.
Maybe a more suitable organization would resemble the medieval artisan and merchant guilds...
> Unions historically were organized by people that were individually very replaceable, could not find easily another job if fired, had limited education and means to fight for their rights and improve their condition.
Not really. It's not just writers and actors, examples mentioned in the post. Baseball players (stars made middle-class salaries before the union). Engineers at Boeing and other aerospace companies.
Machinists, who were the software developers of the early 20th century (high-skill workers who spent their time automating things away), were not just unionized but often union pioneers and at the leading edge of militancy. Radical machinists were at the forefront of some of the most dramatic moments in labor history, like the strikes that knocked Russia and Germany out of the First World War.
This idea that unions are for peons is a mythology that software engineers tell each other in order to separate themselves conceptually from other workers. I think in part it's motivated by a sincere recognition of relative privilege, but sometimes I'm afraid it may also be motivated by a certain concealed snobbery.
Worth mentioning, but this isn't exactly true for baseball players: "Baseball players (stars made middle-class salaries before the union)."
They got nothing like the millions in the game today, and ownership was taking 75% of the revenue (today it's closer to 55%).
Babe Ruth famously signed a contract that paid him more than the president ($80k in the early 1930s was a LOT of money). When asked about it, he said "Well, I had a better year than he did."
Not intended to diminish your point, I just wanted to share a funny store about one of the more interesting characters from the game's history.
I'm sorry if I came across as a snob, I honestly value highly the unions contributions to workers' rights (all workers), historically.
I just do not see any factual reason for a "SW developer union", since it is a very modern role, and as a group never experienced any need that could be solved by unionizing.
As you mention for the case of baseball players (or the actors, in another post), the union was made during a period in which the current work conditions were not seen by the category as fair.
Didn't mean to accuse you yourself of being a snob. A lot of people take the same line as you.
I think the linked post describes some issues that could be addressed by unionizing - arbitrary management and degrading ranking systems. You could add secret non-compete agreements to cap salaries (which are not too far from that pre-free agency baseball case) and gender and race-based discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions etc.
> I fail to see any connection with engineers which can easily move between jobs, command decent salaries and benefits and are more than able to negotiate better conditons individually with their employers.
Easily move between jobs:
Only true currently, and only if you're in certain metro areas. Are we forgetting 2007-2010? or 2001-2004? There are likely more down years than up, but I've only been in the workplace since the mid nineties.
Command decent salaries and benefits:
Decent compared to the median nationwide salary, sure, but decent compared the value brought to the companies? Hypothetical example: Who's more "decently" paid? The $15/hr fast food employee who delivers $30/hr in value to their company, or the $150K software engineer who delivers $2MM in value to their company?
More able to negotiate better conditions individually with their employers:
On what planet? Go ask your employer for time-and-a-half overtime pay and let me know if they only laugh for a few seconds or a whole minute. See if Legal is willing to make an exception to their mandatory IP assignment or binding arbitration clauses just for you.
"The $15/hr fast food employee who delivers $30/hr in value to their company, or the $150K software engineer who delivers $2MM in value to their company?"
As a consultant I can actually measure the direct amount of money I bring in. I often wonder if I'm only worth the 10% I get of that money or I can do better elsewhere?
The product I work with is making significant gains in the market now. The demand seems to be growing, judging by the new clients I see at work and recruiters that contact me after hours. I know the supply/demand is in favor of the applicants because it's a highly customized software and we were a tiny startup before being acquired by a tech giant. Not very many people have actual real world experience. I know a handful of ex-employees that want to start a consulting group but we are all really technical. We have people skills from being customer facing consultants but I really need a project manager / business person that can cut the deals.
I think their is a premium associated with the company's brand that allows them to charge more but I could probably charge 2/3 of their hourly rate. That would probably give me about 3x-4x my yearly salary now based on an estimate of not actually averaging 30 hours per week for 40 weeks out the year. I have no idea if those numbers make sense though.
Now that also means I take on the risk of finding and keeping clients, no paid healthcare or other benefits. I understand those things come out of my hourly rate at a company but it still doesn't to be a "fair" split to me. Especially when sites like glassdoor report much much higher salaries for people in my company, in my city, with my job title.
I'm already working with some 3rd party recruiters on contract gigs with government and quasi-government companies. The offers I have seen so far are 3x my current pay with a full benefits package. I'm trying to weigh the need for stability though as I have a significant debt to pay off and a child on the way. These offers also have paid overtime. I am figuring unpaid overtime and travel into my hourly rate because it's important to me. I used to include commute time but I work from home now.
Although I asked for a raise and got nothing. Either my skills aren't as valuable as I think or I suck at negotiating. I turned in my resignation once and was offered a much better salary. Leading me to believe I am valuable in someway to this company. I'm pretty confident they would offer a match again (or at least a decent increase) if I were to leave again but I don't know if I want to keep playing that game. I've been in the industry for 10 years. I'm pretty sure I'm underpaid. In the industry for 10 years. Revenue numbers to prove my worth company. I would think that I could cross into the 6 digit range soon but maybe I'm crazy. I'm not even close to the 150k number thrown out by the comment I quoted.
"I fail to see any connection with engineers which can easily move between jobs, command decent salaries and benefits and are more than able to negotiate better conditons individually with their employers."
What about the illegally low wages (although still very livable) that were created by these companies colluding. That's one way for employees to fight back.
"In 1925, the Masquers Club was formed by actors discontent with the grueling work hours at the Hollywood studios.[6] This was one of the major concerns which led to the creation of the Screen Actors Guild in 1933."
I mean, I guess, if you think you'll always be able to get lawyers to take cases like this on spec you have a point. I don't really think that is the case. We need a legal defense to deal with bullshit like this and a union is an effective way to get it.
That's really not true at all. Traditionally, the centers of gravity for strong unions were around skilled trades.
Engineer mobility is mostly a myth. You have a short shelf life, as generations of engineers can point out. Engineers get laid off en masse when the economy tanks, and as the most cursory google search would tell you, get gamed extensively by the companies they work for. Demand curves are bent by importing labor; salaries are capped by illegal agreements; seniority is avoided by purging.
For this reasons ther employers could force upon them punishing work conditions and contracts, and unions allowed workers to leverage their number electing representatives that could organize them and would be better suited to negotiate with the employers.
I fail to see any connection with engineers which can easily move between jobs, command decent salaries and benefits and are more than able to negotiate better conditons individually with their employers.
Maybe a more suitable organization would resemble the medieval artisan and merchant guilds...