> 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.
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.