IT Unions? 329
aristotle2000 writes: "CNN.com has an article about IT unionization. I have generally been against the idea but the article raises some interesting issues, like training and development standards." Netslaves had a piece about the history of unionization a few days ago, good reading.
Why this will never work (Score:2)
How do you negotiate salary for a group? Programming depends too much on individual skill, which is pretty hard to quantify. Some programmers are just way more skilled and productive than others. Certification doesn't measure that skill very well. Lines of code doesn't measure it - a better programmer will write the same functionality in less lines of code. Years of experience doesn't predict it either. It's not like working on a production line, and the better programmers want to be rewarded for what they can do. Unions be damned.
Re:IT Unions not all bad (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
While I'm being pedantic, let's consider another example. There is an annual nationwide exam for math students called the Putnam exam. Despite the fact that the average score is some positive number greater than zero (out of 120 points possible, IIRC), at least half of the test-takers receive a score of exactly zero (all scores are non-negative). That means you can turn the test in blank, and still have 50% of the test-takers do no better.
Here's another good example. If you are a math major at an ivy league school, your best career move is to drop out in your second year of studies -- people in this group have an incredibly high average wealth! Of course, Bill Gates is in this group. What you really want to know, for security's sake, is what the median income is.
You may be above average, but that doesn't mean you can't be replaced.
-Paul Komarek
Re:I can see it now... (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
If I don't like what my employer does, I'll find another job. I've done it before, I would do it again. I don't need to pay a union to bargain for benefits or salary for me, I can do it myself perfectly well with what I bring to the table and what I can do for my employer. If you can't say the same, find another field to work in.
Oh, and I have a perfect driving record. Guess I'm not average there either.
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
Well, sort of. "Average" is an imprecise term that can mean any of mean, mode, or median. You're talking about the mean, he's really talking about the median.
Granted, when most people think of average they're really thinking of the mean. But strictly speaking any of the three is correct.
What would be the point? (Score:3)
IT Unions sound like a terrible idea.. (Score:2)
This industry changes very quickly. Unionized information labor doesn't strike me as something that promotes keeping up with technology. It seems more like job security in case you find your skills are outdated.
I'm all for Unions. Corporations rip off every single one of their employees, except in the case of effective Unions, where the employees are the ones doing the ripping off. What's not to love? I'd just hate to see it at my employer, because I don't feel ripped off enough to want to reverse.
No one was talking about IT unions 5 years ago when VCs were pissing money away on ludicrous business ideas. People will obviously resent losing their jobs over this, but hey, did you really think you had a future in tieclip.com?
Seriously, anyone who deserves to work in IT should have no problem finding that their skills will always be in demand. When I hear people demanding Unions, I question the motivation. Maybe my outlook will change some day, but right now, I'm happy with my rugged individualism.
Herding Cats (Score:4)
Additionally, most programmers I know care very deeply about how their skills are perceived (myself included). Most of us like to think we are the top 25% of programmers (myself included)--although it isn't possible for 75% of programmers to be the top 25% :-) That being said, why would programmers want to unionize, to protect, in many posters' words, the lazy and the inept?
No, it won't happen. There will not be an effective programmers union.
BUT, I strongly believe there will be a network support/IT tech union. Those poor schlobs have it rough. Being on call and never getting paid (or whether they get paid or not is a point of debate with the employer), working long hours over outtages, not being able to take vacations. Those people will probably unionize. Especially with MCSE certification programs churning out so many, their jobs are probably in jeopardy. Whenever they start to get paid decent money for decent training, they could get fired for some fresh MCSE who is willing to be paid anything.
What the hell? (Score:3)
2) We are not politically unified. Programmers don't fit into a single voting block as factory workers tend to do. I doubt that we're all going to get behind Tom Harkin for the next election.
3) For many people, programming is a step towards management (not me, I'm a programmer forever). What the hell are those people going to do? Fight management one day, and then become a manager the next? Talk about blowing up a bridge WELL BEFORE you even get to it...
4) We don't need unions to protect our benefits. Generally, we don't care about benefits past the medical care and 401K. We just want employers to forget the sports equipment reimbursement type of "benefit" and just give us the fuckin' money.
5) I don't want a union to tell me that I can only work 37.5 hours a week. I work as long as I want to, or as short as I want to. A union would force some kind of stifiling structure on my life. If I'm going to be at work at 9 AM, then that's because I happened to be awake all night, not because I've turned into a clock puncher.
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
>reminds me of the stats that 80% or whatever of drivers say they are an "above average" driver...
Uh, I think you're confusing "average" with "median".
If you have 100 employees, and you give them all a test, it is possible for 80 of them to score 100 points, and 20 to score 0 points.
You now have an average of 80 points. However, 80 employees scored above that.
Which half is below average?
Granted, this is not a likely example, it's hyperbole to illustrate the point: 50% of the people are not always below average. 50% of the people *are* always below the MEDIAN. There's a difference.
-LjM
Wouldn't Certification be Better? (Score:2)
Training and development standards shouldn't be the responsibility of labour unions, they should be the responsibilities of trade certification organizations. My understanding is the in the USA you do things differently thant he rest of the world: the rest of the world has apprenticship programs that lead to certification in a trade, but in the USA people join a union and the union claims all it's workers are "up to code".
Give me independent certification any day.
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:3)
Unions seem to think that means that 'fair' means the same treatment for everyone, regardless of skill. Most of the time they only seem to think that workers should be paid according to seniority. Unions seem to defend those that are lazy and punish or try to hold back those that work harder or smarter.
I'm not interested in being part of that. I'm interested in pay based on merit, and that isn't necessarily always going to be viewed as 'fair' by everyone. I don't necessarily want to trade away my ability to bargain for myself for the tyranny of the majority.
I personally think that the reason it is so hard for unions to organize skilled technical workers is because we feel closer to management than blue-collar workers. Many of us aspire to, or know that our future will eventually make us more on the management side than we are now. Many of us hold an equity stake in the companies we work for (through options, 401K or company stock purchase plans), so we view our companies differently than does the auto worker, steel worker, rubber worker, etc. that is the typical union member. Many IT workers have an entreprenurial (sp?) spirit, and I don't think that is very compatible with unionism.
Everybody's not above average! (Score:3)
Well, guess what pal - the odds are somewhere around, say, 50-50 that you're below average. It reminds me of the stats that 80% or whatever of drivers say they are an "above average" driver...
So sure, unions are designed around the average, but given that half of all employers are below average in how they treat their employees, maybe the protections a union can offer are useful.
And given the increased power management has been given by the government and stockholders over the last few decades to screw their employees at no cost to the managers (how do you "accidentally" hire thousands of people you then decide you need to lay off and not get fired yourself), now might just be the right time.
Union. Ech. Professional Org., Hmmmmm... (Score:5)
That being said, there are times when I've wanted to speak with many voices (which is one of the reasons for my Slashdot account), and have no real recourse. I think that a real, legally sanctioned _professional_ organization would go a long way to help some of my problems (like being here since 3:00am this morning). Something like what the denstists or doctors have - not really a Union that has barganing units and such, but an org that can sanction shops that don't treat their IT workers properly.
This [www.itac.ca] is meant for businesses, not for thier employees. I want something independant of any one special interest. (Oh well, might happen before I retire in 20 years. Right.)
Bad idea... (Score:2)
In my company, there is a small underground push for a an "IT Union". Ever heard of the CWA? They trotted out Jesse Jackson during a push for unionization during our last stockholder's meeting! You gotta be kidding... Fact is, the only people I know who support it, are not exactly valuable assets to the company. Their skills are weak, and they are unwilling or unable to learn new technologies.
I believe that if the company believes the Union to be a threat they will increase pay/perks/benefits to those employees who deserve it. Treat them right and they will stay.
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
It's very easy to say this all now, because despite the slowing of the economy there is still a shortage of IT workers, which gives you a disproportionate amount of power at your job. To the majority of workers in this country your asertions are really a joke. Quit my job when the CEO leaves, just to start over again somewhere else with no seniority, worse benefits, etc, etc?? (Of course for most people to have some sort of "transferable seniority" means that you're in a union in the first place).
I guess having worked in an industry (film industry) where I can confidently say that the unions save lives, I have a slightly different perspective.
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
Only the good stuff
Seriously, there are certain compromises made for the good of society. The concept of seniority is one of them. Most of us probably make less than we're worth towards the beginning of our careers and more towards the end, and that makes a lot of sense to me. When we're young, our needs are less, and they grow throughout our lives.
Anyway, everyone needs to eat, even people who can't work for shit -- or would you rather they starve?
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
First of all, only a small part of the job a cinematographer is specific to the particular camera they are using, and it certainly doesn't include loading!
Secondly, a "relatively new videographer" would never get hired to shoot a $100,000,000+ film. The actual DP for Star Wars II (and ep. 1) is David Tattersall who has extensive experience shooting film, and as far as I know SWII is his first major project shooting video.
A producer would always prefer to have someone with film-experience shoot their project -- when they get an inexperienced videographer it's because that's all they can afford, and they often end up regretting the decision! (I get regular offers to shoot projects on video -- I usually turn them down because a) a prefer film, and b) most video shoots are understaffed, underpaid and generally lacking in professionalism. Of course, they don't have unions!)
A large part of what you're paying for in a DP is their experience. Sure a kid right out of film school might be able to do some nice lighting, but are they ready to be the head of a department? There's a reason why most DP's don't become a DP until their mid-to-late thirtys.
In the film industry these days the union doesn't so much protect seniority as it provides a safety baseline for a production. It is not uncommon to work 18-hour days on a non-union shoot, with 6-hour turnaround time (which basically means 4 hours of sleep, since you still need to wrap up after shooting stops, and drive home). People are litterally killed by these kinds of conditions. Remember when Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow? That accident never would have happened on a union set -- any number of union-mandated safety requirements would have prevented it.
Frankly, I wonder if people realize to what extent the working conditions that they take for granted are the result of union organizing -- things like the 40-hour work week, employer-paid health insurance, paid vacations, etc. Even if you never join a union, you should be thankful that someone did!
Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:5)
"I'm so skilled/important/eL337 that the company will treat me with respect/pay me what I'm worth/never fire me."
"All unions are filled with thugs and crooks who just want to take your union dues and are effectively useless."
etc. . .
(sigh)
To begin with, being skilled does not guarantee you proper treatment by the company.There are a number of circumstances where your skills will not save you, for example:
- You get a new boss who is:
- the industry you are in suffers a panic in the stock market. To keep the stock price from tanking, Upper Management hands down the diktat, "Lay off 10%! So let it be written, so let it be done!"
- Oh heck, I could go on and on . . .
. . . but the point is there are lots of circumstances where if you are being mistreated by management, you will be unable to defend yourself despite your Mighty Coding Prowess. The company is bigger than you. It has more money than you. It does *not*, I repeat *Not!* give a Flying Fiddler's F**** about you.- Stupifyingly dumb (It happens.)
- a sadist
- a technological illiterate (and therefore doesn't understand how Very Important you are.
and is therefore quite willing to let you go/treat you miserably/etc.In which case, it would be nice for you to have a nice big organisation backing you up.
As to the point about the honesty of unions, they vary. I speak from my own experience. When I was fired by one employer (because of my political activities), the union I belonged to at that time said, effectively, "Tough luck!" The next union I belonged to had the motto, "Nobody Goes For Free!" (Which meant that if you were fired, and wanted the union to take your side, they would automatically go as far as second step grievance. After that, the union would have to spend money on lawyers, so there was an evaluation on how likely we were to win before we went to the next level of the grievance procedure.) Some unions are good and some stink -- sorta like corporations that you work for.
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:5)
I don't have links, but I know Amazon is at the front of the IT unionization battle. There is a guy named Mike Daisey who is behind most of the organizing. I'll leave the Google searching to the reader.
-B
IT Unions... hahahahaha.. (Score:4)
The signing of the treaty ending the vi/Emacs wars
Gates and Ellison bury the hatchet and go camping together
RMS decides to switch to Solaris
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
...or I will go elsewhere. The simple fact of the matter is, I have never _needed_ anyone's help to get a good deal on a job, and those jobs that didn't work out the way I had hoped, well, I took a week and found another one. So, tell me again why a union would be helpful to me?
First off, pay is negotiated before taking the job. If I don't get the pay I want, I don't take the job. Respect is earned, if my employer doesn't give me the respect I feel I deserve, I can find one who will. I've had the good sense (or good luck) to generally find employers who are at least repsectful of me. Being fired is the fault of the employee. Being _laid_off_ normally comes with a severance package that would far exceed the time for me to find a new job. I recent left a place a couple years ago, that, had I stayed a few more months would have given me 7 months severance. However, since the place was being run by total morons, I don't regret my decision to leave.
What does the best union in the world have to offer me that I can't get on my own? Nothing. Now if I were a marginally skilled hack, that would be something different. In this industry I can only see unions helping the incompenent, because given the way the job market has been (tech bubble bursting nonwithstanding), there will always be a large market for intelligent, motiviated and well-rounded workers (i.e., someone who learn what he needs to do the job).
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
There will be a huge influx of talented people, yes, but they will be far outnumbered by the hacks, posers and wannabes that already flood the market today. One of the things my current employer said they liked about me was that I was "old school". I'd gotten into the industry because I had a genuine interest, rather than for money. The money is a nice perq...
Also, as another poster replied, unions aren't going to change that. I'm not about to sell myself out to an outmoded idea borrowed from communism just because the job market gets a little tough. There will always be companies out there who recognize what I can provide, as opposed to the many, many companies that just want a butt to warm a seat.
I'll take my chances against a bunch of recent graduates any day.
Unions were much more necessary when labor was essentially a commodity. By dint of hard work and lots of experience (plus a genuine zeal for computers), I've managed to get past being a commodity, and there are still companies that realize that. The job market might get tighter in the future, but I'm willing to take it upon myself to do what it takes. I don't need anyone's help, especially when all they're going to do is funnel my money into the coffers of a political party I probably don't want to support anyway.
so what is bushwah anyway? (Score:2)
Re:Unions and what they can do for us (Score:2)
Re:Unions and what they can do for us (Score:2)
It is a sad thing that organizations almost always grow too large, often becoming evil in the process. It happens with corporations, governments, unions, even religions. Theoretically these could all reach a balance point that benefits all the organizations while not screwing the individual, but it never seems to happen. Perhaps it's not really possible, or perhaps there is not ever a true equilibrium...just swings towards different sides as time goes on.
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
Just to turn that around so that you know where us "union cynics" are coming from:
There are lots of circumstances where if you are being mistreated by unions, you will be unable to defend yourself despite your Mighty Coding Prowess. The union is bigger than you. It has more money than you. It does *not*, I repeat *Not!* give a Flying Fiddler's F**** about you.
Unions are companies that sustain their growth through acquisition of members. They don't really have any strong interest in any particular member, and after the initial spirit of a union is drained by time, they don't particularly care about the industry that they intersect. They are a creature of politics, for all the ill (and occasional good) that that entails.
Unions have a place where a workforce needs to rally itself against opressive conditions and unfair treatment, but I've always been of the opinion that each generation of workers shold disolve their parents' unions and decide from scratch how/when/if to create new ones.
BTW: The defense against what both you and I said above is to note that I select my company (and hopefully, you your union) on the basis of how much it cares about me. When/if I no longer believe that it does so, then I stop reciprocating and eventually I leave to find another job.
The same can be said of a union... unless of course, your inudustry is made up of "union shops", and you cannot escape your particular union (e.g. auto-workers, actors, screen writers, etc). Then it's as if you work in an industry where one company has a monopoly on what you do, so you have no choice but to work for that one company. This is the future that I fear when I hear people talking about technical unions for systems administration or programming.
Re:IT will never unionize... (Score:2)
I can see it now...
Picket line of geeks get's busted up by big burly guys. Geeks go home, hack into the company system (not that hard if they're already working for the company.) Find names and info on company executives that ordered the strikebusters. Proceed to do more damage than a thug with a club could think of doing.
With our power, the suits should be afraid of us. We just never flex our information muscle. We control everything, let's use that to our benefit.
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
--
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
I'm in a union, and I'm not unskilled. Just easily replaced.
--
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
Anyway, what I meant was that if you can threaten to quit, and have it actually mean something to your employer, then you'll be treated fairly or you'll go somewhere else. The trouble is for people for whom threatening to quit doesn't hurt the employer; basically, those who are easily replaced.
So yes, I suppose that "unskilled" was an unfair characterization. Perhaps I should have said "easily replaced". That includes me as a teaching assistant: if I quit, they'll find someone else.
--
Re:IT Unions... hahahahaha.. (Score:2)
------
Re:Unions are unnecessary in IT (Score:2)
But isn't this basically what unionization was supposed to be about in the first place -- the means to the (Marxist) goal that the workers own the means of production, and that by owning the means of production, workers can get better treatment.
I happen to have a strong personal distaste for Marxism, but let's take this particular notion at face value: that workers should own the means of production", presumably because doing so allows them to extract better working conditions from management.
In a steel mill, a worker cannot own the means of production in any meaningful sense of the word. Collective bargaining is required by virtue of the fact that it takes dozens - often hundreds, maybe thousands - of people working together to make a steel mill work. If a worker leaves, he or she can be replaced, as the means of production (the physical plant and tools required to maintain it) remain on-site. The workers themselves are interchangeable.
But in most software shops, the means of production are the neurons in the head of each IT worker. Each worker already owns the means of production; a departing worker takes with him or her a significant body of knowledge, and you can't just hire another off the street. Sure, the new hire may know C++ just as well as the guy who just left -- but do they know all the ins and outs of the class structure your application uses? Not by a long shot.
Hey, those on the right don't believe in unionization in principle; I'm not addressing you, because we already agree ;-)
But if you're on the left - question your motives. Is unionization supposed to be an end in itself? Or is it merely the means by which one ought to put control of the means of production in the hands of those who do the producing?
If you believe unionization is merely a means to this end, and you believe that this end (workers controlling the means of production) is a desirable one, is it not logical to conclude that unions are, by definition, redundant, when it comes to the IT profession?
If you work in IT, you already own the means of production.
Hell, I'll go one step further. I'll put my Marxist glasses on and look around. I work in a nicely air-conditioned office, and just got a double-digit percentage raise, and a bonus of triple that. I guess the Marxists are right - ownership of the means of production really is the way to go!
Of course, since I already control the means of production and have managed to use that control to extract concessions (a high wage and an excellent working environment) from management, it's too bad for the union organizer that I no longer need him as a middleman.
misconceived perception (Score:2)
Even moreso what is going to happen when a salary based becomes a standard and I make as much as my manager or someone else makes the same amount as someone else without having the skills for command a salary, and tensions rise between co-workers?
The environment (workplace) becomes less desireable to be at. Thats my concern not money. Most people in this field with enough experience know how easy it is to move onto other jobs for higher pay, and I could have done so plenty of times for more money. Why should I when I feel comfortable where I'm at?
my two cents (Score:3)
Often from what I've seen with unionizing is nothing is done by the Unions in reality. Lets see what a typical Union would do when things are erratic.
Strike for more money for so called more benefits for the people. Strike for better working conditions for the people shorter hours, and the rights to ensure an employee doesn't get fired improperly.
Sounds good so far but at what price? So as a tech union member lets see what that gets me. Being I already make a lot of money, this week my paycheck just won't come to me since I'm on strike, and at the age of 27 I'm already making close to 6 figures so this missing paycheck may hurt my lifestyle and I don't know how long I'll be on strike for.
While I picket with my "brothers" a Union rep speaks with officials to get about a %.20 salary raise for me, but then he wants to raise my union dues for this, so that raise is now null. How thrilling. While I work I see lazy people who do nothing since their unionized and can't be fired. Oh yea I'm just dying to be unionized.
IMHO I don't think the tech industry needs to be unionized. Its done great on its own for years, and unions see how much money we often make and are simply trying to get rich quick off our sweat.
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
In my circumstance, the union officials sit in the same group as I do. I'm speaking primarily about stewards & chief-stewards - I have no contact with those higher than that role.
And shouldn't people have the choice to join a union?
Absolutely. I work at a closed-shop, we all pay a percentage of our earnings to work there. Some pay union dues, others pay an agency fee. It all works out the same, the non-union employees are afforded the exact same benefits as the union folk.
As an "unofficial" tech worker, I am upset that I have to deal with the union re: raises - in fact, I haven't had a raise in several years (not counting the cost-of-living BS that my union manages to wrestle from management every 4-5 years).
I work at a university and have been in 2 unions in my 15 year experience there. I've worked my way from janitor to system admin plus. And yet I was offered absolutely no assistance from my union(s). In fact, I was attacked by 1 union for trying to advance myself through tech ability.
Am I bitter? Sometimes. I troubleshoot their PCs, I install/maintain their CMMS systems, I write their reports (& then have to run them), I create their web presence (including cgi), I am a help desk, I train, I analyze, I code, and I also perform the job I was hired to do.
All this and yet I'm paid less than a parts-chaser. Wow, looks like I'm extremely bitter.
The ills of Collective Bargining (Score:2)
Development Standards? (Score:2)
Like we want the Union to set up development standards? "Sorry kid, you'll have to ditch xemacs for VisualAge; its Union rules."
Re:IT Unions not all bad (Score:2)
All of the things you've mentioned you could bargined for by yourself and have put in your employment contract. You don't need a union for any of these things. The difference is that with a union, everyone gets the same deal. That means if there is something that you want different, tough. You get no say with a Union.
Re:Nothing much has changed (Score:2)
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
FUD. As a free citizen you pick your CEO when you pick your job. If your CEO leaves you can leave with him. If your CEO is replaced, you can choose whether to stay or go. When your in a union, your vote in contract negotiation is narrowed down to 1/n, where n is the number of people in the union. Without a union, you can negotiate 100% your contract.
I can see it now... (Score:3)
--
IT Union demands (Score:2)
- Replace casual dress codes with boxers and t-shirts.
- Even MORE paid vacation. Hell, around here people only start a new job with 3 weeks a year!
- Higher salaries. Mid level workers can only afford Audis, they need Porsches.
- Remove all web blocking, not that we don't just find ways around it anyway.
- Gaming PCs and Counterstrike servers in all offices.
- Herman-Miller desks and chairs all around as proactive defense against repetitive motion injuries.
Seriously, what the hell do we need an IT union for? IT workers have it easier than many of the executives in their own companies! Even with all the dotcom/telco fallout there will still be thousands of unfilled tech jobs! This is just silly.
Re:IT Union demands (Score:2)
Re:Professionals should not be unionized. (Score:4)
Why do you blame teachers when they strike? Why don't you blame the school boards who will not pay them what they deserve? Why don't you blame the citizens in that district that vote down pro-school referendums, and then complain why schools suck....and then have the nerve to blame teachers for the lack of "morals" in our teens (maybe parents should take time off of work to parent!!).
As for IT professionals.....I am a union IT pro. Two hours of pay a month goes to my union dues. In return I get a benefits package worth an additional 35% of my pay and includes full paid medical, dental and life insurance for the whole family and a generous retirment contribution that is vested immediately. Also, any overtime I work results in 1:1 comp time. All of this and our union has never had to strike! YES, unions work without strikes! Unfortunately, the only time you hear about unions in today's media is during strikes...you never hear about all of the good things they do for the employee (day care, same-sex partner rights, etc).
Finally, just becuase you are a union member does not guarantee job security....a common union myth. I can be fired just like everyone else in the world, however, there must be a reason for it. If my employer wanted to can me because I am doing a poor job, first they would have to notify me that I am doing poorly and give me a chance to improve (usually a month), and if I don't me their satisfaction I am a goner.
Being a union member does not make me a lazy, do-nothing employee. It makes me a happy, appreciative, hard-working employee....one that works to live, not lives to work.
ÕÕ
one advantage of a union (Score:2)
I'd imagine that union contracts would probably allow employees to retain ownership of anything they produce that isn't connected to their job.
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Lawsuits instead of unions (Score:2)
I'd rather take my chances with a jury of "my peers" than with organized labor.
H1-B visa and other issues (Score:3)
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
As an example, my father tells me the story of being a Union iron worker for a while. His shop went on strike demanding more pay. In the end, the raise that they got was enough to more than pay for the money that they lost in the strike, yup, assuming they all continued working there for the next 40 years anyway.
Thats bad Union management. True, you can't win every time that you go to the table, but the unions job is to represent the workers, and to help them, not to cause them to lose wages, or stick it to the management.
Then again, he talks of the time that a manager was treating him unfairly, giving him a hard time while he tried to do his job. A quick visit to his union rep and the manager changed his tune right quick.
In short, a well run union, one that is run by people who truely care and are out for the good of the workers can be a very very good thing (as they say "United we negotiate, divided we beg".
Then again, I work for a university. We don't need it here. Unless there is a major crunch and stuff has to get done now (which happens once in a while, but only if we can't avoid it) we don't work long hours, and the benefits are good (I honestly don't understand being willing to work 50 or more hours a week and get only 2 weeks vacation a year etc - you could not possibly pay me enough to do a job which takes up THAT MUCH of my life - I did it for about 6 months and said "fuck that")
-Steve
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
A good union is a good thing. However, a poorly run union can be worst than none at all (but, arn't many things that way?).
Take the NYC Stage Hands Union (I forget their actual name). You can only get into the union by being sponsored in. Stanbdard bribe to get sponsored in is around $100,000.
However, once you are in, union regulations make it simple to hold down multiple jobs, none of which take more than a couple of hours out of your day, and all of which pay full time salaries.
(like the regulation that theaters must hire 2 different people, and pay them both full time salaries to wipe down the stage before and after every performance - one for before - one for after)
Now, to me, it sounds like they are corrupt and milking it to hell. However, not all unions are like that, and they certainly don't have to be.
-Steve
Herding Cats (Score:2)
;-P
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
The exploitation has moved from business over employee to union over employee. And shouldn't people have the choice to join a union?
Unions might help certain people, but they also hold back the talented and the achievers. I could go on, but suffice it to say that it's a two way street - as many unions have shown themselves to be just as corrupt and exploitive as businesses.
Australian Perspective (Score:2)
There are no 'shop organisers' and none of the usual 'the workers' versus 'the bosses' rhetoric. So there is no conflict of interest; I don't tell them things that are commerical in confidence. This organisation is not interested in forcing a one-size-fits-all on employee or unions. (Although it has worked towards saftey net conditions.) This is not quite the balanced organisation you might like to see -- but it does balance my own country's employer body, the AIIA [aiia.com.au].
I've also found APESMA membership to be better value than my other membership of the more traditional IT professional society, the ACS [acs.org.au], which seems more concerned with prestige and suit-ish stuff that I do not understand. But apparently others do, because Lawyers, Accountants, and the like see membership of the ACS as being a badge of 'professionalism' of the same value as membership of their more established professional societies.
Re:Nothing much has changed (Score:2)
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
Unions and what they can do for us (Score:2)
There is nothing stopping us from designing a union that only addresses the isses which we need to have addressed, WHICH was the entire point of the CNN story.
It is not about money or job protection, it's about standards and skills. The union need not be anything more than that.
Re:Unions and what they can do for us (Score:2)
It is not an us
I grew up in West Virginia, so I know how strong a union can be, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. A coal miner really wants the same thing we want; a good place to work, reasonable safe (we're talking coal mines here), chance to learn and grow, and everything else.
I have never seen a union protect someone for being a slacker or having done something stupid which would get them fired from any non-union job. Yes unions are worried about firings, but when the details come out, 19 times out 20, that person is history, and usually no other coal mine or union will touch that person again.
And again you missed my main point: A union is what we make it.
Your thoughts on what a union is to you are as outdated as the steam engine. When we make the union, we make the rules. I'd think of it as a way to make the befits more equal.
- Need time to take a class - okay, union offers deals with local colleges and training locations to keep everyone's skills up to date.
- Health plan doesn't cover eyeware or RTS? Union health could cover that.
- Layed off? Unemployment running out? Union pays out unemployment and covers you COBRA payments or puts you in their health care plan.
So you see what I'm getting at is that we use our ability as a tool for collective barginning.2 thoughts. (Score:2)
Companies that have finished their layoffs will next seek to cut costs of remaining employees. At this point a Union can begin to look attractive.
no union for (Score:2)
Re:IT will never unionize... (Score:2)
Yeah! Hack the Planet! Kill the Gibson! Do it for Joey and that hot Acid Burn chick!
--
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
without the unions in place, BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THIS, companies will take every chance they get to cut costs at the expense of the employees health and safety.
One of the first jobs that i had back in 93 or 94 was at a grimy little sweat shop out in the county. The locals called it the Finger Factory, and for good reason. Many of the press machines were wore out and old. They needed to be replaced ASAP. But for years nothing was done as employees would have fingers crushed or in one case a guy lost his arm. Sweet eh
What did it take to replace the machines ? Well, the owners daughter was working there during the summer part time, thank god she lost two fingers because it probably saved a whole lot more in the long run.
I've seen this time after time after time, The Boss/Chief doesn't care about the grunts. Maybe its some sort of elitist pychology, plebians eat their dinner at 7 at night, we eat ours at 5, never any sooner or later.
Tech workers thank the lord dont have this burden on them, well, unless they get carpal tunnel or some other DEADLY disease caused by repetitive Quake sessions.
Unions protect the laziest workers, inspire mediocracy, and do a pretty good job of protecting workers health and safety. Not exactly what the tech industry needs.
BTW, in the aboved mentioned machine shop, just last year they formed a union with 98% backing of the workers. The Boss decided it was time to close up shop two days after the union came in.
Re:The reasons (Score:2)
From my personal experience of working 70 hours/week and working 40 hours/week, i came to the conclusion that:
Working more hours does not lineary correlate with producing more
To be more precise, there is a point in which you are working so much time and your productivity per-hour is so low, that you are actually producing less in total than if you worked less hours.
Please keep in mind that (contrary to popular belief) being productive IS NOT THE SAME as producing lines of code.
What this means is that if you keep on working bellow a certain level of mental "freshness" you can actualy have a negative productivity (because you are introducing loads of bugs that later will take time to be tracked and solved)
As with everything, there is a point of balance in which you work the adequate number of hours to get the maximum total productivity. This will vary from person to person.
Knowing the right moment to stop and go home is what distinguishes the Really Excelent Programmers from the Simply Good Programmers.
Information and Social Skills ... (Score:2)
Information about the work enviroment in each company (country).
This allows for informed decisions about the questions:
Social Skills so that you know how to handle your current manager and know how to negociate your next job
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
Most IT people work more than a 40 hour week, including myself. Reward - pre-ipo stock options?
NO THANKS - SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
Yeah, some things about unions aren't great - but for someone who's worked both sides of the fence, I could definately see the benefits of unionization of some IT jobs, especially the "lower level" jobs such as technicians.
I'm a Union IT Professional (Score:5)
But here are the important things, things that get even more important as you young geeks grow into middle-aged geeks and have families. 1) As I mentioned-- medical, dental, pension. 2) Overtime for working beyond 40 hours. 3) My pager stays on my desk when I go home at night; i.e., I can have a Real Life(tm) with my family (and my compilers). 4) I'm not an at-will employee-- I can't be fired just because the boss can hire someone for less money. 5) I can't be fired for my continual, unabashedly militant leftist political and union organizing activities. 6) I don't have to kiss suits' asses.
All you anti-union dittoheads need to pull your heads away from your monitors for awhile (yeah, I know 2.4 is out, but...) and read some labor history. If it wasn't for unions we'd all be working 80-hour weeks and be at the bosses' beck and call 24-hours a day-- oh, wait, this is IT, that's the way it is....
Get the connection? And you know what the really sad thing is? You know why you've got your 80-hr/wk, no overtime job? Are you ready? It's because the boss is too fscking stoopid to do your job!!!
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
One of the things that always strikes me as odd is peoples dislike of unions. A union is the sort of thing that would be able to really help out with the ungodly work hours that most technical people get. When management says something like: "yes, we're happy to pay you 100,000 a year" and then 2 months later say, "we expect you to work 80 hours a week, no overtime pay". That sucks.
Organized labor can help stop that. Hell, organized labor did help stop that and give most sane jobs the 5 day work week and the 8 hour work day. How can management get away with taking that away from technical employees? The employees aren't organized.
Re:Will the Pay be like other unions? (Score:2)
the autoworker makes about $40K more than the MCSE.
Wait that's not true at all!! All the ATEC commercials say that brand-new MCSEs make 100k+. They couldn't possibly be lying, could they?
Enigma
No. Everybody advances until they're incompetent! (Score:2)
Which is why I deny promotions that separate me from the hardware. As a pilot once said in response to why he didn't like promotions, he said, "Too many promotions and they don't let you fly."
Unfortunately, for reasons I do not understand, refusing promotions is grounds for firing at many companies. WTF?
Re:Oh you poor babies... (Score:2)
I had recently sent an e-mail to my companies legal council asking the what if I want to work on Open source projects and what the company policy would be seeing I had signed an non-compete which took all my creative rights away. Well they said that basically the way the company saw it was that they owned me and he used those exact words, so say I had a part time job on weekends working at say McD(not that I would) and they wanted me to work work on saturday even though I had that second job. They feel that they come first. Not exactly fair.
There are people here who for the past 3 months have been working 15-16 hr days 7 days a week manditory because some management idiot didn't spec out a project properly.
Keep thinking that way. We are in the eyes of most IT company "Slaves"
Re:Union. Ech. Professional Org., Hmmmmm... (Score:2)
And, at the same time, can be used as a respectable licensing body.
Let's face facts here. IT is now at the point where an imbecile with a community college degree can get hired and do a lot of damage through sheer ineptitude. Last night, I had an ICQ conversation with a good friend of mine, who is A+ certified, who had no idea where to start to fix BSoD from VMM.VXD.
Step 1, I told him to open the machine and make sure that all the fans are still working, and that the memory and cards were properly seated.
Step 2, check for strange software, probably old 16-bit stuff loaded from config.sys/autoexec.bat/win.ini/system.ini, etc.
Step 3. Create a system disk without any memory managers or extended memory drivers, copy the program that I e-mailed to him onto the disk, and run the comprehensive memory and motherboard tests.
Well, it was step 3 that stopped him dead in his tracks. He dutifully went to Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs, Startup Disk... [sigh] It would have been so much easier to just format a diskette and type "SYS A:" at a command prompt.
Of course, when the Windows startup disk was used, himem.sys was loaded and the RAM check didn't work. I had to explain to him how to kill himem.sys...
He's an A+, and I've got no certification whatsoever. Guess who looks better on a resume? [sigh]
Well, at least I've got Linux and FreeBSD skills. [grin]
But we really need some sort of formalized licensing for various platforms, low or minimal cost, just pass the test and you're in - as we all know on Slashdot, many of the best computer geeks are self-taught. It would keep the employee signal to noise ratio a lot higher.
Until we do that, we will never be seen credibly as professionals.
IT Union men... true story (Score:2)
I was reading a C++ book at lunch, and this former machinist comes up to me and says "hey, zat book on thuh curriculum?" I said, "no, but I want to learn about this." He looked at me like I was from space. I told him that if he wanted to do IT, he was going to have to spend the rest of his life keeping his skills up, researching new and better opportunities, etc. He was flabbergasted. I mentioned the words "work hard" and he just about cacked his trolleys right then and there. HIS game plan was to take his 4 month "intro to programming" certificate, go to Nortel, and tell them to give him a job for $85,000 per year (this was mid-90s Canada, where entry level, you'd be lucky to score $35,000/yr CDN). Cause he got 4 kids un a morgidge, eh. And then spend the rest of his life goin to the plant as a C programmer, punchin a clock, writin some C code, gettin cost of living raises per year, etc.
I told him his skills'd probably be obsolete or needing upgrade within 18 months.
He went ballistic. "So what are they doin this training fer, then?" I replied, "to get you started. You're looking at long hours, spending your own money and time on textbooks and training just to stay ahead, and you can honestly forget ordering Nortel to pay you that kind of money."
"I don't wanna do that kind of thing. I just wanna do C programming. What's union scale for a job like that?"
I laughed him out of the room. Suggested he drop out and take something else. He asked me why it wasn't unreasonable to ask for 85,000/yr cause that was what HE needed. I suggested to him that they could get people with DEGREES AND EXPERIENCE for less. And if they went to other countries, they could get a Ph.D from Bangalore for that. After a slew of trailer park racist garbage and anti-boss invective, he walked out and never came back.
We have enough idiots in IT management keeping their jobs through back-office politics. We don't need more - and I certainly don't want to pay for that kind of crap. Not out of my paycheque, and not in terms of increased software prices, either.
Re:IT Union men... true story (Score:2)
Wonder why cars cost so much? Guess how much people in the plant get paid. Look at how much education they have.
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
But you can't dictate economy any more than you can dictate physics. "Let's all vote to repeal gravity!" Sure.
Re:Canadian Government (Score:2)
You wanna be a Chretien slave, all the more power to you.
True Union story... (Score:2)
My Dad worked for a large equipment manufacturing corporation and was a member of a union, for about 30 years. I remember repeated contract negotiations at regular intervals (2-4 years) which generally resulted in additional pay and benefits for the workers. Sometimes there were work strikes, one or two in that 30 years extended for at least 6 months. But the union got a little cocky in my opiniun. They tried asking for a bit more than they should have, from a company that they knew at the time, was losing money because of a slowdown in their current market.
My Dad didn't like the idea, but he nevertheless went along with the Union's decision to strike. Almost all of the townspeople, and the local press, thought a strike was a bad tactic. They were already well paid and compensated. But the Union wanted to squeeze blood from a stone, I guess.
Eventually, my Dad noticed the talks went nowhere and it was a useless waiting game. I'm proud of my Dad for making the decision to cross the picket line and think of his family and his welfare at a time that it was completely obvious that the Union stopped doing so. The Union was blind to what was going to happen, even though everyone else knew that the company must shut down their operations in this town to survive as a business. Still, the remaining Union members supported their side of a losing battle. For those people, I have no sympathy.
The company hired temps to fill in positions and rewarded those who did cross the picket line with available overtime work and continued benefits coverage, even though the original union contract ran out.
My Dad made a fortune on overtime pay, so to speak. He was able to pay off all his bills, the mortgage, etc. To him, nothing was different as before the strike, except maybe loads of voluntary overtime and doubletime with the associated pay.
The company did eventually shut the doors, even while the picketers were STILL standing at the front gate. Those, like my Dad, who decided many months ago to cross the picket line received various compensation depending on their seniority. My Dad recieved early retirement, with pay and benefits. Not bad for a guy who is more than a decade away from federal retirement age.
He's not filthy rich from it, but with his mortgage, bills, and cars paid off, he can still live comfortably with what he makes with his retirement benefits. Had he stuck with the almighty union, he wouldn't have the time he has now to spend with his grandkids.
Also... This was no two-bit union. It was the UAW
Yeah Right (Score:2)
Re:you are lazy (Score:2)
Thats very kind of you to say so. I never felt that my membership of a union required me to be lazy or unintelligent.
"they probably got some benefit from unions in the past."
I have got lots of benefits from unions. If you want to stretch it back in history these would include the right to vote, the right to free speech. They would include pension rights, the health and safety executive, protection against unfair dismissal, the right to representation on pay bargaining, the right to paid holidays.
"Unions are just a symptom of a desire to socialize everything "
Gods above. McCarthy did a really good job on you lot didn't he.
Phil
Re:Unions are unnecessary in IT (Score:2)
You are confused I am afraid. In both the steel industry and the software industry the workers ARE the means of production. The Marxist point of view is that the workers should benefit from the fruits of the labour. In reality the person who owns the company benefits from other peoples labour.
The IT industry fails squarely into what in the UK we call someone mistakenly the "middle classes". I guess from a Marxist point of view you could use the term "petty bourgeoise" although its not quite the same thing. Whatever you call it its a class of people who though they are essentially working class, think that they are not. This class was created deliberately in the last century due to the demands of the increasing enfranchisment of the population.
Now what is the purpose of the union in this set up? Collective bargaining often makes a lot of sense. The problem would be however that an IT union would probably be split and confused. Is it a working class union or a professional body. This is the case with the union that I am a member of. As many of its members feel "middle class", it spends a large amount of its time pretending to be a professional body. Its pretty ineffective as a result.
"it's too bad for the union organizer that I no longer need him as a middleman. "
Of course the union organiser should generally be a part of the working class population that the union represents. The problem is that the traditional unions have been around for a long time now. They tend to have lost their original revoluationary roots, and have become incorporated as part of the capitalist system. I say a union official laying into a friend of mine because he was being "too political" during a demonstration. Rather funny to be honest. The modern day union organiser that you are talking about is as a result of the corruption of the ideal by the ruling class though, rather than being indicative of the idea of unionisation in the first place.
Phil
It's not artificial leverage. (Score:2)
This is a typical neo-conservative response. First they say free the market from regulation, then they say that employees trying to freely associate and set the price of their labor is against the free market. Whatever, dude.
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
Wrongo!
You laugh, but a one time IT workers were union, I knew one of the. Job description's were very narrow. Analysts wrote the specs, Programmers then coded, and loaders then loaded the programs into the machines.
Unions give security to unskilled labores because unions have the standard of last hired first fired. In IT shops when times get lean, managers pull out the performance reviews, rank everybody, then draw a line and can everybody below that line. At least that's the way it worked at every IT shop I've worked in. In a union shop, if your performance is borderline incompetant, and they have to hire additional personel the newer guys will be canned before you are when times get lean.
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
So sure, unions are designed around the average, but given that half of all employers are below average in how they treat their employees, maybe the protections a union can offer are useful.
This is the lamest argument I've read yet, sorry.
Your entire thinking process hinges on classifying people as "above average" and "below average."
We don't need unions, we just need to let market forces dictate. If you're below average at your job, then work harder or get fired. If your employer is "below average," then above average people will stop working for them and they will go down the drain. Or they'll improve their practices and more good people will work for them.
BTW, please study a bell curve. The laws of averages say most people are AVERAGE. Then you've got a smaller number that are above average, and a similar number that are below average.
So, no, half of all employers are not below average, unless you consider NO employers to be just "average."
Re:Everybody's not above average! (Score:2)
No, 'mean' doesn't apply here. He's talking about a set consisting of ALL employees. It is not true that HALF are above average and HALF are below average. The largest portion of employees are just AVERAGE.
don't tell people to study math if you don't know it thoroughly yourself...
Excuse me, I told him to study a BELL CURVE, which I have thoroughly studied. (BTW, no one knows "math" thoroughly, just parts of it.)
if you take average as the mean of a sample set, then the post you're replying to is dead on.
We're not talking about a group of numbers, we're talking about the REAL WORLD and PEOPLE!
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:5)
That is a very arrogant and uninformed attitude. So you think machinists, electricians, teachers, police officers, firefighters, craftspeople, and nurses are unskilled? Come on, many working people are much more skilled than the average office worker. If fact, most unskilled laborers aren't in unions anyway, they're the guys you see in the morning hanging around 7-11 waiting for someone to pick them up for a day's work.
Unions exist to protect workers from exploitation from their employers and to promote a more equitible split of the fruits of their labor, pure and simple. And if you think unions are bad because they let working people earn a reasonable living, well, think of the alternative where our middle class evaporates and we have a somewhat sizeable well-to-do group and a HUGE poor population. Doesn't bode too well for the future, does it?
Even if you aren't in a union you benefit from their existance because they tend to normalize the employment market and keep corporations from acting too avariciously. Do you enjoy only working 5 days a week? How about getting medical insurance and retirement support? Do you like paid vacation? Thank the union movement.
IMHO (Score:2)
The guild fights for additional training, for example, for IT pros. The IT pro's agree that for a mutually agreed period of time they wont leave their job for another. If they do, they are kicked of of the guild and loose the guild seal of approval (read certication). If the Guild actually enforced rules on its members in a such a way that companies would no longer see the Guild as a threat, then IT kiddie could actually start seeing better mobility and a promising future within a job rather than by changing jobs and companies would have the piece of mind that their Buzzword compliantly trained emplyees won't leave them for a bigger and better position upon learning a new craft.
No Unions (Score:2)
Unions exist because people [have not been able to/have not been willing to] gather information on the labor marketplace.
There is no reason for unions to exist in a capitalistic environment: Where work is demanded, employers compete for empolyees. All that is needed is for independent groups to provide easy access to this employment data. Viola! No need for unions.
In my opinion, unions can only cause long-term harm to the economy by providing unnatural stress on businesses when economic pressures mandate change. With unions, these necessary changes are much harder to implement, and hurt union members in the long run.
Re:you are lazy (Score:2)
Let's be honest. Unions members are lazier workers who are not as bright as skilled/white collar workers. I'm not saying union members should be forced to live bad lives because of their lower intellect; they probably got some benefit from unions in the past. But it seems like the time of unions is over even for these people.
Employment information is too easy to get in today's world. Especially for people who are more capable. I know this isn't PC to say, but it is true. Some people are born better looking, some are born smarter, some are born faster - and some are born the opposite.
Every time a society begins to submit to the will of stupid and the lazy (a significant % of laborers), it goes all downhill. Unions are just a symptom of a desire to socialize everything (because poor Johnny is too stupid to function without big brother!).
I know programmers and IT workers are too smart to fall for that trick.
Instead of forming unions, let's create programs to Help the Stupid and Lazy overcome their handicaps (only put in more palatable terms if you wish).
Re:Unionize? No Thanks! (Score:2)
...and someday all our jobs will be obsoleted by computers that know how to program for $0.01/hour.
As long as we have a democratic nation with an uncorrupt government and lot's of free speech, there's nothing to worry about.
What you should be complaining about is our government's desire to do business with nations that do not practice these ideals.
Re:you are lazy (Score:2)
Intelligence allows people to think for themselves and to create their own opportunities. Education is definitely not required, but it helps.
#2. http://www.google.com/search?q=jobs [google.com]
#3. Your examples are of relatively homogenious societies (esp. sweden) (which the US is not) - as they receive more immigrants the situation will change and they will be forced to ditch many of their social programs (sad, but true).
Your USSR example makes no sense(corrupt, undemocratic, no free speech). Actually, I don't think history provides any good examples of countries like the US. What we do know is that socialism hasn't been able to keep up with the US.
#4. Live and learn. Mistakes are made. With big-brother they take a revolution to recover from - recovery in a free market is relatively painless.
I would maintain that programming requires a certain amount of creativity, and that creativity is basically intelligence. And how many layed-off programmers are unable to pay for food and housing?
ps - I know it all sounds like "elitist garbage." I have a heart, but you can't cheat reality.
Let's agree to disagree, I don't have the energy to continue this and I don't believe we will be able change each other's minds.
IT Unions (Score:2)
Unions are not appropriate for IT (in general...) (Score:3)
Every industry seems to go through this cycle. An industry like the computer industry gets a tremendous boost by, say, the introduction of the PC, and a half a decade goes by without there being an academic curiculum available to churn out reasonably qualified people, then as soon as that curiculum is in place, companies feel that they have a never ending supply of grist for the mill. The same is true for the rapid growth of the internet. With the advent of an easy interface to information (the web), growth is spurred, and qualified people are difficult to find. The academic community lags about half a decade behind, but as soon as a curiculim is developed - and I saw a TV ad for a trade school advertising "become a certified webmaster" yesterday, so the time may be nearer than I'm suggesting - companies feel there is a never ending supply of talent out there.
That would be the point at which a union might be useful (once this corporate belief that IT is a comodity job, becomes prevelent). After the work becomes commodity work, for which there are many (supposidly) qualified people. Today, however, the job market is still good enough as to allow the qualified IT employee to seek out good companies and negotiate good terms of employment (with regard to required overtime [slashdot.org] and such).
As an entity for collective bargaining, the need for IT unions has not yet materialized, although I'd expect that in the next 5 years or so the need will arise. For that reason it may be valiable for a few unions to begin gathering steam, although the vast majority (the referenced poll from the article not withstanding) of IT workers will not feel the need to join. As a collective bargaining entity they just aren't needed yet.
--CTH
--
IT Needs a Political Union... (Score:2)
We make enough money to live comfortably and we're actually able to do something about it if we feel short changed.
Re:Well, I see the usual anti-union bushwah (Score:2)
I'll put it you this way, IMO unions were created to protect workers from greedy corps so the peeps can have a comitees over firing someone, wage protection and more influence over certain decisions that affect their day to day ops. (I'm sure I'm leaving some other stuff out). These things are important because after working in a plant 5 or 10+ years it's really really tough to do something else w/o taking a huge cut in pay right? It would be easy for the corp to fire someone @50k after 10 years for a job when they can bring in a newbie to do the same thing for 30k.
My point is that this sort of thing doesn't really apply to what we do. If I lost my job tommorow I -might- take a pay cut but if I did it wouldn't be much and even then it would take me 3 weeks to find another job. The market is still in our favor because the technology is our leverage, not a union. They (plant workers) didn't have that advantage back then or now and thats why they continue to pay their dues. (Back to us geeks)If the job market sours then maybe the issue should be revisited but IMO that'll take at least another 10 years. And even then corps will still have to depend on us to keep their shit working and write their new shit to make it work better.
IT Unions not all bad (Score:4)
Like the article states, it's not all about money with a union. In IT we hear so much about switching jobs and making the Big Bucks. Yes, with a union you don't get the Big Bucks. But, I work 40 hours a week, I am guaranteed training, I have great benefits, I get paid overtime, and most importantly, I see my family much more than at previous jobs.
I could go on about the pros and cons here but what it comes down to is preference. With a union you tend to have more job security and more guaranteed perks and benefits. You may get paid more at a non-union shop but you don't have much solidarity if management mandates forced overtime (which would probably be unpaid if you are salaried) or other similar negative policies.
From what I have read in the past it appears many
Re:Unions bad, mmmkay? (Score:2)
Yes, I do. But at least in our industry, these things aren't due to unions. They're due to supply and demand.
Professionals should not be unionized. (Score:3)
The best example of why professionals should never be subject to unions is the ALPA. This union, originally created to protect pilots now enslaves them. Through union rules a pilot can never go to another airline without being FORCED to the bottom of the ladder all because of rules the union fought for on the supposed behalf of the employees. If airline pilots are not "professionals" then I don't know who is. They are highly trained, rigorously tested, and entrusted with immense responsibility. Yet in turn their union makes them no better than numbers.
The worse unions are those in the public sector. Unions have no business there, there is enough protections by law for government employees, and for that matter all but the entry level regular employees, that they now have simply transformed themselves into political entities. Teacher unions constantly strike in the middle of school year, regardless of the effect on students, because suddenly they, the employee, have become more important than the students they serve. While teachers should be paid well and receive good benefits, in this case they should also be expected to not put themselves before the children entrusted to them. Want to be on strike, then show your professionalism by not doing it when children are being taught. These same unions also thwart almost every effort to require measurable results from their members. How is this a benefit to society?
This is why I don't think most IT level jobs should ever be unionized. For IT to work it requires people of demonstratable skills who are willing to work together to accomphlish the needs of the business. Considering the need for people in our field we sorely lack reason to be unionized. The common method is to scare people into believeing that they will lose everything and be constantly abused if they don't join. Why should I want to dedicate nearly 2 weeks of my pay to a union? If you don't believe that is what it costs, then I suggest you check into what some unionized people pay. Friends of mine pay more than one hour of their weekly paycheck as union dues! The unions explain away the true cost by saying things like "It only cost you xxxx per week, but look at the benifits. However look at the xxxx * 52 and see just how much money you really are paying!
The real money makers in unions are those employees in businesses that cannot afford to cheat their employees in the first place. The number of qualified people is way to low for them to get away with running them into the ground. Through networking I know which companies to avoid, and as should be they are always understaffed. It takes time, but they do come around.
With a unionized staff we would not have had the ability to rid the company I work for of people who thought the whole day was for smoke breaks and surfing. Thats the cost of a union, you will end up with people in your IT department who don't contribute, forcing those who do to pick up the pace.
No, the cost of losing my professionalism is not worth the benefits of joining a union. I take pride in doing my job, and learning to do it better everyday. I don't need a crutch, and fear having one available.