Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

NYT on High Tech Unions 131

Posted by CmdrTaco from the and-they-get-a-slice-of-your-salary dept.
Rob sent us a New York Times article (this means you need a free registration) that talks about something we've addressed here in the past. Its tech unions. It talks about the struggle of the MS Temps, as well as the fact that techies are often paid well (cash, stock options and benefits) that the 70 hour work weeks just don't seem so bad.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYT on High Tech Unions More

NYT on High Tech Unions

Comments Filter:
  • > It talks about the struggle of the MS Temps, as
    > well as the fact that techies are often paid
    > well (cash, stock options and benefits) that
    > the 70 hour work weeks just don't seem so bad.

    Hmmm. AFAIK we're restricted to 48 hours per week(with rules on just how much of that you can do at once) here in Europe. The French are even proposing having a 35 hour working week.

    For me this is a good thing. People generally work much harder and smarter when they aren't trying to out-psyche each other with "macho" programming marathons....which usually have to be rewritten anyway.

    Dave
  • symbolic wrote:

    >I've heard horror stories - not about what management is doing to the employees, but how the employees
    > are screwing the company *because* they belong to a union.

    For a humorous look at this sort of activity, check out the movie "I'm All Right, Jack".

  • This whole unionization of the tech-sector is a big joke.

    Damn right. How can the unions push their old divisive "us and them" politics-of-envy when the workers between them actually own a fairly significant percentage of the company, have great benefits and training, and a huge amount of flexibility in their working practices?

    Unions are simply a facade over mob rule, the sooner they are eliminated the better it will be for the entire industry. Unions typically have rules of seniority, inferior workers who simply happen to have served longer are judged as more worthy highly skilled and motivated staff, for example. Unionism is so laughable I can scarcely believe high tech workers would even consider it!

    As for the microtemps, they knew what they were getting into, and have no cause for complaint now. Envy is their sole motivation, and the desire to take by force that which they have not earned.

  • Are you saying that companies ought to be able to hire and fire based on religous or racial criterea? Is it OK for Rupert Murdoch to fire all democrats/liberals because he is conservative? How about firing all the catholics because the ceo is a protestant? Is that OK too?

    Whether or not you or I think this is a good policy is irrelevant. The company is the private property of the owner (or the shareholders) and they have the absolute right to determine their own policies. If you don't like it, you are free to start your own company and compete with them.

    If you are unwilling to do so, you have absolutely no right to criticise someone who has.

  • AMEN!

    If I were given the choice of working pro or con union, it would be con. I will fight for my own rights, thank you very much.

    I work *with* management, not against them. Perhaps I have a bit of a slanted view, since the company I work for is a great place to work and management is actually sane.

    However, I *would* move on if I couldn't come to agreement with management, irregardless of family ties. My job is to support my family in all areas; I can't do that if my work is demanding 70+ hour weeks or other familial benefits. These people who whine "I can't move" aren't hungry enough or pissed off / fed up enough. Especially/B in the computing/programming biz.
  • Every one seems to think that unions are not neccecary, I disagree. Unions could fight the 100 hour work weeks that are just killing some workers (go read that hitech sweatshop story). You might get paid a lot even without the help of unions, but there really is more to it than just the amount of money you make.

    No. The Worker has the right to refuse 100hr work weeks. The Worker has the right to tell employment to shove this job so far up their arse the next guy's gonna need a toilet snake to get it out. The Worker (in the tech industry at least) has the freedom to move on if Management is too stupid. Unions are a Bad Idea in tech. Think about it. It's not like there are any lack of jobs.

    Fuck even where I live (2hrs northwest of Toronto) I can find dozens of tech. jobs without going to the city. Think about it! It's not like it's a one or two industry town and if you aren't in with the steel mills or lumber mills you're no good.

    Unions in tech. are for weak minded people who don't want to fight for their rights. The guy in that "horror" story this morning had every right to leave. Management comes screaming in the next day because it isn't done you throw a bundle of Cat5 at him and tell him to do it himself if he thinks he can do a better job.

    Poor management doesn't breed this kind of worker, it's the worker who doesn't have enough self-esteem to stand up for himself that allows management to say "you're only getting paid 40hrs no matter how long you stay."

    God people, think about it. Stand up for yourselves.
  • If they were truly sincere about bettering wages and working conditions, you'd see a massive attempt to unionize fast-food workers and 7-11 cashiers. No, there isn't much money to be skimmed there so they ignore those folks.

    Actually, the organizing effort around high-tech is fairly tiny compared to organizing going on around janitors, home health care workers, and other 15k/yr jobs. (Fast-food is an interesting one. Some workers at a McDonalds in Canada fought for union representation for a year or so recently. When they finally won, McDonalds responded by closing that 'shop'.) Tech labor just makes for better copy in the NYT.

    Not that unions can ignore well paid fields, either. One of the more interesting growth areas for unions now is with disgruntled medical professionals. Didn't the AMA or something recently endorse unions in concept?

    I wish articles like this focused less on "oh, what will these hapless unions do in the Brand New Economy?", and reported more on what is or isn't working for tech workers. Like the hiring hall idea -- really interesting. Is it working? Why? Why not? Oh well, I can dream, can't I?
  • But its this power to move... that gives you the power to make demands.

    Besides the objection in the other reply here, this assumes that the employer believes you're willing to make good on that threat. They may well know that you are, for reasons of family or otherwise, tied to a place with few available options. They may call your bluff. Then what?

    My other point was, who wants to move, even to the company next door, just to gain a few simple demands. Starting anew at a company is a pain. You don't know the people or the place or the culture. If you care about your own work, you don't want to take that kind of hit to your productivity and effectiveness.

  • Remember, your employer is, on the one hand, the manager you see around, who may care deeply about their employees; your employer is, on the other hand, the company's owners who care about ROI and not much else. If treating you with respect is more profitable, great, if not, tough. So who do you want to work for again?
  • One thing I'm hearing way too much here is 'if you don't like your job, then move'. Whether you're talking about a city or a company, that's just lame. People have other priorities in their lives. You can't just move a family or friends or other commitments every time your employer won't do what you want. Sometimes you have to hold your ground and force your employer to make concessions.

    When you're young and in a booming sector of the economy, it's easier to just pack up for better prospects, true. But neither will always be. A lot of software jobs will relocate to the third world in the next decade. If you're not a star programmer yourself, will you just relocate too?

    (Related: you might enjoy a new book "Corrosion of Character" by Richard Sennett about the effects on people's personal lives of 'non-committal' work environments. How does one practice trust/committment with friends and family, while doing the opposite with work?...)

    I'm not saying unions are the only answer to this -- just that I think the 'simply move' argument is chickenshit crap.

  • The company, unless your contract says otherwise,
    doesn't have any more obligation to keep you on
    than you have an obligation to quit.
    Gee, if someone who they don't want to quit
    quits, sometimes the company just has to hold
    their ground and force the person not to quit. Heh.
  • I work in the South at a non union manufacturing plant. I enjoy twice the average family wage, the company pays for health insurance, provides 100% vesting in profit sharing, and is a good company to work for. I continue working at my place of employment, because they are good employers. If I didn't like my job, I'd quit!

    We did have a union (IBEW) try to hijack the plant again last year and it took us a year to kick them back out. I do not want the violence that they showed at one of our smelters to come to our plant and cause us grief in the workplace. Over 70% of us signed a petition *twice* to remove them and finally the company listened to kick them out.

    Unions might be good in places, but not where I work. I sure would like to see them represent fast food workers, but we pay more and they want a cut. They want to offer us protection, you see.
  • Some people do choose to work 70+ hours a week and enjoy their job. My step dad is a teacher. He is now also the associate dean. He enjoys his career and could have been perfectly happy with his tenure, but stays up late to advance the sciences.

    I prefer longer hours at my job and a shorter work week and have chosen an employer who has such a program in place. I work three or four nights a week on 12 hour shifts. This allows me sufficient time to complete projects in one day. The days off allow me to go on vacation anywhere in the country.

    If you don't like your job, quit. An old boss told me that. Good advice. That was almost 15 years ago at Burger King. Now I make about 10 times as much and have great job satisfaction.
  • The fact that "labor movement leaders" have to scramble to find a way to survive indicates that the need for unions must be waning. If they were truly sincere about bettering wages and working conditions, you'd see a massive attempt to unionize fast-food workers and 7-11 cashiers. No, there isn't much money to be skimmed there so they ignore those folks.

    This whole unionization of the tech-sector is a big joke. If you're good, you'll make it. Hell, if your even mediocre you'll make it. You gotta love the M$ temp who is making $60k/yr and complaining about not getting the benefits that M$ employees get. Didn't he know those were the terms when he accepted the assignment?

    rant...rave...fume!
  • When I was flipping burgers at McDonald's I wanted something better. So I worked harder. Then I left it for a better paying job with benefits and better working conditions. I also busted my ass 50+ hrs/wk while taking 12 - 15 credits of college (paid for out of my pocket) for four years. I then left that employer for greener pastures. I have had several employers since graduation, but each time I have set myself up for a better position.

    Unions use the gang mentality, which is in direct contrast to my work ethic. So yes, I am opposed to unions. If you think you should be able to bully an employer for conditions that I have worked for, then I will oppose you.
  • Thanks for making such wonderful assumptions about my life. I have already reduced my work hours to around 40/week, and my employer is very satisfied with my performance.

    Sucks? No. Still no place for unions. Want something? Earn it.
  • Ever notice the "right to work" states in the U.S. tend to have generally lower living standards than the states in which the unions are allowed to negotiate closed shops. All it takes is a few scared employees to break the solidarity that a union needs to negotiate beneficial contracts for its members. Employers play one state against the other, threatening constantly to move to a state with laws that assist the employer in maintaining lower labor costs. The way I see it the state should not be permitted to interfere in the contract between the union and the employer. There should be a federal law eliminating the "right to work" states. If you work with me and you don't want to join a union go work somewhere else. You're free to quit.
  • Well, in truth, I have to pick the other side of that statement. I worked in theatre for a nice long time, both in educational settings, and professional environments. While i understand a lot of the frustration that unions can cause, let me turn it around. It guaranteed a minimum safety and intelligence level. When i was hanging upside down out of a truss, trying to focus a light, the last thing i wanted to have to worry about was whether the bonehead next to me knew what a light WAS! The only real experience i have with unions (in case you couldn't guess) is the I.A.T.S.E. (Internat'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees). It saved my hide i don't know how many times.

    In many ways the Theatre Industry is a lot like the computer industry. There are deadlines that have to be met, and tons of clueless people to work around to meet said deadlines. Not to mention people that would be more than willing to run the local help into the ground because they could. Does this sound familiar?

    I'll pick an example, where we, the IA workers for the day, showed up to unload a show. It didn't show up for 5 HOURS after the time it was scheduled. While we stood around waiting. Why? Because they'd gotten drunk (and other) the city before and hadn't left on time. They then proceeded to try and work everyone straight through to the out, and complained mightily about food breaks, rest breaks, et al. Turns out they even tried to not pay the union for the 5 hours we were standing around waiting for them. The union paid us for the time we waited, enforced meal breaks and rest breaks, and, consequently,ended up preventing several accidents. People that don't take a break become a danger. Even in computers. At a bare minimum level, they become less effective. Whle in an ideal world, everyone would take a break when they need it, i will not complain if someone enforces it. I also won't complain about a forced fair wage. Yeah, there are times it's inconvenient, and it's another level of beaurocracy, but this one is there to protect us. The worker. The show happened, and the audience had NO IDEA about the truama that went on backstage. That's the way it's supposed to work. In our world as well. As long as the Union is managed intelligently, it can save a lot of truama.

    If you are curious about the IA, try going here: History of the 100 years of the Union [lm.com]
  • Take a drive through Flint Michigan sometime. One of the birthing places of the UAW is just a 20 mile long slum now. The unions are interested in us because theyve already ruined the auto worker.

  • I don't work in a high-tech job, but I think that the same ideas apply here... Last year I was working 70+ hour work weeks w/o overtime and w/o any reason not to. Did I ask for representation? No... The reason that I was working so many hours wasn't because I wasn't doing my job... Not because someone was standing over me telling me to... It was b/c I needed to.

    I am a swim coach for a summer swim team. 75 kids staring at me every morning from a freezing cold pool hanging on whatever I say... Now... It is kinda like what the guy in the NYT story was talking about. He said that he was doing it for the love of the industry, and the knowledge that the people that are using his software are getting what they want out of what he has created. He is helping out other people, as I am helping out these kids.

    I was thinking about going into the computer industry and working these sweat-shop hours and working for whatever pay, but I didn't... I don't love computers the way I love the way that the kids appreciate what I have done for them... The only time you need to be represented is if you don't love what you are doing, if you don't want to do what you are doing, and if you don't have the brains yourself to change your situation...

    I am not trying to say that Unions haven't served their purpose, but why when you already have benefits, money, and good stock options would you need someone else to fight for the number of hours you are working on something that you should be loving?

    Think about that...
  • Well, it certainly is nice to see people aren't abusing their moderator privileges and downmarking things based solely on content and whether they disagree with it. Anything anti-union (or explicitly pro individual and anti collectivist) being labeled "Troll" and "flamebait"?

    Christ, I'm a furking anarchocapitalist, and I don't hide it. But I do my damndest to use those moderator points wisely when I get them, and mark things up appropriately, and concentrate on upgrading rather than down. And that doesn't mean slapping Troll and Flamebait labels on posts just because I don't agree with the philosophy or politics of the poster.

  • "therefore I oppose the creation of any union even if I have no intention of joining" puzzles me.

    Because once the union is in place, you often don't have a choice NOT to join. Closed shop rules.

  • As long as there are more technology jobs then there are people to fill them, there won't be cries for unionization, but if the tables begin to turn, then I wouldn't be surprised if unions are brought in.

    Being good won't matter anymore, it may even be discouraged because it makes the other union members look bad. The only thing that will matter is how much seniority you have.

    All I can say is, I hope it doesn't happen in my working lifetime.
  • All factory workers are required to join the Union. I Think this is unethical, and I don't see how we let this happen in America.

    That is what's known as a closed shop, if unions had their way every union shop would be a closed shop.



    In college, I worked at a supermarket that was a closed shop. For a $4.50/hour job with 12hrs/week, I had to pay the union $17/ week, $7 dues, and $10 initiation. After Taxes and Union dues I had maybe $25 spending money. I guess I was supposed to be grateful that I didn't make minimum wage (4.25/hour at the time).



    To make things worse, one day a union rep showed, and tried to get us to donate money to their preferred political candidate. I told him, "Thanks, now I know who NOT to vote for."



    I didn't stay at that job long

  • You obviously don't understand unions, either that or you're a union thug spreading misinformation. It is quite common for union membership to be manditory as a condition of employment. If we had universal "right to work" laws in place (laws that ban closed shops) then you'd have a point.
  • What happened to the post that this was attached to?
  • What is needed are laws saying that if you do 70-hours of work, then you get paid for 70-hours of work. When you are hired, your employer should have to be clear how many hours you are expected to put in.

    What I suspect is that the people stuck in the 70hour+ jobs have management who are oblivious to the fact, and set unrealistic deadlines and expectations. They may not even realize that the employees are working that hard.
  • Yes, and I could just imagine the same in tech unions. A network or sysadmin writes some perl scripts to aid his/her job, and gets in trouble because his/her job description doesn't say "programmer", and this goes against Union rules.
  • The unionized McDonald's in Squamish, BC, was not closed. However, a few weeks ago, workers there voted to de-certify. Of course, the union and the employees who had pushed certification in the first place claimed that McDick's had used all sorts of underhanded tactics to achieve that. I don't know how much of that is true.

    Of course the Union is going to claim that, true or otherwise. I suspect that the McDonalds employees discovered that the Union was costing them more in dues than it was benefitting them.



    In another message I related how I worked at Supermarket that forced my to join UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) local 1776, for a job that only paid $0.25 more than the minimum wage. I worked 12-14 hours/week part time while going to college. The Union took $17/week in dues and initiation! That worked out to be more than all taxes combined! I wanted to decertify, but it was to big a task (as I understand, you need better than 50% vote chainwide). I just quit after a few weeks of that nonsense


  • I completely agree. I've been working as an independent contractor for seven years now. I do this because:
    • I like to set my own hours
    • The pay is much better
    • I get to move to interesting jobs easier
    I've always had lousy experience with unions. When the company I was working for about nine years ago went to a trade show in Washington, D.C, we were required to hire two local union workers to set up our prefab display. These guys were costing us $50/hour each and if we didn't watch them every second they would just stand around and talk to each other!

    On another occasion, I was sent to one of our field installations to debug an industrial fire control panel that I had written the code for (I also did some minor parts of the hardware design). I was not allowed to move some of the jumpers in the panel because I was not a union electrician! It's as if my arms were broken and I had to use this local electrician to move a couple of wires around. I just stood there saying inane things like "remove jumper 2A", then trying out some code, then saying "replace jumper 2A", and so on. Blah...

    This (and other) experience with unions is part of the reason that I've, more or less, gone to the other extreme and work as an independent. Sure, it's possible that I could be screwed over by somebody, but, then, I'm pretty picky about the work I take. Plus, I've managed to build up a reasonable F.Y. fund. ;-)

    Mike (Currently working ~40hr/week in Zurich, Switzerland with my wife and kids.)


  • Solidarity works when you have large numbers of people living in absolute squalor, top management taking home millions of dollars each year in compensation, and no alternatives.

    I've done some support-related work for large companies that have a strong union presence, and I've heard horror stories - not about what management is doing to the employees, but how the employees are screwing the company *because* they belong to a union. In the wrong place, unions have the potential to become little more than private welfare programs for the terminally incompetent.
  • My father was a union man, My grandfather is a union man, My stepfather was a union man until he started his own construction business.

    Unions are great for protecting the people from assholes in management, however when they end up doing is protecting asshole IN labor.

    My grandfather works with a guy who caused an accident because he smoked crack before work and the union SAVED HIS JOB!

    Unions also reward seniority over ability. If I've got twice the ability of someone who has been there 15 years longer than I have, I get fscked.

    Unions get contracts written is such a way as to benefit those who've been there the longest. The new guys have to "pay their dues" in order for the union to represent them fully.

    Unions have contributed to their own downfall. I'm from Pittsburgh, and I watched the Steel Industry die here because the unions were too demanding.

    At the Westinghouse Air Brake Company (WABCO) a guy fell asleep at his station and when his boss sent him home the other union guys WALKED OUT!

    Because some cretin fell asleep at his station the union shut WABCO down for a day.

    During the 70's the union men at the steel mills would break the windows out of foreign cars that they found parked in their lots.

    Unions can be good under certain circumstances, but let's not delude ourselves, they have just as much potential to go bad.

    LK
  • Gee, NYT runs a story on how unions are irrelevant to (some) high-tech workers. Well, duh. Consider the source. Ya think there just might be a bit of a slant?
  • When the government has over-regulated the computer industry as badly as medicine, _then_ it will be time for computer professionals to unionize.
  • I dont deny that the temps at MS are getting shafted in some way, but something makes them stay. Whether it's the paychecks or the environment or whatever, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If you dont like it, quit. If you dont want to quit, there must be something that makes it worth it to you. Feel free to vent and bitch and moan and complain, but remember that you're the one who is staying there for one reason or another, and in the end you have to remember that working long hours for good money and then complaining about it is not going to endear you to the majority of the wage earning public.

    I worked construction when I was younger and I can tell you now, You're not going to get pity from these guys when you're making 60 large a year.

    -Rich
  • Bingo! This is *exactly* the reason that I don't like unions. If I could go to work at a shop with a Union and be given the choice to join or not. I would be all for them (might not join, but I'd support their right to exist).

    I'd even take it a step farther...Unions seem to use the rhetoric of competition being a good thing. So let's see them put their money where their mouth is. Why not have two unions competing for the membership of workers at any one place? If the Union can convince the workers that they will benefit from joining the Union, then they will get membership...but if the Union can't show that they have any relevance to the situation, they'll loose membership. Seems like a pretty nice set of checks and balances on Union vs. Management power.

    So, for example, if mgmt is treating workers like crap, they're more likely to join the union, and with more workers in the union, the union will have more clout with mgmt. If mgmt is being cool towards the workers, then there is less incentive for them to join the union, and with fewer members, the union looses clout with mgmt, and thus looses the ability to abuse their clout.

    Jeff

  • Every one seems to think that unions are not neccecary, I disagree. Unions could fight the 100 hour work weeks that are just killing some workers (go read that hitech sweatshop story [slashdot.org]). You might get paid a lot even without the help of unions, but there really is more to it than just the amount of money you make.

  • In college, I worked at a supermarket that was a closed shop. For a $4.50/hour job with 12hrs/week, I had to pay the union $17/ week, $7 dues, and $10 initiation. After Taxes and Union dues I had maybe $25 spending money. I guess I was supposed to be grateful that I didn't make minimum wage (4.25/hour at the time).

    When I was in high school, I worked at a supermarket that was a non-union shop. I started out making $3.50, but was up to $5 an hour by the time I had been there two years.The minimum wage was $3.35 in those days. I also got more benefits than were typically given to part time people. Obviously some employers know how to treat their employees.

  • Make your own choices. Don't try to make mine for me.

    I sure hope you are a supporter of 'right to work' laws then (laws that prevent 'closed shops' where you have to join a union to get a job).

  • As a professional tech worker I seriously doubt that any union could represent me as well as I can represent myself. I would never join a union, nor would I work in a job that would require me to. It would guarantee me less pay and fewer benefits than I can acquire on my own. I'm sure a lot of tech workers feel the same way.

    The only unionized IT people I know of around here (I live in a 'right to work' state, so unions aren't as prevalent here as some places) are state and county workers who are covered by AFSCME. They are in general paid $10 to $20k less than what private employers pay for similar positions. You might say that the government doesn't pay as well as private industry in general, and you'd be right, but the differential between AFSCME negotiated contracts for IT workers and IT industry salaries is worse than it is for other types of workers.

    Personally, I say no way to unionizing the IT industry, it just doesn't look like a good deal.

  • Amen brother. Just asking for health insurance here in the South

    Here in the midwest, any sort of decent white collar job includes health insurance (although you may have to pay part of it, its generally $15-$60 a month).

    (south-eastern United States for you international readers) can easily mean that you won't get the job.

    Around here the real unemployment rate is less than 3%. Basically anyone who can and will work has a job. Other than people who are temporarily between jobs, anyone able bodied (or minded) around here who isn't working is either too picky or too lazy. Jobs for people with actual skills or experience are hard for employers to fill because there aren't sufficient quality people.

    I've given-up on finding a job with health insurance, so I'm paying for it myself. I'd hate to imagine how quickly I'd be asked to leave if I mentioned the word "union" and/or any demands that this "union" would make. The guy from Microsoft complained about paying for health insurance out of $60K per year. Try doing the same on a $22K per year job in the South designing monitoring equipment for textile machinery. I've got a $1,000 deductable, but I don't have a $1,000 in the bank.

    Who does? I may make good money, but I have a wife that knows how to spend it. :-( At any rate, my deductable is much smaller than that.

    What do I do if I get sick? Put the $1,000 on a credit card? After all of my fixed costs, I only have about $150 per month to pay for food, entertainment, and gas. I went to a concert last month (woohoo Ozzy), and I had to eat white bread and liver mush (hey, it was less than a $1 for a pound) for the rest of the month. It's not that bad, except that on my way home, I have to pass by more than a dozen restaurants that I've never been able to go to. Someone w/ a degree from a good school (hint, it's in Atlanta GA and it rhymes w/ wreck)

    I don't have a degree at all, and I manage to pull down considerably more than you are. That is not unusual. You need to switch jobs, yesterday.

    shouldn't have to get a part-time job working at a GNC just so I can eat a meal or two a week in a restaurant. I make about half of what the uneducated machine operators make,

    Entry level PC techs are making about double what you are getting around here, and most of them don't know one end of a soldering iron from the other. Get out of there now, before you screw up your career for good (if you stay in a bad job too long, it becomes more difficult to get a good one).

    and I'm the one building the circuits and writing the software that schedules their production and computes their production pay. Bah!

    Once again, get out. You don't have to put up with that. If you don't, then I will not feel sorry for you.

  • Right on brother. I don't like it when people I can outperform with one frontal lobe tied behind my back get paid more than I do because they are 35yr old college grads and I'm a 22yr old high school dropout. Unions would tend to enforce a salary scale that makes that happen. That's bad.
    People should be able to band together to bargain with their employers. This is true. The argument that people should ALWAYS band together and make demands is ridiculous. This line of reasoning benefits the managers of the unions at the expense of the workers. In short, those workers who cling blindly to the union idea are encouraging the union to exploit them instead of allowing the capitalists to exploit them. Sort of like exchanging facism for stalinism. Nice.
  • Apologies for the spelling. It's early and I'm tired.
  • If you truly are a high-school dropout
    What? Of course I'm a high school dropout. Didn't you notice the creative way I spelled fascism? ;-)
    Seriously though, the assertion that completing college guarantees superior abilities is a little weak. I went to college for a year. (yes, they do let h.s. dropouts go to college. Most college admissions programs look at your current GPA + SAT/ACT only, there is no point value to graduation in their system.) While in college I learned an awful lot. I learned how to get drinks despite being underage. I learned that If you get a woman drunk enough she'll mistake you for Brad Pitt. I learned that if you get drunk enough, you'll start mistaking most women (and a few men) for Claudia Schiffer. I learned how to roll a joint. The lessons were endless. I'm not sure that sticking with college for 4 years would have made me a more effective worker. I'm pretty sure that I would have experienced VD, liver damage and jail time. That's why I get confused when people talk about the benefits of a degree.
    --Shoeboy
  • Getting a degree also represents that you are willing to work hard for something and you can finish it, that you actually know how to work within a system to accomplish something.
    Yes, and joining a cult indicates that you are good at following orders, respectful of authority, willing to put the good of others before your own...
    Getting a degree _REALLY_ means that you're willing to spend 18 Grand of your parents money learning something that you could have picked up much more quickly and cheaply by taking a little initiative. If you really wan't to know about the Napoleanic wars, the best method is to read history books, biographies of the major players and contemporary letters and journals. You can learn more in less time than you would spending 5hrs a week in lecture and 10Hrs a week doing homework.
    Oh and by the way, the team I work on is second to none - and my fellows would happilly agree that I can run with the best of them.
    --PJ
  • Yeah, cert is way easy to get. It took me 6weeks to get my MCSE and I had never even seen NT.
    --Shoeboy
  • Ok, guilty confession time. I used to work on the main MS campus. It sucked. I made $19.38/hr doing the same work that full time MS employees made 50K + stock doing, and other temps made $30-$40/hr. So I was one of them poor exploited underpaid temps. But wait... I was 20 years old and making more $$$ than my father ever did. That's pretty good. And it took me a week to make as much $$$ as the average hatian makes in a year. Even better. Then I quit and got a job with a different company for lots more money. Funny, I don't seem to be able to convince anyone that I was exploited.
    --Shoeboy
  • Here in Ireland, we've got an interesting situation regarding hi-tech companies and unions; the two don't mix. If you want to join a union, you lose your job. This is with the biggie companies; Gateway et al; the government spends so much money attracting them to the country that they're not going to complain if the company acts in a way that some feel is less than ethical.
  • Maybe their Sysadmins are on strike!
    Nah. If that were true, it'd say "Our tea ladies have been notified and are working to fix the problem."
    Interestingly, I was on the site at approximately the same time as you; but I could get in.
    I'm definitely gonna have to change the Nice setting on netscape.
  • The shop I work at actually gave time off once we completed a project we had last xmas. We had a project that was due before we left for new years holiday. As a result of iot being finished, we got 3 extra days off. I don't mind that at all.
  • I agree with you completely. I would like to add that the time of the highly paid programmer is coming to an end. Right now programmers over age 35 are having trouble getting hired. After the year 2000, every programmer working on the Y2K problem will be fired or transfered creating a small glut of programmers. It seems unlikely now; but, in Canada today, engineers who are not in electrical or computer science start at 10$ US / hour if they can get a job at all.

    I suggest that programmers save all the money they can now, learn about investing and tax shelters to ride out the coming drought. It won't be pretty, it won't be fair; but it will happen.

    Cheers,
    Enrique
  • You're right about strikes being the most publicized thing unions can do.

    A year ago union representatives of a large steel mill around here met with management to discuss salaries and working conditions during the weekend. Management knew about the union's demands and were prepared to give in to the main issues if need be. It turned out however that the union had *already* organized a strike for the following monday and were fighting to keep from reaching an agreement with management. They wanted the publicity of a strike because of decreasing membership.

    How's that for screwing both the company that provides your livelihood and your own members at the same time?

    Managers at the company I work for sometimes makes misinformed or clueless decisions. But rather than join a union, pay my dues and sit back letting the union take care of someone's interest (not necessarily mine), I'd rather talk to management and get other people to do so as well, if I have a problem or two.

  • I work at a large telecommunications company. At this location, the unskilled factory workers are union. While those of with true skills work for the company. Union people feel they work for the union. High tech people feel they work for themselves. I am going to list some of my major problems with unions in relation to our location.

    All factory workers are required to join the Union. I Think this is unethical, and I don't see how we let this happen in America.

    Factory workers are less likely to think about the good of the company. Unions perpetuate the idea of doing as little as possible. Not doing what is the best.

    Unions do away with your ability to negotiate with your employer.With the current demand for high-tech employees, I like being able to convice my boss that if I stay till 2 A.M. I deserve an extra weekend on the next business trip. You don't have that with unions

    Unions are only neccesary when employees have no true skill, only on the job training. Anyone can learn how to put a door on a car. Yet GM cannot afford to replace everyone at once, so unions make sense. However, Microsoft pays their employees well, and makes them millionaires in a few years.

    We don't want or need labor unions. The labour unions promote what is best for them, like any other coorporation. Do you reall want another coorporation running your life?

    I don't!

    geach

  • No one should be forced to join a union. If you don't like your job, quit. Don't force me to join a union. Choice is always good. Be it an OS, or a Job

    geach

  • First off, we have less need for regulation than the legal industry. Software errors are still little to moderately dangerous; legal errors can stick you in a cell or an electric chair.


    The Therac-25 controller, and similarly bunged pieces of software, have killed people.


    Secondly, the training required for programming has a short half-life. Many programmers don't learn this trade through the traditional channels, and I doubt that those who do are measurably better than those who don't. This, combined with the antiauthoritarianism of some programmers, would keep some of the brightest geeks out of the biz.


    True, and this brings up the problem of how to do the initial certification. The best we have so far are the current CS standardized tests (the AP test, the GRE), and these are fantastically bad. Good coders, IMHO, are not measured by an encyclopaedic memory of the archaic facts of languages. This is, however, the only thing that we can objectively test.


    Third, we have a serious programmer defecit in this country. Even bad programmers can help, improving under the wings of better programmers.


    Yes, that would be a danger -- companies outsourcing everything to India or some other generally tech-savvy nation. But let's think about how this sort of certification has affected other professions. I recall from an Anthro class that when doctors first decided to become a certified profession, it elevated the prestige of doctors, and lowered the status of non-doctor medical workers (such as nurses and midwives). This actually attracted people to the profession, because it was seen as a really exclusive, high-class job. The same could well happen with programmers. And a stigma might develop about software developed outside the U.S. (for companies inside the U.S.), just as most U.S. people would balk at going to another country to get cheaper medical care.


    Finally, imagine what a regulated programmer's association would do to free software. Regulation of programmers would necessarily transfer to regulation of software. Linux might get canned for not being 100% association-compliant!


    True; the other worry is about code written exclusively for personal use. I think an association such as this ought to only cover code written for money that is (ever) used by other people. (This is still vague, but you get the idea.) (And of course, there should be an ex post facto clause for legacy code like Linux.)


    The use of such an association would be for identification, not regulation. A smart company could hire both associated programmers and disaccociated programmers, specifically putting the former over the latter. Part of the "oath" of such an association might be to help unassociated programmers gain their certification.


    How would this be different from the ACM or Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility?


    The key words here are "a smart company"; it's not the smart companies we need to worry about.

  • A certification exam could cover things such as: computability, testing, algorithm analysis, data structures, objects, basic network concepts, multi-threading concepts, etc.


    Yes, one would certainly think a certification exam could cover all of those things. Except that in a multiple-choice exam, you really can't cover those things, not in depth. Ever see the CS GRE test? (I have a casual interest in grad school, but I live in fear of that damn thing.) It doesn't really ask questions about analyzing algorithms, it asks: "Which of the following is the asymptotic complexity of shaker sort?" So if you can regurgitate shaker sort, and swiftly analyze its complexity, the test gives you points for algorithm analysis -- as if this shallow knowledge of trivia were really indicative of how reliable a coder is.


    Programming is probably more suited to the master/apprentice model practiced by craftsmen in the middle ages (and by the Sith a long time ago). I don't know how practical this would be, although it is how doctor training works.

  • These days, coders are doing fine in leveraging management for high pay. What they don't necessarily have a lot of leverage in is product design, code quality, the ability to refuse to release an imperfect program, et cetera. This *is* because of a rift between labor and management -- we all know that PHBs tend to care less about quality than they ought to.

    Now, what powers does a union have? Unions can strike. So a tech worker union's power would stem from its popularity -- whether the union had a pervasive enough membership to effectively blacklist a company from hiring coders.

    What powers does a professional organization like the Bar Association have? The Bar Association has the legal authority to select which people may practice law. Those who practice law incorrectly lose their privilege to practice law, under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

    This second model strikes me as more appropriate for the programming industry. We don't really have labor problems in this industry. Most problems in the industry stem from (for example) dopes in the marketing department dictating the design of programs. A professional association's backing would be damned helpful in these sorts of disputes. ("Put automagically-executed macros into the email documents? I could be disbarred for that!") Coders need the same legally-protected autonomy that doctors, lawyers, and other such professionals have; this would be a lot more powerful than the socially-protected autonomy of labor unions.

    (Labor disputes could fall under this Bar-association-equivalent as well, but I doubt that labor disputes come up in the tech industry as much as the would in, say, the mining industry, where whole town are/were owned by single corporations. Most of the labor griping here seems to center around working a long number of consecutive hours; in theory, this could be regulated for programmers the same way it is for pilots.)

    In conclusion, I think that an industry-wide organization is needed to unite programmers, but a union is not the right model for that organization.
  • Getting a degree _REALLY_ means that you're willing to spend 18 Grand of your parents money learning something that you could have picked up much more quickly and cheaply by taking a little initiative.

    Well, it can also mean you're willing to spend 18 grand (actually much more) of your OWN money as well... I'm still paying back some of my student loans.

    I have a degree, but a lot of the usefulness to me comes from my spending years playing around on the Sun workstations in school. I agree, I don't think you need to have a degree to be good in a technical role, any skills you need (technical or non-technical) can be picked up outside of a formal education.
  • 22K with an engineering degree? You gotta be kidding - either you are the absolute WORST engineer to get out of GA vo-Tech, or you are a complete moron. Move elsewhere - there are plenty of high paying entry level jobs for engineers. Sheesh, sit on you butt and expect the world to come to you and you'll get bupkis - you gotta get out there and do things for yourself.
  • What I regard as the most important thing about unions I've never seen mentioned here on Slashdot. That is Solidarity. Basically, I'm pro-unions because that's a very simple, effortless way of supporting most people that surrounds me.

    Sure, I might not be in a need of a unions at the moment. But I'm here for the people that might not be as lucky as I am right now. And so I can count on them being there for me should I ever need their help!

    Being backed by a union can be of great value, that I now from what friends of mine have told me.

    Think of it as an IRC channel for Linux support! I might hang out there all day hoping to be of help to someone. Even though I do not myself need any help, at the moment, I know I will be very glad the channel is there should I run into trouble.

    If everybody thought "A linux support channel? I don't need no goddamn help, I'm a hacker!" there would be no such channels.

    So if you're not doing it to help other people out, do it to help yourself!

    One day you will be glad you did.

    Don't hate the media, become the media.

  • Look, several folks have commented on working for a "temp agency" that takes most of what the corp pays for their services, leaving them with 30-35% (about typical.)
    Even the worst-case union dues are a teeny fraction of what a body shop skims off. So, start your own body shop.
    Advertise: "Don't go to work for the corp, come to work for us. Our skim is less than anybody's--and we'll carry you when you're out of work, and send our lawyer to help when the PHB wants the other 108 hours."
    Being a temp is a good position -- and the ideal would fit precisely with the Management Theory of the Week, which is "outsource it all." Fine. Go to company xx and say, "Hey. Give us the job descriptions, fire HR, and sign the contract. We'll screen the people and see the job gets done." They'll love you for it!
    Of course you can't do that, can you?
    It's what Henry Ford wanted "unions" to do, and you're too fskin' busy printing "rather push a Chevy than drive a Ford" t-shirts.
    And don't protest, seen too much of it.
    Regards,
    Ric
  • In general, I believe unions do nothing but protect the lazy worker. I have many friends that have worked in union factories, union stores, and even union offices. None of them have ever seen any benefit from belonging to a union. If anything, the union just took their hard earned dollars, or "dues" as they like to call it.

    Those same friends would tell me about various workers who would take naps during their shift, sit in the TV isle at the store and watch their favorite soap, and then complain when they couldn't take their 15 minute break. These people could not be fired because the union would protect them! Unions protect the lazy worker, not the honest hard working people. Thats one of the reasons why there are very few unions in the tech industry. Everybody that I know is an extremely hard worker. They enjoy their job, and have no need for "union protection".

    In the article they state that "unions cannot afford to be shut out of the glamorous, powerful high-tech industry, which accounts for an ever-larger share of the work force." Notice that they use the phrase "cannot afford". That's all they want. The unions just want to tap the high-tech market to suck union dues out of you.

    I really dislike unions and have absolutely no sympathy for the people on the street holding the "ON STRIKE" banners.

    This subject irritates me so much that I wrote a little essay on my website [darrick.com] a while ago. I'm not a writer, so don't expect it to be elegant. Check it out if you want.
  • Didn't he know those were the terms when he accepted the assignment?

    I think the issue here is that many workers today feel like they can effectively bargain with employers on their own because they have other employment options.

    By and large, workers in the Rust Belt in bygone years felt like the labor market was a buyer's market. Any one individual who tried to play hardball with the boss ended up out on his ass. And in a one- or two-industry town, this might mean several months or years without work. The only solution to that problem is for all workers to "collectively bargain" to get a better deal for all workers.

    Workers in many industries today feel the labor market is tight enough that they don't need to pool their interests to get the bossman's attention. If you don't like working the long hours, then go find a job where you don't have to, is the current sentiment. They may be kidding themselves, but many workers today leave jobs chuckling to themselves, "Good luck finding someone to replace me." So many of the folks who are working 70-100 hours/week consider this their own choice, not a mandate from management.

    In addition, collective bargaining only works if workers are willing to pool their interests -- which often means fighting for the lowest common denominator everyone can agree on. Working in a non-union shop frees the worker to fight for his own interests, however he conceives them. For many people today that means accepting long hours in return for additional responsibility, stock options, prestige, etc., a choice no union would be willing to accept for all workers.
  • I like the "Bar-Association" idea, but I wouldn't support a mandatory programmer association. The Bar is mandatory by law; it is usually illegal to practice law without being in the local Bar. This should not be the case for programming, for several reasons.

    First off, we have less need for regulation than the legal industry. Software errors are still little to moderately dangerous; legal errors can stick you in a cell or an electric chair.

    Secondly, the training required for programming has a short half-life. Many programmers don't learn this trade through the traditional channels, and I doubt that those who do are measurably better than those who don't. This, combined with the antiauthoritarianism of some programmers, would keep some of the brightest geeks out of the biz.

    Third, we have a serious programmer defecit in this country. Even bad programmers can help, improving under the wings of better programmers.

    Finally, imagine what a regulated programmer's association would do to free software. Regulation of programmers would necessarily transfer to regulation of software. Linux might get canned for not being 100% association-compliant!

    The use of such an association would be for identification, not regulation. A smart company could hire both associated programmers and disaccociated programmers, specifically putting the former over the latter. Part of the "oath" of such an association might be to help unassociated programmers gain their certification.

    We have a lot of certification programs that show one's competence with a given technology. We need generally recognized certification programs for software development itself.

  • Secondly, the training required for programming has a short half-life.


    So does the law, lawyers have to take a certain number of credits a year of law-related education in order to stay current. Just think if _your_ lawyer missed the last couple of supreme court decisions.
  • True; the other worry is about code written exclusively for personal use. I think an association such as this ought to only cover code written for money that is (ever) used by other people. (This is still vague, but you get the idea.) (And of course, there should be an ex post facto clause for legacy code like Linux.)
    I don't think that would necessarily be the right route to take. A better system would associate different levels of certification required for different uses. Seperate them into a heirarchy, giving code running in nuclear power plants higher standards that a desktop OS like linux. It should be a non-profit organisation that at least for the lower levels of certification doesn't charge any money. It could even give members-in-good-standing an automatic approval for the lowest level.
  • >>Why shouldn't the employers be able to hire or fire anyone they want? It's THEIR company, for chrissakes!

    What an odd statement to make. Are you saying that companies ought to be able to hire and fire based on religous or racial criterea? Is it OK for Rupert Murdoch to fire all democrats/liberals because he is conservative? How about firing all the catholics because the ceo is a protestant? Is that OK too?
    Companies have limits put on their hiring and firing practices (in the US anyway). Firing somebody because they want to unionize is illegal in the US but then that's probably why this particular company is doing is outside the US. Oh yea also there are probably no significant number of blacks, jews, puerto ricans either. They are probably killing two birds with one stone on this one dontcha think?
  • "Our systems administrators have been notified and are working to fix the problem."

    Maybe their Sysadmins are on strike!
  • Even though strikes are rare they remain the bargaining power of unions. Take away that power and you have a toothless union. Worse, you have a union that has no real bargaining leverage on behalf of its members but is capable of bargaining away benefits!

    I've actually seen this in practice. I am a member of a non-striking union that, some years ago, bargained for moving our COLA raise up from January to November. We gained two months of raise but the union accepted a lower amount, having no other leverage to apply toward their goal. I calculated the break-even point to be April or May... and we've lost money ever since as a result of this "union" action on our behalf. A union that cannot strike is not a union. Management will never confuse such a "union" with a real one that has the power to strike but doesn't use it often.

    Similarly, a company must retain the right to fire striking union members or it loses its leverage -- and, ultimately, its competitive advantage. If a company fires its striking workforce it is either making a big mistake or it has calculated that they can be replaced at lower cost. This latter option must be allowed in order to keep the economic house in order.

  • Sure, that's the most publicized thing that some unions can do. But believe it or not, strikes (and lockouts for that matter) are rare and are used as a last resort in a contract dispute.

    For that matter, many unions (the one my father was president of, and the unions associated with the university I used to work for are two examples) specifically do not allow their employees to strike. It is part of their contract.

    In the case of my father's union, one of the major things they had to do was take the cluebat to management on various technological subjects. The people who were actually having to work with the stuff were in a position to make the decisions, or at least to point out when something made no logical sense.

    Case in point: management was trying to get away with not paying extra for a course that is simultaneously taught in a classroom and broadcast via distance-learning technology. Um, right. Never mind that you'll have double the tests to give, papers to grade, etc; you're only teaching the course once, ergo you should only get paid for it once. Nice logic, that.

    I do understand that unionizing programmers will be akin to trying to herd cats, and I do understand that there can be severe problems with union management. However, whether or not what gets together is a union per se, these unwilling-to-be-herded cats are going to have to learn to work together eventually, or employers' expectations are going to get less and less realistic.
  • OK, so it doesn't have the work-stopping impact of an actual strike, but what college president wants to have himself and his policies painted in an embarassing light by the local media? That, and picketing the aforementioned prez's house on Christmas Eve ... *grin*

    There are plenty of ways to be disruptive and call attention to the problems without stopping work. I remember when I was younger and my father wore his "MVCC: Not a Happy Family" button to work every day for most of a YEAR, and was only too happy to explain it to anyone who asked ....
  • Personally, I think (real, not the CNE type)engineers have a good model. A person first gets a 4 year degree, then he/she has to complete a 3-4 apprenticeship after taking an EIT (Engineer in Training) exam in his/her area. During that time the person is supervised by a PE ( a Project Engineer) who reviews and signs off oN the EIT's work. The PE is just as responsible for the quality of work as the EIT is.
    After 3 to 4 years of this, the EIT will have logged enough hours to take the PE exam in her/his area. After passing the exam the EIT becomes a PE.
    If during that 3 to 4 year period the person is found to not be competent or suited to be an engineer, they can pursue careers in marketing or management.

    Why do engineers do this? Mainly because some of the things they design (airplanes, bridges, cars, medical equipment) if they screw up they can KILL people.

    Currently, anybody with a PC can call themselves a "programmer." This is bad. As software becomes more and more pervasive and embedded (in cars, airplanes, medical equipment) the stakes get higher. If we develop a true professional certification program (like doctors, engineers, lawyers) we will then dispell the attitude that "programmers are a dime a dozen" etc.
  • 1) Law suits don't bring people back to life when a piece of code is bungled.

    2) A certification exam could cover things such as:
    computability
    testing
    algorithm analysis
    data structures
    objects
    basic network concepts
    multi-threading concepts
    etc.

    Most of it could be in psuedo code as we are looking for higher level knowledge and problem solving skills, but the programmer could also pick from perhaps one of half a dozen popular
    languages, e.g., C++, Prolog, SQL, C, VisualBasic,
    Java, or whatever language is having a significant impact on the discipline at the time.

    This could be geared less for coders and more for software engineers, people who design as well as code (you have to know how to do both). Note also that the real process of elimination is the 3 to 4 year apprenticeship

  • Unions are punishment for poor management (Score:3)

    by plopez ( 54068 ) on Monday July 26, 1999 @05:13AM (#1784326) Journal
    If the situation on a job site gets bad enough, then unions start to look like a good idea. When people are used and exploited, basically treated no better than interchangeable parts, then you have a good environment for unions to take hold.

    Often times it is less a matter of pay than a matter of respect and working conditions. 70 hours a week is excessive, it will people. I have been there and even though I was getting good rewards it wasn't worth. I ended up spending most of my money on convience (e.g. fast food) because I did not have any free time at all.

    Excessive work weeks are also a sign of poor management. It means:

    1) under staffed
    and/or
    2) your processes are so hosed that people are not working at 100% possible effectiveness (e.g. solving the problem the first time)
    and/or
    3) you are not hiring the right people for the job
    and/or
    4) The people managing the situation don't have a clue how to organize it.

    All 3 of these feed off of each other: being understaffed increases over-time which increases turnover, often just as people are learning their job. Since you are scrambling for people you often will hire anybody and end up with just a bunch of warm bodies, which causes training difficulties and insures that you have to fix things 3 times over etc.

    In the tech support game, tech support is a cost shifting situation. Instead of taking extra time and money for tesing and developement, you are ending up spending more money on tech support.
    The only way MS and other companies are pulling it off right now is the eonomy is hot and people will spend lavishly on technology. Anybody can make mone in a booming economy, the question is who can make money in a slow economy. And the way we are organizing software support right now is extremely wasteful.

    If a company is plauged by unions, it is management's fault. as Demming put it "The woker works IN the system, the manager works ON the system." And if you are out there working 60+
    hours a week, stop it immediately. You are only rewarding companies for poor management and ruining your health to boot.

    (rant/rave....)

  • Heh, I am a 25 year old college drop out and I want you to find one 35 year old college grad that can fill my shoes. I got my job by my resume. I code for the big boys, I build networks that are secure, I build systems that can handle millions of users. I have the design flair of a fine artist. put these things together and I get a hourly wage over $75. I work 16 hours a day. My little girl calls me by my first name because she does not know her 'Dad' A big piece of parchment has done nothing for my rate. Pure drive and knowledge is what gets me paid. If you think a 35 year old with a college degree is the key to anything you must smoke lots of crack.

    I have worked for companies like Microsoft and I was abused did the college grad get abuse? Damn straight. This industry does not care about your pre-career life. Hell they don't care about your life, and they work to make your outside life non-existent.

    Call me Snot-Nose II

    I just took the job you salivated over

  • Funny I work with da'shoe and he is one of the top performers on our team. In fact the brass gives Shoe public praise often. Will shoe get fired and a collage grad keep his job in a slump? Nope. In his field Shoe is one of the top guys I know. The college guys on the team will get there butts canned quick, they don't perform to the level of shoeboy. As for me I went to a PAC10 private university. Does Shoe teach me things? Daily. You must be bitter due to the fact your hard earned degree has done nothing for you.
  • But its this power to move, and the fact that you will probably be snatched up before you can say, "I sent you my resume, did you get it?", that gives you the power to make demands. You don't need a union to represent you. Like the article said, when the high-tech market levels out, maybe there will be a need for a union. But not now, and thats something to be thankful of.
    Spyky
  • -- They may call your bluff
    Learn how to bluff :-)

    In all seriousness, I'm not saying you *have* to move, but if there is a significant grievance, you *can* move. You don't need a union to decide if you have grievances or not. You may have significant reasons to not move, that is *always* a trade off of any such negotiation. Unions don't change that. All I'm saying is, as a high-tech worker, in an incredibly strong market, you don't need a union, and all the many problems associated it. Unions protect workers from companies that are in a position to take advantage of their workers, like the steel industry, etc. But we, as tech workers, aren't generally being taken advantage of (I know there are exceptions, and those are the people I am talking to when I say *move*), there is just too much demand. I don't want to see an obligatory union, I want to be able to make my own choices. But your point is well taken, as a 19 year old, my attachments are few, but 10 years from now, that could be different, moving is not always a good option, but it *is* an option.

    Spyky
  • >Hmmm. AFAIK we're restricted to 48 hours per week
    >(with rules on just how much of that you can do
    >at once) here in Europe.

    Yuck. I work a day job, plus I have a small side business. That extra money has made a huge difference to me and my familly. Would I not be allowed to do that in Europe? That would be like placing a cap on how much money I could make. Please keep that law on your side of the pond.

    Jonathan
  • Who says a union cannot adapt to the demands of the high-tech industry? A union can be most anything you want it to be, just as long as there is solidarity.

    You versus the Company, or You and Your Union versus the Company...in a sticky situation, which would you rather have? Of course, situations that would be considered sticky are rare now in the tech industry, but what about a few years from now?

    There is more to life than working 80 hours a week for a startup. If my employer expects me to do it "Because every other software engineer is anymore", I would tell them to stick it, no matter who I was working for. If I had a union backing me, I would not have to lose my job over the whole thing, and that would save me a lot of stress. We all know how stressful looking for a new job is, especially if it means moving to another city, or state.
  • I have worked in John Deere on the factory floor for a summer. I made excellent money, and much of the time, did not work very hard. During a shutdown, I mostly sat on my ass and made $15 dollars an hour. Why? The management totally was disorganized and clueless. I simply had nothing to do, other than sweep (can only do so much of that). If things are this way at John Deere, I am sure they are the same way at GM. John Deere could have been video-taping me sitting on my ass just the same as those GM guys. It is the managements job to supply work and motivation. It was also GM's fault for not settling the contract, and their fault for firing all those people. It is simply the (high-payed) management's job to take care of business. It's their fault for not doing so. I know I was not going to order in more work for myself there at John Deere. It was not my job.

    If it were not for the UAW, I know I would not be where I am today, living in Iowa, taking CS, and starting my own business. The UAW has been key in providing good income for my family growing up, and helping out financially during the stikes of the 80's, when my parents had to use food stamps to buy groceries, and many were also getting laid off.

    If it were not the UAW, I might be dead, as the excellent medical insurance provided by John Deere (through contract negotiation) helped me stabilize a severe health problem.

    All-in-all, I will always see unions as a good thing for all workers. Unions help families, in good and bad times, and that's all that matters.

    --Eric
  • The book Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder is definately topical. It roughly describes a similar story as in Microserfs, but as an external/managment view analysis. Furthermore, it is non-fiction.

    Roughly it points out how the employees were exploited and how they convinced themselves that they were okay with being exploited. After the project was complete, many of the workers left the team or the company, often because they were too burnt out to continue.

    This book is relevant to the discussion as it deals with both how the high tech industry exploits its employees, and how those employees convince themselves it is okay to be exploited. Personally I doubt that unions are the best solution but the problem is very real. I myself am in a reasonable company but there is still no overtime pay. Some areas are well managed and little overtime is needed but others do have late night sessions. The "midnight oil" projects are quite common in companies. For instance, the Alpha chip at DEC was a "black ops" project for a while (no budget, not acknowledge to exist, done at night/on weekends). These issues should be dealt with ... somehow.
  • As a former contract worker and former temp, I can identify with the lack of health insurance, time off and sick days, but I never blamed the company where I worked.

    When I was a contract worker for a defense contractor I found out what the agency's billing rate for my time was. At the time I was making $7/hr with no benefits. The rate the agency was charging was $19/hr. Had the agency cared about keeping its people, they could have found a way to set aside some of the $12/hr they were taking off the top to pay for health care. The agency offered health care, but they didn't contribute, and the monthly premium for me and my wife was close to $500. Hmm, $6000 insurance from a $14,000 salary or $3,300 from a $60,000 salary. It doesn't require the services of a financial analyst to figure out which I'd pick (but I'm not bitter).

    In some areas, like Central New York, the job market is very weak, especially for people with technical skills who don't care to assemble transfer cases or bottle beer (and you can't get into those jobs anyway because the unions have closed them out by allowing the employees to put their children **as young as 9** on the waiting list for jobs). It seems to me that the "MS Temps" live in an area where their skills would be at a premium.

    Yes, I understand that you enjoy your job and like your managers, but it's not exactly a closed job market. If benefits are so important to you, go somewhere that offers them.
  • You know, for being a web site for the Linux and OSS crowd, it's amazing to see how many morons there are chiming in on this bbs with the same half-truths and cheap shots about unions that corporations (and corporate-owned media) spoon feed us every day.

    A union does not equal contracts, or strikes or workplace rules. If those things exist, that's because that's what a majority of workers in those workplaces negotiated in their contract. But those are not the things that define a union, and you can form a union and have no negotiated pay scale, no negotiated benefits package, and never go on strike.

    What is a union, really? It is is a group of workers who have come together to try and address their issues collectively, rather than as isolated individuals. That can happen in high-tech, just as it can happen in any other industry.

    I can tell you that high-tech workers around Seattle have plenty of workplace issues. We talk to workers everyday about lopsided agency contracts, overtime, benefits, training, job placement and a wide array of other issues. These workers aren't clamoring to join a "union," because that word has been poisoned. By some union missteps, sure, but primarily by a concerted, decades-long frontal attack on organized labor by corporations and the union-busting mercenary attorneys they sic on workers any time they try to organize. But these workers do want to address the issues they are facing and many of them realize that they are better off working with others who are facing the same issues than going it entirely alone.

    Mike Blain
    Washington Alliance of Technology Workers
    www.washtech.org

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Close