Unions in the Tech Sector?

nanogeek asks: "I've worked for a few years in the computing infrastructure/support department of a large university. In my time here, there have been organizational movements and/or strikes by many segments of the employee and student population (librarians walking out, grad-students seeking a fair wage for TA responsibilities, etc). However, none of this fervor for collective bargaining and fair treatment by the upitty-ups seems to have touched our department; and this seems to be rather endemic to geekjobs. In a year when commerce was brought to a halt on the west coast over a dispute about the change in the use of technology in the shipping industry, I have seen my department and my co-workers displaced, disrespected, displeased, and occasionally dismissed over the same kinds of technological shifts (in both my case and that of the longshoremen, the changes require retraining and reshuffling of workload, manpower, and payment). Common complaints have been that we were never consulted before these changes were enacted, and I wonder if a powerful union could be the answer. Is there room for such labor organization amongst geeks? Does the mutability of the technology involved preclude the kind of stasis brought about by unionization? Does the status of the economy currently make it so that any attempt at such broad-based organization could be circumvented by black-listing and purging members from the rolls? Or could a powerful geekunion bring about a sea-change after which a modicum of parity between the bosses and the drones could be established?"

No Unions!

[glenstar]

The main problem I see with unions is that while they theoretically exist for the benefit of all members, they tend to prop up the underachievers and demote the go-getters. In other words, they breed mediocrity.

Also, think of this: with an IT union, wages will most likely be capped for its members. Rather than the open market determining rates, it will be the union. I, personally, would much rather take my chances and go for the higher wage.

Lack of desire

[ctr2sprt]

I think that where there aren't unions, it's almost always because the workers don't want them. Part of that is because people feel they're making enough without a union, but I think a lot of it is that unions often have a really bad perception. This perception seems to be most common among the upper and upper-middle economic classes, which is where most IT types are. People like that tend to point to the dockworkers' strike (where the average salary was something ludicrous like $100k/yr) as an example of what unions are today.

That said, I tend to share that attitude. I think unions are a critical part of a modern post-industrialized society; but they all seem to think that they need to be doing things constantly. Frankly, right now in the IT market, a hypothetical union shouldn't be doing anything significant at all: pay is decent, benefits are decent, and so on. The reason it's not as good as it was two years ago is the economy, and you can't blame just one or two companies for that. And I just don't trust unions not to try to wring concessions out of an employer, and get half the union downsized out of jobs in the process to pay for the bennies of the half that got to stay on.

Re:No Unions!

[Ummagumma]

Someone needs to mod this up. He said it perfectly:

"they tend to prop up the underachievers and demote the go-getters. In other words, they breed mediocrity."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have done very well in the tech sector on my own - last thing I want is a Union to 'represent' me, take part of my paycheck as 'dues', and make me follow thier rules and regulations.

No, I don't think so.

Unions are evil

[GusherJizmac]

Unions do not do anyone any good except those who will not work hard and achieve. Without a union, you are still free to demand higher wages and better conditions and quit if you don't like it. A Union constricts the employers and employees and allows slugs to subsist on the achievement of others. If you want job security, go work for the government. Tech jobs are probably among the best, most well-paid and have the most favorable environments, and saying that you need a union to improve upon that is just crap.

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to state, officially and on record, that the responses to this article thus far have ruled.

There is not ONE (nor more) namby-pamby socialist to be found.

Why the hell would I want to give up part of my salary in order to help out those who make my working life harder?

Re:No Unions!

[glenstar]

Someone needs to mod this up. He said it perfectly:

Thanks! I have expressed that opinion before, but being from Seattle and surrounded by Boeing, dock workers, etc... it is generally not very appreciated. ;-)

don't know about the rest of you, but I have done very well in the tech sector on my own

To put this in perspective... I haven't worked more than 9 months out of the year for the last several years. I would take a 3 month or so contract, work like a dog and then take 3 or 4 months off to travel, and I would still bet that my average yearly take was larger than if I worked a full year in a "union tech job". Of course, doing things that way is truly risky (especially in this market!), but I like to roll the dice. ;-)

University Union

[jhughes]

When I worked at a University I was a member of a union (I didnt want to be, but they took dues out of your check weither you wanted to be one or not). It wasn't just for tech heads, it was all campus workers.

There was a time when the union came in handy. Our boss (anti union) wished to put two union workers under a non union boss (demotion) and change work hours (for some reason you made more pay if you worked second shift/overnight shift) without changing pay rate. Also an increase in hours, on call times, yada yada, plenty more I wont go into . Overall the union did a fine job keeping a boss from abusing his employees.

However, the same union rules prevented us from accomplishing things as well (no unapproved overtime, so when a project ran long, we HAD to go home, even if we wanted to stay and fix the problem so that several hundred users would be operating okay).

They're sometimes useful, but more often then not, they're an annoying hassle.

Re:No Unions!

[wrax]

really well said. I work for a university technology department and I have seen some pretty incompetent people have their jobs saved because of a thing called "seniority". "seniority" seems to mean that the old employee who has been there forever keeps his jobs when the cuts come down because of a thing called "bumping". "bumping" is when a less qualified but older union member kicks a younger person out of his job just because the managment cut his position. This has happened to a number of friends of mine who had no choice but to be fired from their positions so that the older person could keep working, even though they had better qualificaitons than the people who were bumping them. unions work in the mining business, for hospital workers and for factory workers for safty reasons only. educators don't need unions and neither do technology workers.

Rock stars don't need no union

[legLess]

Most geeks are arrogant. We're used to having complete control over our own domain (whether that's our personal box or a huge network) and we brook little interference. We each believe that we're the best, or that with a little more experience with X, we'll become the best. After all, we got where we are largely by teaching ourselves, right? What's so hard about learning a few more things?

There's something to be said for this attitude - most people have trouble with computers just because they're afraid of them - but there's much to be said against it.

Stastically speaking, most geeks are not high-end, in-demand, uber-geeks. Nor will we become such. We forget that other people learn at least as fast and well as we do, that the entire geek population is filled with people who basically get high on learning new ways to control their digital environment. It's like the Prarie Home Companion: "All the children are above average." It ain't so.

All the replies to this thread so far have echoed a common perception of unions: they exist to enforce mediocrity and prop up the lowest common denominator. Question for those who hold such a view: where did you get it? From the newspaper? From TV? From a series of reports on-line?

Hmmm ... imagine that ... the mainstream media, controlled by the same few large corporations, presents a largely negative view of unions to the U.S. public. It's occured to me that perhaps they have a bias.

My older sister is pretty high up in the USPS union, and she talks about it a fair amount, so I am informed. Being in the union is a little like being arrested by the cops - everyone, theoretically, has the same right to a defence. This [supposed] sniper guy - he's getting a public defender. Yeah he looks guilty, but that's not the point; the point is that it has to be proven - he has to be granted due process.

There's a large part of unionization for you: due process. Management knows that it can't capriciously fire someone for (e.g.) having the wrong political viewpoint because the union will take it to task.

Another part of unionization is collective bargaining. Those with valuable skills in a certain domain will band together and say to management, "If you want our skills, here's how we define 'fair treatment.'" There's nothing anti-capitalist about the idea of unions (implementation is another thing) - it's simply one group of people selling their services to another group.

People are stronger acting together. Unions, implemented correctly, start and end with that sentiment. This "rugged individualism" (rugged geekdom?) plays well on TV, but doesn't scale to real life. We've all seen that typical geek skills are becoming more common and less valuable.

Once upon a time being an auto worker was an arcane skill - only a handful of people could build cars, and no one thought it was possible to automate the process. In hindsight that was incorrect. Put down your cyberpunk novel for a minute and realize that the assembly-line was created by Henry Ford specifically to commoditize auto labor, to take as much skill as possible out of the profession. And it worked, while everyone else thought it was impossible. Who'll be the Henry Ford of geekdom? Want to bet your future that one will never appear?

Ask yourself why organized labor scares management so much. Is it because companies care about their workers, their products, or the people who buy them? If you believe that you haven't been reading the news for the last ... 250 years.

Having said all that, there are some very real problems with unions. But no more so than with any other group of people, with human faults and foibles. You're a cog in a machine. Maybe you're an especially large and influential cog, but you won't stay that way. Whether you organize with the other cogs is up to you.

No way

[kelleher]

Call me crazy, but I'd rather get paid for the quality of my work - not how long I've been the member of a union.

I don't even believe in tieing vacation to length of service. Give the cash and the bennies to the high performers and let the mediocre fight for the scraps.

Re:No Unions!

[neitzsche]

I partially agree with you, but for nearly opposite reasons.

You say that unions "theoretically exist for the benefir of all members" but that is not true: they theoretically exist to combat abusive management.

What *really* scares me about unionizing the IT sector is that we would suddenly have more concrete/inflexible/mandated diploma and certificate requirements. Rarely does a BS in CS indicate that someone can program well. Experience is a much clearer indicator. If all IT were unionized, my job would require someone with a BS or MA (as it currently does) but the rules would not be able to bend to allow me to work!

Learn some history

[V. Mole]

Unions are the last refuge of the inept and the inflexible

Before you make such an ignorant comment, I suggest you read a little history about what working class life was like before unions. Or what such life is like in non-unionized countries. Or what's been happening in the US as the power of the unions has been undermined by the plutocrats who run our country.

Sure, there are problems with specific unions, and specific situation. Guess what? There is no perfect system. But if you want to see a real refuge for "the inept and the inflexible", I suggest you look into the manager and low-level VP ranks of any significantly sized company. It sure isn't those folk who get laid off when the senior management fscks up.

Re:No Unions!

[BitGeek]

Nevermind that you should find the idea of inviting the mafia in to extort protection money repugnant.

Who would voluntarily pay %15 of their salary to an organization that demands it under penalty of loosing their job?

And ultimately, when it comes down to it, the union will always negotiate the best deal for the UNION.

Only you can negotiate the best deal for you.

One little

[iago]

Rather than reiterate what others have mentioned already, I'd like to add one little benefit about unions. Most, if not all, unions have lobbyists. A percentage of the money you spend to the union would go to having our own folks in Washington fighting to have politicians pass laws that are sane and beneficial to us. Having powerful people in politicking for us would do a lot more than sitting here on slashdot and whining about the abuses of the DMCA, the Patriot Act, etc.

Of course, this would mean that in elections, we would all have to vote the same way, and most "geeks" (I hate that word) are too damn stubburn, independent, and argumentative to vote a certain way because our union endorses a certain candidate.

Tech Workers of the World Unite!

[fooguy]

It's ironic to me that the same people who hate unions are the people who miss "the old legal system". Our legal system is supposed to be adversarial because both sides are supposed to get a fair shake at making their point, these days it's more about technicalities and theatrics. Unions are adversarial in the same way: since labor is just as important as management, both should get a say in what decisions are made. Some people's selective memory only grab on to Hoffa, and forget about all the good unions have done since the Knight's of Labor formed in 1869.

Why did unions come into being? To protect the droves of workers who were just a number from their employer.

People argue that unions are outdated, that they're vestages of a time when employers did unspeakable things to their employees in the name of a few bucks. Can you really tell me it's any different now? How many employers are there that would work you 100+ hours a week in the name of a couple cent stock divided because they don't want to put a new piece of hardware on the balance sheet.

Once upon a time, I was a card carrying member of CWA (that's the Communication Workers of America) Local 1112 when I worked for the former Bell Atlantic (in the piece that was the former NYNEX, which was the piece that was the former New York telephone). I was hired right before the strike of 1998, so you could say my time there was interesting.

I've heard the argument that unions breed mediocrity, and to some extent it's true, but certainly no more than the military. Unions force the employer to create job descriptions, and they insure the employee meets the minimum qualifications for that job. That does not mean that you can't excel, that you can't live above the bar, but you don't put the guy who falls behind on every run on the front line next week.

The also prevent "crossing of trade". If you're a seasoned network admin, and your CCIE number is under 500, and you built the company's network from nothing (and *for* nothing), the Union is going to stop them from eliminating your job because "the DBA knows how networks work". Does that mean they have to keep redundant people on staff at the risk of the whole company? Certainly not, but the union gets a say in how positions get eliminated.

A union is also another set of eyes watching the books. I wonder if Worldcom would be in the position it's in if the had been a large union shop. Not that the union aspect would slow the mergers down, but they would have seen that Ebbers was pulling a "merge and hide" with their debt, making them look good on paper.

I can give you one real good example of a union-driven shop (though bloated) that has been infinately more successful that a comparably management-driven shop.

In 1984, the federal government ordered AT&T to divest itself of the Baby Bells, creating Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Fifteen minutes after the divestiture, AT&T began it's persuit to automate people out of jobs. Once the Telecommunication Act of 1996 passed, made their move to get into local telephone markets again, and eventually they were successful.

Along the way, AT&T changed market direction a little, bought TCI Cable (I might have screwed the name there) so they could provide broadband with AT&T Worldlink (their ISP), built AT&T Wireless, continued to automate, continuted to cut their bottom line, etc. At their peak, AT&T had their own security force (the Bell Boys), their own Navy (AT&T Longlines Fleet with 5 ships and 3 subs), and their own currency. Today, they're a shell of the former company they were.

At the same time, New York Telephone (one of the more...aggressively union RBOCS) merged with New England Telephone to form NYNEX. They later merged with the former Bell Atlantic to create the new Bell Atlantic, then merged with GTE to form Verizon. They also branched into wireless and Internet with DSL. They've been working on getting tariffs through to offer long distance in their region since the mid-1990s, and have been successful in several states.

Verizon is still a very union place to work, and has grown to be one of the largest telecom companies in the world. AT&T in the mean time is trying to scrape together cash to buy a piece of Bell Canada next year.

Having been inside before the long distance tariffs passed, I can tell you that the unions were all too happy to help management reach its goals for growth with training, overtime, etc. Yes, they got paid for it, but they didn't hold it back, and it's a second set of eyes looking at every merger.

Now, both AT&T and Verizon are souless vultures, but they practice the same tactics. The one that worked with their union has grown 10 times over, the one that worked against the union is on pretty shaky ground. It could be a coincidence, but almost 20 years of pattern makes me think otherwise.

So what about us? I would love a union. I would love someone to stand up to management with one voice and say "you're not downgrading our insurance because you can't meet your numbers", or to enforce work hours and pay equity. Unions and IT (in my opinion) would be a fantastic match. You don't want the bar lowered? I want people who can't meet the bar kicked out, and unions are all for that. They don't want unskilled labor sucking down a paycheck and giving them a bad name. I want minimum standards for what is a programmer, what is a dba, what is a network admin.

Some unions now have high tech training programs and cert programs they sponsor for their employees.

Don't you think the people who work at places like HP would like one voice to limit the number of layoffs they do in a merger? Would AOL-Timewaner exist as one unit without a union? I doubt it.

You get a lot for $6 a pay day in dues.

If your history is rough (or purposely forgotten), it might be worth a refresher to see what Americans went through to get the right to collective bargaining and representation:

http://www.wld.com/conbus/weal/wlaborun.htm

Re:Unions are evil

[BitGeek]

Funny, I've never been fired for telling my boss that some aspect of the employment situation was problematic.

Sometimes I've left when they didn't rectify the issue- but even then they were promising they would (that one was a poorly managed company.)

No, when employees have an issue it almost always affects productivity one way or another (Why do you think health care is provided by employers? Its not because of unions!!!) and management tries to rectify it to keep productivity up. And that also keeps employees happy.

Where does the union fit in? It just sours this relationship, destroyes productivity and profitability.

A workforce unionizing is the death toll for the company-- you should just shut down now, or offer the employees whatever it takes to reject the union.

It will be cheaper in the long run.

Re:No Unions!

[xyzzy-ladder]

If you are union, and you don't like the employment contract, you can vote against it. If you are not union, and you don't like the contract that the company writes for you, too bad.

If you don't like the union rep, you can vote him out.

If unions are so bad, why do companies always form unions of their own, like industry associations, the chamber of commerce, etc?

Re:No Unions!

[schon]

It's too bad unions are that way, because they are a natural response to the kind of exploitation that can occur sometimes (cf 19th century industrial revolution)

Yes, and you'll note that today (in first world countries), other things that appeared in the 19th century aren't around either - things like child labour and unsafe working environments...

Unions were a response to unfair working conditions at that time because there were no labour laws... fortunately, society has evolved to recognize that chaining children to sewing machines isn't a civilzed thing to do, and we've passed laws against it... just like we've passed laws regarding minimum wage, and workplace safety.

Unions had their place at one time, but they serve no useful purpose today, except to drive up the cost of doing business. Just because an idea was useful at one time, does not mean we need to keep it around once other, more effective, methods are available.

Re:Unions - a different take

[chriso11]

I beg to differ.

I support immigration, but not indentured servants. I think that a lot of immigrants have a tough road, and they are always the ones who take it on the chin when anything goes bad (The war on terrorism is a great example). I've had friends who had to wait years for their spouses to be legally admitted to the US.
On another note, I think that there is a hypocrisy on the side of big business: when times are bad (e.g. now), your job is on the line, and there are layoffs, pay cuts, etc. Fine, I accept that as a the current environment. However, when times are good, rather than pony up and pay the going rate, they endevour to change the laws (more H1b visas) so that they don't have to deal with the ramifications. That is why I am against H1b visas.

The purpose that H1b visas exist for is to get technical talent not available in the US. I have not seen that as the case - the company I work at hired an H1b, at 30% less than the going rate for similar employees. To top it off, that person only had skills that were obsolete.

I resent the ad hominem attack - playing the racist card is bogus. I agree that if someone can do my job better than me, then they should have the option. However, if someone can only do a shitty emulation of my job, but has the job only because he is cheap, don't pretend he is doing my job.

Re:Rock stars don't need no union

[tyen]

All the replies to this thread so far have echoed a common perception of unions: they exist to enforce mediocrity and prop up the lowest common denominator. Question for those who hold such a view: where did you get it? From the newspaper? From TV? From a series of reports on-line?

From union fucktards that won't let me haul my own equipment at trade shows, then use 3X more manpower, take 2X more time and demand 5X more money to move 1U boxen a couple hundred yards.

Re:No Unions!

[xyzzy-ladder]

For all the problems that labor unions may have, they are the only organizations that working class people have, and if they never existed, most Americans would be in the position that Chinese workers are in now, lots of work, little pay, and zero rights. And with more companies like Microsoft and Intel moving jobs to communist China (these are capitalist businesses?), we might be in that position soon.

Businesses run by geeks aren't like other businesses, and a union run by geeks wouldn't be like other unions. That's the point, we can organize for our own interests, and make our union however we want it.

Or, we can compete with H1Bs getting half of what we make, and too scared of deportation to raise their voice at work.

Don't like a "union" - fine, call it a guild, or a professional association, the principle is the same.

Maybe something like Local 23 [iww.org]

Re:No Unions!

[BitGeek]

When you get a job, you sign whatever paperwork they tell you too. They have it printed in advance, you can read it (or not), but if you don't sign it, you don't get the job.


Thats just stupid. I have yet to sign one of these without making changes, and I have yet to have someone retract a job offer because of it. And I didn't need to get a lawyer or give up %15 of my income to a union to do it-- I am a competent individual who is able to read contracts and write changes. Its not that difficult.

Unions don't level the playing field, they make it so that incompetent bofoons get paid just as much as competent people-- which drives down job satisfaction.

On top of that, a union better beat my deal by %20 to even break even, since they are taking such a large cut of ones salary.

The labor movement did not bring you weekends.

The labor movement is what brought the mafia into the mainstream of business.

Re:No Unions!

[BitGeek]

The union did not create the 8 hour work day.

They did not create weekends.

Oh, and that washtech lawsuit against MS? I was a party to that lawsuit and I GOT SCREWED ROYALLY. MS should owe me a around $200,000 in back wages, but the union stabbed me and other workers in my class in the back

I was not cheated by MS-- MS cheated the IRS, and because of it, we got leverage to get part of what MS got out of the deal, but I was cheated by the union

This is part of the reason I know unions suck.

They ALWAYS do whats best for the union, and not what's best for the workers.

Its extortion, plain and simple, and only a fool signs himself up to pay off guido every payday.

Oh, and I do have a friend who was fired because he didn't join the union. you can say its made up, fine, I don't consider you to be rational to begin with.

After all, you're spouting off about unions, but clearly you've never dealt with them, or if you have, you've been too stupid to see that you were getting taken.

Re:No Unions!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the 90% of everyone else who has these degrees should have to suffer because you're too stupid to get a degree?

You mean, not stupid enough to realize that the ROI on a college education isn't very high and is often a net-loss for most people? For me, the ROI on undergrad was fairly high, since I had a full-tuition scholarship. ROI on grad school will be moderately high because my employer will pay 80%. For most people, it's not an automatic benefit.

I mean, how many times to you apply Stokes Theorem or use Kruskal's algorithm when setting up a network?