[HN Gopher] Change.org workers form a union
___________________________________________________________________
Change.org workers form a union
Author : everybodyknows
Score : 99 points
Date : 2021-07-01 15:36 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (text.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (text.npr.org)
| vt85 wrote:
| Of course "Black Latina" would start this... Neo-Marxism
| advancing on all fronts, using minorities to break the ice...
| vt85 wrote:
| And of course my comment got deleted... it's simply ridiculous,
| you have got more freedom of speech in Soviet Union. Good job ,
| Marxists.
| sunshineforever wrote:
| Many low paid employees of change.org are likely involved in some
| kind of censorship program. To filter out the nasty.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Change.org is a $260 million company, according to a 2017
| valuation provided by data analytics firm PitchBook.
|
| I honestly had no idea that change.org did anything beyond online
| petitions or that they had 217 employees. Their website doesn't
| say much about how they make money, other than a link to become a
| member. Are they really pulling in significant amounts of money
| from contributions, or do they have some other business that
| isn't immediately obvious? What am I missing?
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I work in politics. We used to buy data from them. You would
| build a petition, they would promote, and then you got the data
| from signers on a /per basis. Was pretty expensive I don't
| remember but I think on the range of $1 or something.
|
| BUT they don't do that anymore.
|
| So maybe their revenue is now just advertising or % of donation
| processing?
| CameronNemo wrote:
| They have this shady practice where you can donate to causes
| (like GoFundMe) and they take a cut. Well I guess it is the
| petition organizers who are shady, they are not always involved
| in the cause or obligated to do anything. Change.org just let's
| them do it.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/10/21286385/change-org-georg...
|
| _In a Medium post on Tuesday, more than 90 former Change.org
| employees called on the company to donate any related funds to
| Floyd's family and organizers rather than using the funds to
| promote the campaign itself._
| SamBam wrote:
| They don't take a cut, they take the whole thing. The money
| goes straight to the company, and in return they promise to
| display the petition more prominently _within the website
| itself_. (They also occasionally use it to fund advertising
| to the website itself, as in the case of George Floyd.)
| vlunkr wrote:
| According to wikipedia: The majority of the company's revenue
| is advertising - individuals and organisations who start or
| sign petitions then chip in to promote those petitions to other
| site visitors.
| opheliate wrote:
| Change.org lets users pay to "promote petitions", which gives
| them more advertising on Change.org. I believe this is how the
| recommended petitions you're shown after signing one are
| selected.
|
| See https://help.change.org/s/article/Promoted-Petitions-
| FAQs?la...
| adreamingsoul wrote:
| I don't have much experience with unions. Here in Norway they
| seem to be common and a couple of my colleagues are union
| members. Employment is not "at-will" and so employees already
| have a lot of rights. From what I understand, the benefits of
| joining a union are more for salary negotiation, housing loans,
| and other life benefits. I'd be interested to learn more from
| anyone who has experience with unions in Norway.
| dougmany wrote:
| One aspect that is often overlooked is the possibility of
| having labor represented at the executive level. The people
| doing the work have good idea about how to improve the product
| or what changes will be bad for the product. I always heard
| that unions leads to greater quality and I think it is because
| that greater voice lets you push back when management askes you
| to cut corners.
| [deleted]
| dominotw wrote:
| > the benefits of joining a union are more for salary
| negotiation,
|
| USA has no unions and the highest pay for software engineers.
| triceratops wrote:
| Correlation != causation.
|
| American actors and athletes have unions. American actors and
| athletes are among the highest paid in the world.
| dominotw wrote:
| I wasn't implying that lack of unions is the cause of high
| pay, just that unions are not a prerequisite.
| runarberg wrote:
| Pay isn't everything. There is also sick leave, payed
| vacation time, parental leave, job safety and security,
| privacy guarantees etc.
|
| USA software engineers are lacking in all of these. Many
| countries in Europe have those labor benefits as national law
| and unions are more about enforcing these rights, and
| protecting the workers from violation of them.
| dominotw wrote:
| > USA software engineers are lacking in all of these.
|
| My last two companies gave me 6 months each for parental
| leave. I also took a lot of sick time. Agree with vacation
| time though, could be better.
|
| > job safety and security,
|
| Job market in USA for engineers has been really good. Most
| software engineers i know have 'job safety' in a sense that
| they can find a job in a couple of weeks or couple of
| months at most. But randomly getting fired isn't super
| common from what i've seen.
| ngngngng wrote:
| The exception that proves the rule
| goodpoint wrote:
| > Employment is not "at-will" and so employees already have a
| lot of rights
|
| "at-will" employment is exceedingly rare in developed countries
| outside of the US.
|
| Not having "at-will" does not automatically guarantees "a lot
| of rights".
| adreamingsoul wrote:
| Good point.
| loourr wrote:
| These brave woman and men are bringing the change we need to the
| change we want
| type0 wrote:
| The most important petition today is redditarded "We want Jeff
| Bezos to buy and eat the Mona Lisa"
| https://www.change.org/p/reddit-we-want-jeff-bezos-to-buy-an...
|
| Please sign it if you also feel strongly about this issue
| none_to_remain wrote:
| I wonder if this effort will have the impact of a change.org
| petition
| zapataband1 wrote:
| Most people in this thread discussing change.orgs business model
| instead of unionization. Most tech business do indeed thrive on
| continual exploitation of their workers while those on top make
| huge sums. Tech also has the added bonus of providing useful
| colorful apps that are used to exploit more workers: instacart,
| uber, etc etc. And also building the shiny weapons of future and
| existing police states.
| tengbretson wrote:
| 217 is an astonishing number of employees to operate what appears
| to be a moderately-complex Wordpress install.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org
| petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and
| ineffectual_
|
| This isn't my experience. Yes, if you're using a Change.org
| petition to lobby POTUS, that's dumb. But for local
| politicos? University administrators? In other words, people
| sensitive to being publicly embarrassed? I've seen it work.
| crackercrews wrote:
| The issue with niche change.org petitions is that the
| numbers mean nothing. There's no way to prove that the
| signers are from the key population.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| Of course. But the people who are publicly shamed and
| those surrounding them might not be aware of that.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org
| petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual?
|
| In our world of capitalism, the only justification a product
| needs is that it sells. And sometimes things that don't work
| or don't work well are superior products, because then
| customers keep coming back for more to get their desired
| results.
| SamBam wrote:
| The headcount is justified by the fact that it's a
| multimillion dollar for-profit corporation.
|
| The multimillion dollar aspect seems to be due to a number of
| factors, but a large part seems to be the absolutely-scammy
| "chip-in" request, where they ask petition-signers for money,
| clearly designed to make them feel like they are donating to
| the cause, but instead it's simply a promise to display the
| petition more prominently _within the change.org website_.
|
| I think it's basically a scam.
|
| https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-
| ge...
| Spivak wrote:
| Why do you assume all that work is engineering? I mean you're
| probably right that comparatively the number of people who
| actually work on the site itself are teeny tiny. But then
| there's the whole rest of the business -- admin, finance,
| accounting, sales, marketing, design, support.
|
| Like $15m ARR and a $300m valuation isn't "a website."
| sergiomattei wrote:
| Right on cue, HN armchair experts underestimating the
| complexity of real world businesses.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Yes but don't underestimate the number of wastefully run
| businesses either.
| xeromal wrote:
| IDK, I mean, people are employed. That's a good thing
| right?
| umvi wrote:
| Not really unless it is gainful employment. Toll booth
| worker is employment, but it isn't gainful employment.
| It's mindless soul crushing work.
| xeromal wrote:
| Unionized work sounds pretty gainful. Less chance of
| getting screwed over.
|
| Anyways, I'd agree that gainful is ideal, but I think
| most humans prefer to be employed and occupied over
| having nothing to do.
| triceratops wrote:
| I'm certain there's at least one toll both worker that
| loves their job.
| [deleted]
| tengbretson wrote:
| What business?
| kesselvon wrote:
| Lots of companies overhire for empire building purposes and
| for tasks that offer marginal or zero value to the company.
|
| I'm sure plenty of people here can attest to the cascade of
| overhiring that happens to startups all the time.
| Spivak wrote:
| And that's fine, every company finds their balance. Usually
| a year down the road they'll have a round of layoffs and
| get closer to their equilibrium.
| duxup wrote:
| It's a common question for sure.
|
| I wouldn't necessarily pull out "armchair experts" type
| comments for someone expressing curiosity / wondering what
| they're all up to.
| mtberatwork wrote:
| What was the question even? It was just pure snark. Nothing
| about their site indicates a Wordpress blog for that
| matter.
| duxup wrote:
| Curiosity / wondering what they're all up to.
| criddell wrote:
| It seems to take a headcount increase of at least an order of
| magnitude to turn a product into a business and I have a hard
| time understanding that.
|
| For example, when Instagram was purchased by Facebook they
| only had 13 employees and now they have something like 500.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Inflating headcount is a topic often discussed by
| economists. It causes huge inefficiencies but also benefits
| a bunch of people:
|
| - manages get promoted
|
| - CEOs justify increasing their salaries and bonuses
|
| - allows taking away valuable employees from [potential]
| competitors
|
| - when the headcount is big enough, companies acquire
| serious political weight
|
| - often a branch or even an entire company can be used as
| training/proving ground to select the best employees to
| work on more valuable projects
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _they only had 13 employees and now they have something
| like 500_
|
| They are not all engineers. I'll bet most are account
| managers looking after big advertising spenders.
| lemmsjid wrote:
| Having been down this path several times (small company to
| acquisition to growth), if you actually sit down during the
| startup phase and list all of the features/processes that
| would make your product fully mature, you're looking at a
| massive project with a lot of people involved. By 'fully
| mature' I mean it meets the needs of the average customer
| in your target market.
|
| The sweet spot for a startup is if you can look at that big
| mess of features and find something actually do-able by a
| small team that can still meet the needs of some portion of
| your target market.
|
| When you've achieved that, you can then start filling in
| the rest of the features that will fill the needs of the
| rest of your market. This is where the headcount can grow
| significantly, because even small line items in the feature
| set could involve a big project, yet still be justified
| because you have enough potential or actual revenue to
| justify the team growth. Once you're in this phase, the
| communication overhead of adding people and teams also
| forces the creation of meta-teams to support the rest of
| the teams...and there you have it, you now have a lot of
| people.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it meets the needs of the average customer in your
| target market_
|
| In most markets, the average customer is a minority of
| customers. There is a lot of variety in each niche's
| demand. Maturity is having market coverage of those
| niches. Whether that coverage needs to be done by a
| single company is another question.
| triceratops wrote:
| I'm amazed Instagram has only 500. I assume that's because
| a lot of things like operations, infra, payroll, IT,
| facilities, and HR are shared with FB?
| criddell wrote:
| How do you feel about them having only 13 employees in
| 2012 when none of the things you listed were shared with
| FB?
| im3w1l wrote:
| Instagram is a huge, huge product. Hiring 500 people to
| chase diminishing returns does sound reasonable.
| option wrote:
| that's why they formed a union
| slongfield wrote:
| Looking at the skill they're looking for on their hiring page:
| https://careers.change.org/
|
| Seems like it's a Ruby/React stack on AWS. Looks like they're
| trying to grow internationally (hiring "campaigners" in Japan).
| j_walter wrote:
| This was my first thought also. How is this not just a few
| people doing this as a hobby or second job. How much really
| goes into daily operations? I would think they are big enough
| to be known by most internet savvy people that they don't need
| marketing.
|
| I also don't understand this "Radha Nath, 30, a product
| designer at the company, said she is paid $16,000 less than she
| was at her last employer. The union will fight to bring wages
| across the company to the industry standard, she said." So she
| wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay
| when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay
| would be right?
| criddell wrote:
| > So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily
| accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped
| her on what her pay would be right?
|
| Isn't that true of every person working somewhere who then
| votes to unionize?
| hokumguru wrote:
| I think they mean that she voluntarily took a pay cut
| relative to her former place of employment.
|
| Which, in my opinion is an interesting take. Many people
| take pay cuts to work at start ups and it would be
| irresponsible to think that a 10 or even 200 person company
| could pay like FAANG. Salaries aren't static across the
| industry.
| criddell wrote:
| There's a lot we don't know though. We don't know how
| long ago that was or what she was told to expect as far
| as salary increases go. Plus, Change.org is 14 years old
| now so I wouldn't really call it a startup anymore.
| j_walter wrote:
| You are right that it's not a startup, but a ~200 person
| company is far from Google or Apple and you can't really
| compare them. Change.org is about social justice as I
| would say their major goal is not profits so the pay will
| be lower than a publicly traded company.
| gotostatement wrote:
| okay.. then unionizing and negotiating will reach a fair
| agreement. I dont understand how this is remotely an
| argument against unionizing.
| j_walter wrote:
| How is it not currently a fair agreement? They knew the
| pay going into the job...that's not fair?
| gotostatement wrote:
| I'm not saying necessarily it was unfair, I'm saying that
| unionizing can only make it more fair - there's no
| downside to unionizing.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| The power imbalance ensures it's never fair.
| criddell wrote:
| Underpaid workers generally know the pay going into a
| job. I don't think that makes it fair or unfair.
| SamBam wrote:
| It doesn't say she left her previous employment in order
| to take on a job for less money, it simply says it paid
| less than her previous employment. For all we know she
| could have been out of work for a year between, trying to
| get a job.
|
| Saying someone accepted a job at a miserly rate doesn't
| make the rate acceptable. We don't think paying
| immigrants a fraction of the minimum wage is acceptable,
| we don't (any more) think that expecting years of unpaid
| internships is acceptable, and we don't think that the
| jobs the factory workers first started to unionize
| against, with terrible wages and unsafe conditions were
| acceptable, _despite_ all those people "voluntarily"
| accepting the jobs.
|
| Having a job isn't just "voluntary" for most people. The
| pressure to have one in order to survive, plus the
| difficulties, costs and risks associated with switching,
| gives the employer power over the employees.
| magila wrote:
| Perhaps the most amazing part is them having enough revenue to
| pay that many people. Even if only a fraction of those are FTEs
| that's a fair amount of cashflow to sustain.
|
| I always thought Change.org was mostly known for being a nexus
| of naivete and impotence so it's surprising to see enough
| people willing to pay into it to sustain that kind of
| headcount.
| onthedownlow wrote:
| Their race percentages of both employees and leadership are in
| line with national demographics. Not trying to troll, but it
| sounds like they just don't like a certain "race".
| runarberg wrote:
| What do you mean?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Does that mean that their change.org petitions dont work? oh my
| supergirl wrote:
| change.org is pointless. there are official ways to petition
| governments. actually, change.org may be worse than pointless
| because it tricks people to think they actually did something by
| signing and prevents them from looking for better ways to address
| the issue
| subsubzero wrote:
| I don't get this:
|
| > I live in New York City," she said. "That doesn't go a long
| way.
|
| So you live in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and
| then complain when you aren't making enough to live in said city.
| Either quit the low paying position and find a better paying job
| or move to somewhere cheaper.
| lkramer wrote:
| Presumably that means they have offices in New York. If that's
| the case, they should pay a livable wage for people living in
| that city.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Capitalists vastly overestimate the mobility of labor. Maybe
| she has reasons keeping her there that are none of your
| business. The "just move" or "just get a better job" refrain is
| hopelessly ignorant.
| subsubzero wrote:
| I couldn't disagree more with that statement. Mostly everyone
| I know from close family and friends have moved out of the
| bay area as its too expensive in the past 3 years. I also
| moved and me and my Wife are in tech and make great money,
| alot of the people I know are not in that situation. We all
| left as cost of living is stupidly high and I don't want to
| spend every penny I make on housing and other high costs that
| only exist there. Everyone is free to make their own choices
| of where to live and work and live with those consequences.
| lasagnaphil wrote:
| I don't think moving to a different area is something easy to
| do as a person generally. (May be necessary, but still a hard
| and painful decision.) Maybe the person, even with all the
| city's faults, still have some affection towards her NYC
| neighborhood. She might have some friends important to her in
| the area that she doesn't want to be apart. Why should we
| assume the person would want to leave in the cold calculation
| of money and capital, ripping her off from what invaluable
| relationships she had in the area? People are not atomized
| rational machines hyper-optimizing for cost, they are in close
| relationship to the surrounding world and feel a sense of
| agency for being in such a relationship. And sometimes people
| will stay in their area even if the economic conditions aren't
| optimal, because they have something even more important to
| lose by moving away.
| gowld wrote:
| So? NYC is wonderful, yes.
|
| Do we need to subsidize New Yorker's luxury lifestyles? Will
| New Yorkers subsidize everyone else's plane tickets to get to
| NYC, and expenses during the visit?
| ip26 wrote:
| Presumably she works at Change.org's New York office, and
| therefore lives in New York.
| [deleted]
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I agree with personal responsibility here. But I don't think
| that negates critiques about living wages, especially from a
| self-billed progressive organization.
|
| It looks like some positions are required in person - does
| anyone work there on HN? There is only one NY specific list on
| their jobs page right now that says remote/NY, but a lot others
| list specific cities, like San Fran which is expensive too -
| they say "San Francisco (remote for now)"
|
| I think this combo of Stimi, lack of/expensive childcare, and
| new automatic child support payments, has forced the debate on
| where the baseline of a living wage is.
|
| We're pushing past $15 minimum for even Burger King in some
| places right now. But employers are logically still loathe to
| pay more, they would rather pay signup bonus' than higher
| wages.
|
| If wages outpace inflation I'm all for it.
| codingdave wrote:
| So your position is that people who want a mission-driven job,
| and are willing to accept lower pay because they believe in the
| work... do not deserve to live in NYC? They should either give
| up their passions, or move away from their lives, possibly away
| from their friends and family?
|
| Harsh.
| echelon wrote:
| I honestly don't understand why tech workers want unions.
|
| We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes like
| forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k contribution,
| ...
|
| I want to get promoted because I work hard, not because of
| seniority. I want to be able to switch jobs or positions and not
| have to start at the bottom of the ladder.
|
| Why would we want this?
|
| Edit:
|
| Unions will put pressure on the United States' ability to compete
| with Europe and other nations. Labor will be less flexible, and
| it's likely that top talent will be paid much less. Costs,
| however, will increase and the entire US tech industry will
| suffer.
|
| We'll switch from nimble meritocracy to a regulated and calcified
| follower. The rest of the world will catch up. I don't get how
| that's good for the US.
|
| Also, seeing all of the Europeans in here commenting about an
| American issue is odd.
| phreeza wrote:
| All those downsides you mention are not automatic consequences
| of having a union. Look at union jobs in Europe for a better
| example of how things can work out. All the nice perks you
| mention are completely at the discretion of your employer. Ask
| yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be
| gained on your employer?
| collegecamp293 wrote:
| Average pay for union jobs in Europe is far less than $50,000
| klyrs wrote:
| That's one side of the equation; what's the cost of living?
| missedthecue wrote:
| According to the OECD, Americans have more disposable
| _after_ adjusting for government transfers for things
| like healthcare, education, and childcare. And it 's not
| even close.
|
| https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| And yet quality of life is much higher.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Most unions in Europe are for blue collar work. In the UK
| (anecdotally) I've seen a lot more developers form
| cooperatives than unions, and even the cooperatives are
| fairly rare.
| duxup wrote:
| >Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on
| your employer?
|
| Because in this case it isn't in Europe?
|
| I like the European tradition a lot more than the frequent
| outcomes with US unions. I've seen US unions where what the
| original poster describes is totally accurate.
| finnthehuman wrote:
| >All those downsides you mention are not automatic
| consequences of having a union.
|
| No, but don't try to bullshit us that any new union (and it's
| negotiated contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like
| the unions around it. Doubly so when the employees in
| question are part of a national union.
|
| >Look at union jobs in Europe for a better example of how
| things can work out.
|
| Cool. And just as soon as you do the work to make the
| collective bargaining status quo in the US the same as it is
| in Europe, we can continue this conversation. Until then, I
| don't care about this tangent.
|
| >Ask yourself this: Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage
| to be gained on your employer?
|
| Because *I* am not gaining leverage. A bureaucracy that
| represents me as part of an amalgamation gains leverage.
| Before I toss my hat in, I need to hear a whole lot more
| about what that bureaucracy is planning to be, and how it's
| going to design itself. I don't need to be pitched the
| _possibility_ this instance could be better than the
| stereotype. Why not show me the _plan_ on how we 're going to
| make sure this one is a good one?
|
| Let's set goals. Up front and on screen. Then we can decide
| on the implementation details (such as unionization) needed
| to get there. When the cart is put before the horse, I don't
| see how you can tell me with a straight face that the union
| could ever possibly be anything but exactly the generic
| stereotypical union that the grandparent poster is afraid of.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > to bullshit us that any new union (and it's negotiated
| contract) isn't going to end up looking a lot like the
| unions around it
|
| Any new organization in human society is going to be the
| same as previous ones? Does this apply to unions only? Or
| no progress ever happens in any organization?
| sokoloff wrote:
| It's true that past performance is no _guarantee_ of
| future results. Nevertheless, we are well-advised to
| examine the history and past performance when seeking to
| estimate future results.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It's funny to hear such talk even as we are all members
| of an industry that has reinvented everything from taxis
| to space rocketry, payment systems to currency.
|
| Perhaps this isn't the union that will do it, but surely
| the tech industry can find a way to innovate on unions
| and labor power. Why everything else and not that?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Perhaps we _already have_ disrupted the traditional
| employer <->employee power dynamic and the re-invention
| of employment bargaining doesn't look exactly like the
| old unions?
|
| SWEs have more bargaining power than ever right now (at
| least in the US, which is the market I'm most familiar
| with) .
| goodpoint wrote:
| > Perhaps we already have disrupted the traditional
| employer<->employee power dynamic
|
| Care to describe what disruption happened and how?
| Software developers contracts seem pretty similar to any
| other office worker.
|
| The only big change in employment in the last 15 years
| happened outside of software development: the gig/sharing
| economy.
|
| And it's a huge step backwards.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > Most office workers do not get options
|
| 1) Plenty of people in finance, lawyers, and so on have
| high salary and excellent conditions. Many had highly
| paid jobs in the same fields 50 years ago. This is
| nothing close with "disrupting the traditional
| employer<->employee power dynamic".
|
| 2) An this point it's really difficult to assume that you
| are arguing in good faith.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Most office workers do not get options or RSUs in their
| company. Most office workers cannot set a flag on their
| LinkedIn profile that says "looking for work", get
| hounded by recruiters, and land another job, with higher
| pay, a stock grant, and signing bonus, and start the new
| job next month.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| SWEs have a lot of bargaining power because at the
| moment, it is an occupation in hot demand. That's not
| qualitatively different from any number of highly-sought
| after professions throughout history. That's not really a
| fundamental disruption and itself will eventually be
| disrupted by market forces. What we see is the summer
| before the fall.
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| > Why would you voluntarily forgo leverage to be gained on
| your employer?
|
| My main source of leverage comes from my employer's
| projection of what I'll do for them over the coming
| year/years. The better picture I paint for them on that
| point, the more leverage I have.
|
| It's not at all obvious to me that my leverage would be
| increased by collective bargaining by more than the cost of
| that outsourcing.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes
| like forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k
| contribution, ...
|
| You presume this sort of compensation is enjoyed throughout our
| industry. It isn't.
| Vaslo wrote:
| That's the beauty of the industry though. If you don't like
| your work or don't think you are compensated enough, you are
| free to apply and work at any number of other tech companies
| around the world.
| edoceo wrote:
| Unions don't block those features you want. All Labor benefits
| from group power against Capital. Your job today benefits from
| Union efforts in decades past.
| duxup wrote:
| >Unions don't block those features you want.
|
| They can in some cases do, particularly in the US.
|
| It's still a possibility.
| echelon wrote:
| My job has nothing to do with unions of the past.
|
| edit: Fair points. I still believe that modern labor is a
| highly dynamical system. Many workers do need additional
| support and benefits, but our corner of the world is one of
| the best compensated and least regulated. Solutions for
| getting low-paid workers better equity shouldn't be used as a
| hammer -- workers earning six to seven figures do not need
| unions. Unions in tech will put downward pressure on our
| mobility, competitiveness, and compensation.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| If you have weekends off, it does.
| SamBam wrote:
| You don't have weekends, health coverage, paid vacations,
| medical leave, or maternity/paternity leave?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Just because you can come up with original sentences
| doesn't mean you invented English.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >My job has nothing to do with unions of the past.
|
| But you enjoy many of the benefits past union members
| fought and died for.
| Vaslo wrote:
| And we also have negative outcomes such as discounting
| worker education and experience (seniority should NEVER
| be valued over talent), restriction of work to narrow
| definitions leading to inefficiencies, the fact that the
| increased cost and decreased deficiencies hurt the
| product's customers, and the list goes on and on.
|
| We owe a debt to those who worked to get us simple humane
| things like taking children out of coalmines and getting
| benefits for working beyond 40 hours per week. Those days
| are gone. Now they fight to keep people who get drunk on
| the job or try to tell our factories that some people
| should stand around and do nothing because asking them to
| help move some parts from one room to another isn't in
| their narrowly defined job description.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > I honestly don't understand why tech workers want unions.
|
| Read Shopify's CEO speech about being a team and not a
| "family". Also read Coinbase CEO. These "tech unions" are PACS,
| not your traditional worker unions.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > We're extremely well compensated and are dictating changes
| like forever WFH. We have generous vacation, perks, 401k
| contribution, ...
|
| Doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers have professional
| associations. Professional athletes and Hollywood actors (as
| well as other film industry workers) are also unionized.
| Vaslo wrote:
| I know several lawyers who barely have two nickels to rub
| together. If that's what a professional association gets me,
| I'll pass.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| There's a glut of lawyers, despite all of the gatekeeping
| and credentialing in that industry. Don't think you can
| blame it on the ABA for that. Not sure if they're the ones
| behind exorbitant law school tuitions either. Not to
| mention, that's only one profession out of several. What
| has the IEEE done against you lately?
| slavik81 wrote:
| Professional associations are from different from unions. The
| stated reason for the existence of a professional association
| is the protection of the public. Unions, on the other hand,
| exist for the benefit of their members.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Because those who are marginalized are more important to me
| than those doing exceptional well, even if I'm doing
| exceptional well.
|
| I care little about promotions or status, nor does my job mean
| much to me other than income (it's what I do with a small part
| of my life, not who I am), so I'm optimizing for different
| metrics than others. I have done well enough for a lifetime,
| and I'd rather spend my energy pulling the rest of folks up
| (both in comp and quality of life). Don't wealthy people spend
| their time on philanthropy when they're done hustling? I say,
| "why wait?" and do what you can where you are with what you
| have.
|
| Compensation has diminishing utility, while I have found
| compassionate efforts do not. YMMV.
|
| (Onward to legally mandated PTO, fewer day work weeks, wfh, and
| stronger labor rights _for everyone_ ; society grows great when
| old people plant trees whose shade they know they shall never
| sit in)
|
| Edit reply to your edit: Top talent is a small minority. You're
| basically asking the majority "Why do you want better for all
| of yourselves at the detriment to the very few amongst us
| capturing a majority of the gains?"
| dharmab wrote:
| Tech workers are not evenly compensated. If you work in FAANG
| or most enterprises, you're probably happy. Not if you work in
| gamedev, or many non-software oriented companies.
| ironmagma wrote:
| When you say "we," you are speaking from your perspective. The
| reason there are such high earners is that there are also low
| earners.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Broadly I agree with you but these aren't really tech workers,
| they sound more like soft sales to me...
| chomp wrote:
| Unions are nothing more than a way to negotiate with capital as
| a single entity. There's more to negotiating as a union than
| wringing more bennies out of the employer. Things like "hey is
| sustained 60 hours a week really acceptable" "why do I have to
| put work email on my phone and be responsive 24/7" and "it's
| been 7 years boss and we haven't gotten new workstations" are
| all things that are up for bargaining. It's about negotiating
| things as a group that would get you laughed at or demoted if
| you were to do it by yourself.
|
| Unions do not preclude promotions from merit. Unions do not
| preclude hiring people at the middle of the pay scale. Don't
| construct a straw man of the worst things you can think of, and
| package them up as the average union, because it isn't.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| >Unions do not preclude promotions from merit
|
| In theory maybe but in practice this has always seemed to be
| the case for me (admittedly a brit). Here there are literally
| queues to be eligible. There is a list of names and it's
| sorted by company start date.
| handrous wrote:
| One typical benefit of unions, beyond compensation concerns,
| are better-defined circumstances under which you're able to
| say "no" without repercussions, and the security of others
| having your back if management tries to wiggle out of their
| side of that agreement.
|
| [EDIT] in short, in some situations you get to replace the
| typical "well, just leave!" response to management trying to
| fuck you over, with "... don't leave, because they won't be
| able to fuck you over, and if they try _they 'll_ be the ones
| having a bad day". Which is nice.
| pydry wrote:
| They can also lobby on moral grounds - e.g. cracking down on
| dark patterns, against doing business with abusive regimes or
| domestic concentration camp operators.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Also work against stack ranking, hire-to-fire, the
| ridiculous leetcode obsession, and other toxic workplace
| practices endemic to the industry.
| endtime wrote:
| > Things like "hey is sustained 60 hours a week really
| acceptable" "why do I have to put work email on my phone and
| be responsive 24/7" and "it's been 7 years boss and we
| haven't gotten new workstations" are all things that are up
| for bargaining.
|
| Do SWEs in the US actually have any of these problems? Maybe
| I'm spoiled by my FAANG job but I find it hard to imagine
| these kinds of work conditions even at a non-FAANG tech
| company.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| That's the thing, you have to fight these things even when
| they're not happening because over time they will happen.
| Everyone was surprised when Google and Apple came back hard
| against remote working but that's just what big businesses
| do.
|
| As software is increasingly commoditized over the next 5
| decades we'll see a huge degradation in employee
| compensation even as profits for these companies continue
| to grow.
| sokoloff wrote:
| How does one fight against things that aren't happening?
| "Hell no, boss; I won't do that thing that you're not
| even asking me to do! No; I don't have any idea what I'm
| yelling about either!"
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| You're kidding right? Pre-planning for future events,
| like havesting food for the winter, is society 101.
| kesselvon wrote:
| This happens all the time at non-FAANG companies.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Pretty much all SWEs in Silicon Valley have had to work in
| open offices, which is a common grievance.
| esotericimpl wrote:
| "Maybe I'm spoiled by my FAANG job" Yes that is correct.
| cratermoon wrote:
| I think, by definition, having a FAANG job is being
| spoiled, but yes, the software industry has some pretty
| terrible practices. Look up, for example, the story of EA
| Spouse. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/
| crunched-...
| ex_amazon_sde wrote:
| Ex-Amazon here: burnout due to stressful work and on-call
| duties is the n. 1 reason for attrition.
|
| It's very well known that people leave FAANGs in general
| due to stress.
| starik36 wrote:
| > Unions are nothing more than a way to negotiate with
| capital as a single entity
|
| Depends on the union and how long it's been in operation and
| their goals. Some unions demand and get ridiculous perks. You
| may have heard of the "rubber room" - a.k.a. paying employees
| not to work. That happened.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114118143005186163
| chomp wrote:
| Well, so they're still nothing more than a way to negotiate
| collectively, even if the employer is a weak negotiator, or
| if the union reps make poor judgement.
|
| As long as the employer consents, and the union reps
| consent, and the majority of the union approves a bargain,
| then I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with
| getting paid to not work.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Unions do much more than negotiating salaries. The whole
| software industry could benefit from:
|
| - Setting quality standards. Ensuring people are properly
| trained and so on. E.g. Preventing Boeing from offshoring
| development of the MCAS to engineers paid $9 an hour.
|
| - Setting ethical standards. E.g. Preventing car pollution
| "defeat device". Providing legal support for whistleblowers.
|
| - Fighting ageism. It's provably widespread in SV.
|
| - Fighting the no-poaching agreements. Many FAANGs were found
| to be colluding.
|
| - Sighing exploitative immigration rules like the H1B "leash"
| that creates a class of underpaid workers.
|
| > We'll switch from nimble meritocracy to a regulated and
| calcified follower
|
| This is an absurd claim. Any human organization can be
| calcified or stay nimble. Unions are not different.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > Setting ethical standards. E.g. Preventing car pollution
| "defeat device"
|
| Are VW engineers not part of a union/workers' council? If
| they are, um...
| Nicksil wrote:
| um... what? Finish your thought.
| sokoloff wrote:
| OK, since you asked: Why did their membership in a union
| not preclude this outcome, given that one of the
| purported benefits of unions is to prevent such outcomes?
| goodpoint wrote:
| This is like asking "why did greenpeace not preclude
| climate change".
|
| Because that behavior is widespread across the whole
| industry, across many countries and across 4/5 decades:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_device
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
|
| Unions, just like any other non-governative organization,
| are just as powerful as people support them.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| https://www.engineering.com/story/video-what-were-vws-
| engine...
|
| > So my theory of the sequence of events in a nutshell is
| this:
|
| 1. Engineers write code to get around a difficult design
| problem in order to keep the project moving forward.
|
| 2. The design team runs out of time to fix the problem and
| faces a classic dilemma: delay the program, at a cost of
| millions, or bury the code to buy time to work on a
| solution.
|
| 3. Once the timeline passes the point at which metal is
| cut, the die is literally cast and the engines are destined
| for production, no matter what. At this point, the only
| career saving option for the engineers involved is to say
| nothing, and just hope they can get away with it.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/business/the-
| engineering-...
|
| > The two men who have led Volkswagen and shaped its
| culture much of the past 20 years are Ferdinand Piech, the
| chief executive from 1993 until 2002, and Martin
| Winterkorn, the chief executive from 2007 until his
| resignation after the scandal became public.
|
| Mr. Piech, a grandson of Mr. Porsche, is an engineer who
| made his name shaping Audi to take on BMW and Mercedes-
| Benz. His tenure came to be defined by his toughness and
| willingness to demote or dismiss people who were not
| performing well.
|
| > Some critics argue that after 20 years under Mr. Piech
| and Mr. Winterkorn, Volkswagen had become a place where
| subordinates were fearful of contradicting their superiors
| and were afraid to admit failure. "There is a self-
| righteousness which led down this terrible path," said
| David Bach, a senior lecturer at the Yale School of
| Management who has followed the Volkswagen case.
|
| Bernd Osterloh, chairman of the Volkswagen workers council,
| wrote a letter to the staff suggesting flaws in company
| culture. "We need in the future a climate in which problems
| aren't hidden but can be openly communicated to superiors,"
| he wrote.
| ttmb wrote:
| If you read the article,
|
| > Poche, [...] lives in Manhattan [...] earning just under
| $50,000 a year.
|
| That doesn't seem like "extremely well compensated"
| TheFreim wrote:
| Depends on working conditions and if they're required to work
| in high cost area or not.
| ttmb wrote:
| Working conditions... you mean the sort of things that
| unions tend to care about?
| TheFreim wrote:
| I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
| collegecamp293 wrote:
| She works as a "Campaigner" according to LinkedIn and is 23.
| What is the median salary for 23 year olds in Manhattan?
|
| EDIT: I googled "median salary" in Manhattan (no age
| qualifier) and you guessed it...it's $50,000
| dehrmann wrote:
| I'll also add that as a "campaigner" working for someone
| like change.org, you can expect to make less because lots
| of people want to work in the these activist roles. It's
| similar to how game developers are paid less than b2b saas
| developers.
| Vaslo wrote:
| Always seems a shock to HN when the jobs that everyone
| wants that don't require a very technical education tend
| to be on the low end. Well at least for the campaigner
| role.
| lasagnaphil wrote:
| The median salary of $50000 still seems a bit low to me
| considering how real estate must be pretty expensive in
| Manhattan. An okay-ish 1-bedroom apartment seems to be
| around at $2000 a month, which amounts to almost half of
| your salary (and I haven't really delved into the living
| costs of that area!)
| olah_1 wrote:
| I can confirm that this is a common salary for someone just
| out of college, even in NYC yes. She may work in Manhattan
| but she doesn't need to live there. Many young people have
| roomies in Brooklyn. It's what you sign up for when you
| choose to live in NYC.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-01 23:02 UTC)