[HN Gopher] QA workers at Blizzard Albany are unionizing
___________________________________________________________________
QA workers at Blizzard Albany are unionizing
Author : mellosouls
Score : 149 points
Date : 2022-07-20 15:32 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gamedeveloper.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gamedeveloper.com)
| noasaservice wrote:
| Unfortunately, the biggest hole in unionization is that the
| company can unilaterally shut down the store/office AFTER the
| union is granted by the NLRB.
|
| It is illegal to go after individuals responsible for helping
| unionizing. It's also illegal to say that they will shut it down
| prior to unionization as a threat. But doing so afterward is 100%
| legal.
|
| Walmart's done this. Starbucks is _doing_ this right now. And
| many other stores that are unionizing /unionized are being just
| closed with no warnings.
| hourago wrote:
| soco wrote:
| Closing down QA would be a more risky endeavour, but maybe some
| smart manager could even sell it as a gain. Fail fast right?
| bombcar wrote:
| You just shut down the division and outsource to someone for
| QA.
|
| The fact the outsourcing company is in the same building and
| has positions open that could be filled by the now-redundant
| QA staff is accidental.
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| Not really, major companies are already using end users for
| beta testing, a/b testing and relying on user reports for bug
| fixes. It's becoming more and more standardized to release an
| inferior, bug filled product and just wait till users
| complain about something before fixing it. Reactive vs
| proactive is cheaper.
| munk-a wrote:
| As someone who has worked in game dev - QA is absolutely
| essential. Beta testing is more of a PR move than anything
| else - you do potentially get useful automatically
| collected statistics but surveys are absolutely loaded with
| rubbish responses making it hard to find good information
| in the bad. If you want to use Beta testing to do a wide
| bug sweep you need a QA team anyways to actually sort
| through all the crap and reproduce the issues - if you
| expect devs to actually chase down "The game crashed this
| one time after I built this building" with no attached save
| file you have no appreciation to how time crunched game
| devs already are.
|
| The other half of what you said, releasing a buggy product
| and fixing it afterwards - that happens all the time and
| it's usually a bit PR win since users appreciate "bug
| fixing velocity" more than they appreciate a bug free
| game... However, negative patches (where more things are
| broken than fixed) can be a death knell for a game - one
| good example of this is the Leviathan DLC for EU4[1]...
| Paradox spent months afterwards doing PR catch up to try
| and re-ingratiate themselves with the community.
|
| 1. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1416420/Expansion__Eu
| ropa...
| standardUser wrote:
| Based on the QA people I've worked with over the years it can be
| grueling work with an unusually high level of responsibility and,
| from what I've seen, low pay compared to developer salaries.
| Seems like an obvious part of tech to be at the forefront of
| unionization.
|
| As for the companies fighting tooth and nail against unionization
| attempts, I don't blame them any more than I blame a dog for
| eating food I drop on the floor. It's just what they do. If we
| want a more equitable playing field for unionization we need to
| support policies and politicians to make that happen. Waving
| fists at for-profit enterprises accomplishes nothing.
| hancholo wrote:
| This is more true for game testers/QA (notorious for low pay
| and turnover) than software QA in other industries. SDET's are
| developers that focus on testing and get paid on par with devs.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Good, and I wish them luck. The practices that companies are
| willing to engage in to prevent unionization are cartoonishly
| evil.
|
| The best part is that they could have avoided all of this by
| paying their QA more for fewer hours. The changes they'll likely
| be forced to make by a union are probably much more dramatic than
| what they could have quashed pro-union sentiment by simply
| introducing themselves. Put another way: As an engineer, I have a
| great salary, good stock options, and decent hours. I favor
| unions in principle but don't have a drive to force my company to
| set one up because I am not so poorly treated that I think I need
| it. Why not treat QA the same way?
|
| The exploitative practices that some in tech - especially the
| games industry - are exposed to are a long-term bet that those
| people won't mind being exploited and won't be convinced they can
| do better. It's a shame that bet pays off as often as it does.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> The practices that companies are willing to engage in to
| prevent unionization are cartoonishly evil._
|
| Yesterday, after a Chipotle in Maine became the first location
| to vote to unionize, corporate decided it would rather shutter
| the store than risk giving anyone else any bright ideas. The
| beatings will continue until morale improves.
|
| Honestly, I don't even particularly like the idea in principle
| of adding another layer of bureaucracy to any organization. I
| would rather have a country where strong labor laws made unions
| unnecessary. But it's plain to see that these companies need
| internal opposition in order to stay honest.
| googlryas wrote:
| Are you familiar with the economics of the store? Maybe they
| were having a hard time staying afloat anyway. Augusta, ME
| has a population of like 15k - my city of 100k(with 20k
| college students) only has 1 Chipotle.
|
| I'd imagine that locations which are struggling to hire would
| be correlated with disaffected employees looking to unionize.
| andrewlgood wrote:
| Not quite a balanced representation of what happened. The
| store had been closed for a month due to an inability to hire
| people. Washington Post article has fuller explanation of
| both sides - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/
| 20/chipotle-...
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Isn't it kind of weird that a Bezos owned media outlet is
| publishing an anti-union argument? "There's two sides to
| the story" falls apart when your siding with Corporate over
| Fast Food workers.
| d35007 wrote:
| I did not get the impression that the article was "siding
| with Corporate over Fast Food workers". Can you quote the
| sections of the article that made you think differently?
| kibwen wrote:
| That link is paywalled for me, here's one that's not, which
| claims that the location had "about 20" employees:
| https://www.boston.com/news/business/2022/07/19/chipotle-
| clo...
|
| To see whether 20 is a low number, I searched for how many
| employees an average Chipotle branch has, which brings up
| this page (from 2018), where multiple commenters leave
| estimates that all hover around 20:
| https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Chipotle-Mexican-Grill/faq/how-
| ma...
| wyldfire wrote:
| Regardless of how close it is to the target staffing: was
| it open (and presumably operational at some level of
| customer satisfaction) or closed at the time it was shut
| down? What does it mean to have 20 employees but closed
| for a month? Wouldn't those employees be seeking other
| employment already?
| kibwen wrote:
| We can also ask, was the store closed for a month in an
| attempt to force out the union-sympathizing employees?
| Does the fact that it still has 20 employees after a
| month of closure suggest there were even more employees a
| month ago? The last time the store opened was on June
| 17th, and the vote to unionize was held June 23rd. All
| that upstairs needs to do is not send a manager with the
| keys.
| andrewlgood wrote:
| The gist of the Washington Post article is they could not
| hire sufficient staff for the store. They dedicated two
| recruiters to the task and were still unsuccessful. For
| the staff they did have, there was "excessive call outs
| and lack of availability..." I do not have any facts
| beyond the article, but would not surprise me that an
| understaffed store (described as in a remote location)
| would enter a downward spiral that leads to a shut down.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| The company representative described it as remote. The
| journalist described it as in a strip mall just off the
| highway in Augusta. Augusta is the capital.
|
| It would not surprise me if the store couldn't hire
| workers because of a reputation for poor working
| conditions. It would not surprise me if call outs and
| lack of availability were proportional to excessive call
| ins from an under staffed store.
| badpun wrote:
| Spoiler: the labor laws create their own layer of bureucracy.
| Companies have to hire extra people to observe these laws.
| There have to be lawyers and courts which specialize in those
| laws. These laws are inefficient and get in the way on many
| occassions (i.e. both employer and employee would rather not
| have them), but you're still required to observe them. You
| can't make things more regulated without making it more rigid
| and inefficient at the same time.
| okamiueru wrote:
| That's.... All in order, no? If workers want to be able to
| not be abused, they need to collectively bargain. Which,
| adds extra steps. But necessary ones? What am I missing?
| hparadiz wrote:
| Negotiating your salary on an individual basis is common
| sense yet when put in the context of collective
| bargaining suddenly it's "extra steps" and "bureaucracy".
| Despite the fact that once you're in the job your
| employer rarely even gives you an opportunity to
| renegotiate the terms of your employment.
| Bayart wrote:
| Countries with strong labour laws also have strong unions.
| Their existence is precisely the reason why such labour laws
| exist. It's a matter of power balance, and laws swing the way
| power is.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Yeah, based on my industry experience I am convinced it is not
| a coincidence that we're seeing games QA teams unionizing in
| particular. The QA department always is mistreated by
| management (and often other developers) and they're typically
| overworked contractors or temps who are at constant risk of
| being fired so they can't push back on mistreatment.
|
| Games don't get shipped in a quality state on time without the
| hard work of skilled QA testers but the industry really treats
| them like they're disposable. Game design and game programming
| are both MUCH easier if you can rely on a good QA tester to
| spot issues and help you figure out reproduction steps, etc.
|
| We had one netcode bug in Guild Wars that haunted us for at
| least 6 months (probably longer?) that players would frequently
| report but we never managed to find a reliable repro for,
| despite having extensive server-side logging. One of our best
| QA testers spent an hour or two every day trying to find a
| repro case and eventually was able to hand it to a lead to be
| fixed - something like that simply isn't possible unless you
| put skilled people in an environment where they can do focused,
| specialist work like that. (Sadly, that studio - ArenaNet -
| also had a tendency to mistreat QA staff and it got worse and
| worse over time.)
|
| That tester ended up going on to be a design lead on multiple
| big AAA titles at other studios, so it was nice to see him get
| the recognition he deserved for his work ethic and skill.
| dexwiz wrote:
| > That tester ended up going on to be a design lead on
| multiple big AAA titles at other studios, so it was nice to
| see him get the recognition he deserved for his work ethic
| and skill.
|
| If the best people in a given job always choose the leave if
| given the chance, then it will always suck to do the job.
| Custom service, qa, warehouse workers. These are all jobs
| that need to get done. But if anyone with the skill and drive
| to do something else leaves, then you are left with people
| who are abused because they are stuck and powerless. How many
| people dream of doing Video Game QA? I doubt very many. They
| only do it because they cannot program/draw/write/etc.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| I find it staggering that there exist companies where they
| don't value their QA people. As far as I'm concerned, QA is
| one of the most important roles on a development team. I've
| had meetings with higher ups where I told them we need to get
| our QA on the call to voice their opinion or the conversation
| in question can't proceed. The ability to systematically and
| reproduceably break things in ways that nobody else thought
| of is a powerful skill, and should not be overlooked.
| fru2013 wrote:
| https://www.gamedeveloper.com/culture/qa-workers-at-blizzard...
| blobbers wrote:
| Is hackernews on the side of QA people?
|
| What's the general feeling? I can't see their working conditions
| being genuinely terrible or unsafe, or the pay being that unfair.
| Perhaps they're being driven too hard?
| rychco wrote:
| A friend of mine was on the QA team at Blizzard Albany and his
| complaints were straightforward: the pay is awful & the hours
| are long (especially during crunch).
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Crunch is likely why the gaming companies will throw
| everything they have at stopping unionization. The first
| thing the unions will do is get rid of crunch.
|
| Rightfully so too -- none of the programming jobs I've had
| have made me believe that crunch time is actually necessary.
| But, management has to plan not to have crunch time rather
| than rely on it regularly.
|
| Under a union, the gaming industry will have to give a lot
| more time to work on tasks that have a specific deadline that
| can't be moved (like tie-ins with external events that won't
| get delayed, such as the super bowl for example).
| munk-a wrote:
| When I was working in the gaming industry there were days
| we (on the server team) had overtime because the client
| team was behind on their work and everyone staying late was
| better for morale... but we were ahead on ours since we'd
| fought hard for our timelines and my manager was a badass.
| The result was we server people sitting around chatting in
| the office while the client team struggled not to be
| distracted, I don't think it helped morale.
| spicymaki wrote:
| That is a good thing. Crunch time is due to poor project
| planning. Limits on employee abuse can lead to needed
| productivity innovation. Another thing that could help is
| if customers would stop buying AAA games that push
| graphical limits to unnecessary extremes. Nintendo has
| demonstrated what you can accomplish through good game
| design and less reliance on extreme graphics.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| I agree. I hope unionization makes the gaming industry
| less toxic for workers.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > or the pay being that unfair.
|
| Isn't that the equivalent of other jobs in other industries
| where no qualification is required?
| ThemalSpan wrote:
| I don't think looking at hacker news as a hive mind is a good
| idea tbh.
|
| I'm on the side of those unionizing. Work conditions don't need
| to be unsafe for folks to unionize, and I'm fairly confident in
| saying that the vast majority of folks everywhere (in tech
| anyway) are paid an unfairly low amount for the value they
| generate.
| zapataband1 wrote:
| I remember McDonalds workers striking and a post about how
| their CEO makes ~1300x their salary. I looked up our dual CEO
| salary and together they were making like ~2000x our
| salaries.
| nightski wrote:
| Except value you generate is not a good metric for salary.
|
| If I have an employee that generates 100M a year, but I have
| boundless applicants that can perform that same task then the
| unfortunate reality is that person is not that valuable.
| FrenchDevRemote wrote:
| How do you know they can do the exact same task? After how
| many months? And what if the new guy quit after a month and
| after you wasted weeks on trying to hire them?
|
| Value generation should be +/- the only metric for
| salary(besides whether or not you negatively affect the
| rest of team because of your behavior)
| nightski wrote:
| It's also very difficult if not impossible to calculate
| generally and many people tend to vastly overestimate
| their personal contribution to value generation.
| nkjnlknlk wrote:
| Then you are free to replace them with these boundless
| applicants. Weirdly, every tech company claims there is a
| shortage of talented employees.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| ... and it doesn't matter how easy the job is, you need
| people to do those jobs. In this labor market, it's hard
| to find people of all skill levels. I'm not suggesting QA
| is easy or doesn't require a lot of skill either -- it's
| very hard to find a really talented QA person.
| munk-a wrote:
| People outside the industry really undervalue talented QA
| people - yes there are hordes of 20 year olds that have
| always wanted to "work on the fortnite" but their
| productivity compared to someone long in the industry who
| understands how to effectively test, can write clear test
| plans and knows the importance of reproduction steps and
| who understands test automation... it's a night and day
| comparison.
| nightski wrote:
| Correct, but a shortage works in favor of the employee.
| No Union needed.
| khuey wrote:
| > If I have an employee that generates 100M a year, but I
| have boundless applicants that can perform that same task
|
| The 100M a year here is generally rapidly competed away in
| this situation.
| zapataband1 wrote:
| Workers have a right to bargain for fair working conditions, it
| doesn't really matter what we think tbh. But why would you say
| that you assume the pay is 'fair'? We got bought by Oracle and
| no-one saw a raise in years, even through pandemic, where the
| ceo that makes 2000x our salary emailed us about how he was
| over the pandemic and decided to move to his private island in
| hawaii and make it 'a better place with the locals'
| munk-a wrote:
| Damn dude, you guys should really unionize.
|
| I know it's got a particularly bad reputation in SV but
| software developers are long overdue a strong union.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Is hackernews on the side of QA people?
|
| Is this in general or in this specific case of defending their
| decision to unionize?
|
| In general, I feel that QA should be paid as much as devs, when
| they are good. I've worked with a couple of "holy shit, how did
| you find that?" level of exceptional, and I felt they deserved
| more than I was paid and actively argued as much with our
| manager. Those people made me better, they made the products
| better, which ultimately made the company better. Keeping these
| people around make other QA people better. Instead, they get
| hired away because nobody pays them their worth, and you're
| left with a much less capable QA team.
| corrral wrote:
| > or the pay being that unfair.
|
| What's "fair" got to do with it? If they can get more, they
| should. Companies don't stop at "fair". CEOs don't stop at
| "fair".
| spicymaki wrote:
| > Is hackernews on the side of QA people?
|
| That is such a trash comment. Good QA/test/validation engineers
| are worth their weight in gold! It is a absolute crime we don't
| pay the profession more.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _I can't see their working conditions being genuinely
| terrible or unsafe, or the pay being that unfair._
|
| Can I ask what you are basing this assumption on?
| gotoeleven wrote:
| The fact that they accepted the job?
| ziddoap wrote:
| Interviewers don't air dirty laundry?
|
| They sell a position to a qualified candidate. Keyword is
| _sell_. They 're not going to tell you what frustrations
| other staff have, or if they treat their workers like shit,
| or if they make unreasonable demands that aren't in the job
| description, or if scope-creep on a project 4 months down
| the line will require me to start putting in overtime I
| didn't agree to, etc.
|
| If you know of an _accurate_ way to determine what the day-
| to-day working conditions are for any arbitrary position in
| any company over an extended period of employment
| (including how work conditions will change with things like
| leadership changes, mergers, departmental transfers,
| special projects, etc.), shoot me an email because I will
| invest in whatever magic it is.
| munk-a wrote:
| Considering the churn at most QA shops I'm pretty sure they
| accepted the job while being told it was all rosy and are
| just there long enough to realize they were duped and find
| another job. EA in particular is famous for literally
| vomiting out disillusioned QA veterans.
| koheripbal wrote:
| From a purely finance perspective, that's a sign that you should
| sell the stock.
| daenz wrote:
| Can you elaborate on this please?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Maybe he means that a company famous for shit culture, in an
| industry famous for shit culture, that has employees forming
| a legal entity to defend themselves against the company has
| bad management?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I guess the real question is what bit of that indicates
| something changed? It seems to be the same business as
| before.
| munk-a wrote:
| If you're still holding onto Blizzard stock at this point,
| you've accepted that it's not going to rise in value anytime
| soon and just hoping for a beneficial acquisition or as a long
| investment.
|
| Unionization actually generally helps company growth in the
| long term since it's beneficial to the company - it just hurts
| stocks in the short term because the stock market hates unions.
| carbadtraingood wrote:
| Good! Best of luck, long overdue in the industry. QA, in
| particular, has a thankless and critical job.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Good.
|
| I have always felt like tech workers have a hard time organising,
| which is a bit ironic. Events like this are a good sign for the
| overall industry.
| Frost1x wrote:
| There's this certain mentality that's been deeply culturally
| embedded by anti-union propoganda, especially in tech, that
| unions are a sort of blue collar organization designed strictly
| for appeazing underperforming and lazy.
|
| What people forget in their arrogance is that unions also just
| bring more leverage back to the table to fight off abuse, setup
| better conditions, etc. Yes, they can be abused and yes, they
| can lead to stagnation but without collective bargaining power
| your _only_ leverage is how easy /difficult you are to replace
| and how abundant acceptable (e.g., do I need to uproot my
| life?) competitive or acceptable openings are at any given
| point of time so you can vote with your feet.
|
| It's perfectly OK to embed your idealistic meritocracy within a
| union as part of your negotiations. You don't have to appease
| the lazy and 'medicore' if that's your great fear, you can
| negotiate and codify fair evaluations for these things if your
| union so wishes this. At the same time you also can negotiate
| nifty things like: not being on call, not working overtime,
| making sure theres adequate number of engineers on a project,
| improving the type of work you do, etc. Unless you're leading a
| startup where you're on the other side of the table, I don't
| see how these ideas aren't appealing to you--the opposite is
| very appealing to your employers.
|
| In general, labor has been on the losing side for decades and
| there's this degree of condescension that "I am professional
| making great TC, I don't need those piddly unions" mentality
| that does nothing but props up continued erosion of standards
| and expectations of work and compensation in this industry.
| I've been working in software and tech for quite awhile (my
| mentor who shared their experiences of such declines since the
| 60s), and I can assure you it's gotten worse over the years for
| workers. This industry has been mostly fortunate because of
| growth outstripping supply that continues to give some
| leverage, but that may not be the case indefinitely and if that
| happens, unless you are near the absolute top of the field, you
| too will continue to see declines in working conditions in this
| field indefinitely.
| meowzero wrote:
| I had conservative in-laws, who lived through the 80's
| unions, indoctrinate me into the anti-union view by
| portraying all unionized workers as lazy. They believed
| Unions are the sole reason why companies like Eastern
| Airlines dissolved. Perhaps unions did grow more corrupt in
| the past.
|
| As I looked into it further, it was similar to the argument
| how conservatives don't support certain social services
| because it'll cause people to be lazy and underperform in
| society. There is probably some truth to that, and there's
| always going to be people taking advantage of the system.
|
| I do agree with you that the balance has shifted too much on
| the anti-union side. I hope these new unionizing efforts help
| shift the balance back to the middle.
| bowsamic wrote:
| The question that always stops me is, should lazy people be
| left to die for their laziness if we have the means to keep
| them alive?
| darth_avocado wrote:
| I think it was mostly a result of a never ending free for all.
| Now that the economy is cooling, all the toxic traits of tech
| are soon going to be out in the open and more workers realize
| that it is better to have a union than not.
|
| Toxic management, PIP as a tool to overwork people, hire to
| fire, etc all needs a little dose of unions.
| dspearson wrote:
| It's the norm, rather than the exception, here in Europe. My
| employment contract is set through collective bargaining and I
| work at one of the largest tech employers in Switzerland. Being
| represented by a union is just standard fare. I don't
| understand the hostility to it across the pond.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| Not to argue for or against unions.
|
| But in the US the history of unions often ended up with ties
| to organized crime. In addition unions seemed to become more
| interested in serving the needs of the union rather than the
| well being of the workers. One example is a buddy of mine
| that had to be party of a bag boys union who had to end up
| paying basically the entirety of a pay check in union dues
| each month simply to be employed, without him getting
| anything from it.
|
| From what I understand there is a literal and figurative
| ocean of difference between the unions in the EU and the US.
|
| I'll further add that trying to conflate the two is a tactic
| I've often seen used by dishonest people to manipulate the
| conversation.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Your buddy was a bag boy paying "basically the entirety of
| his pay check" in union dues? Let's be specific here. How
| much in pay and how much in dues?
| Melatonic wrote:
| I highly doubt this - everytime I have heard people
| complain about this it terns out to be a percentage of
| their paycheck (which is pretty standard for all unions -
| rarely it is a flat fee).
|
| What potentially could be a whole paycheck are the
| payments for healthcare that is provided by the union
| bombcar wrote:
| Or the "union signup" fee that is charged on your first
| paycheck, and eats your paycheck if you're minwage.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| I've never heard of a "union signup" fee (that's not to
| say it doesn't exist) but the person who posted it claims
| his buddy was paying every month.
|
| edit: Looked it up in my state, they are limited here to
| $15.
| bombcar wrote:
| Apparently they call it an "initiation fee" for some
| people.
| ericd wrote:
| That's pretty bad, though - if I'm in my 20s and in good
| health, I'd definitely prioritize, say, rent over high-
| end health insurance.
| Melatonic wrote:
| As far as I know it would be optional like any healthcare
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > But in the US the history of unions often ended up with
| ties to organized crime.
|
| Is this true, or just another case of historical
| revisionism based on pop culture?
|
| Not denying that there aren't examples of this, but it does
| seem a bit like people like to go back to a few famous
| criminal individuals to justify that unions are "bad".
| karpierz wrote:
| > But in the US the history of unions often ended up with
| ties to organized crime.
|
| Organized crime takes root in groups that don't benefit
| from government protection. Do you think that unions
| would've turned to organized crime if the authorities and
| privatized security groups didn't regularly attack them
| without any intervention by the US government to protect
| them?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_t
| h...
| slackfan wrote:
| Government is organized crime with some extra steps.
| ncphil wrote:
| In the history of unions in the US, who do you think
| turned a bind eye to the infiltration by organized crime?
| During the depression labor organizing was mostly the
| work of people who the government persecuted after the
| war for their politics. That left a power vacuum that
| organized crime was happy to fill.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| I kind of feel the same way - I think that, in the long
| run, unionization will be bad for everybody involved... but
| the employers have really, really, really brought this on
| themselves. All they had to do was try to be human beings
| from time to time, but apparently that was too much to ask.
| drc500free wrote:
| In the US, unions historically excluded Black labor.
| Management was able to play the two labor forces against each
| other when there was a strike.
|
| Eventually the Civil Rights Act passed, forcing government-
| mandated equality in many places, especially around
| employment. White labor abandoned the labor party (Democrat)
| in favor of the anti-government party (Republican).
|
| Since then, the Democrats have been pro-minority, pro-
| government and at best fairly ambivalent about labor issues.
| Only the management perspective played in the media, and when
| Clinton came in to power he brought a strongly anti-labor
| platform to the Dems.
|
| Americans for the most part have not had a labor party to
| oppose management narratives, and don't generally even have
| the common vocabulary to discuss labor issues.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| My father worked for a union bridge building company for 33
| years. He was very pro union. He retired after 33 years
| from a massive heart attack, which was alarmingly common
| for people with his job description. He was still very pro
| union, as his employer left him with little medical debt
| after an extremely expensive heart transplant. However, I
| destincty recall his throwing a magazine across the room
| published by his union when he vehemently disagreed with
| the political stance they took. The stance was very
| liberal, he was very conservative. It's very easy to say
| it's all about race, but when the blue collar workers don't
| feel at all represented by their union what do you expect
| to happen? He didn't feel represented in any way by the
| national union even when we literally said he'd never work
| a day non union in his life. The unions lost support at the
| ground level and never got it back.
| drc500free wrote:
| I think that the Dems decided that their other planks
| (largely racial/identity/cultural) were more important
| than their labor planks. Simultaneously, union workers
| decided that their other political beliefs were more
| important than their labor-related ones. It's hard to
| pick apart which happened first, if either could be said
| to happen first, because each magnified the other in a
| feedback cycle.
|
| The political realignment was rather sudden, and the
| upshot was that the party that previously represented
| labor didn't particularly care about "labor vs
| management" anymore. They cared about equality _within_
| the labor force, which is a totally different thing.
| hourago wrote:
| > even have the common vocabulary to discuss labor issues.
|
| This was one of the warnings of Orwell. A good example is
| how communism and socialism are synonymous for many people
| limiting their capability to discuss social improvements.
| Melatonic wrote:
| There was a huge scandal that basically killed tech unions in
| the US. Big names like Steve Jobs, George Lucas, etc. It also
| killed the chance of a VFX union (at the time VFX and tech
| jobs were basically seen as the same industry).
|
| This is in contrast to the rest of Hollywood which is
| probably one of the best examples of a union success story
| the US has. Every single little niche has its own union
| (Animation Guild, Editors Guild, etc)
|
| This all ended with a huge lawsuit and a (supposedly) massive
| settlement without a court decision. But the end result was
| that the tech unions never formed - the assholes won
| egypturnash wrote:
| I have friends in VFX and in animation, and the VFX friends
| are... less happy than the animators. The animators bitch
| about how the corporations are constantly trying to get one
| person to do the job of two _but the union is constantly
| pushing back_ , the VFX people just accept that shit like
| "oh we didn't get paid for the last month of work because
| the shop closed up" is normal for them.
| Veserv wrote:
| What is the structure of unionized employment where you work?
|
| In particular:
|
| 1. Do you have a choice of union?
|
| 2. Do you in theory have a choice of union even if in
| practice there is only one applicable union?
|
| 3. Can you leave the union/not engage in collective
| bargaining via the union if you believe the union is not
| representing your interests?
|
| 4. Can you in theory form your own union if applicable unions
| do not represent your interests?
|
| From a cursory inspection of the structure of German and
| Swiss trade unions, I believe the answer to all of these
| questions is yes, though I do not have any in-depth or
| firsthand experience indicating the truth of my belief, so it
| would be helpful to get input from someone with firsthand
| experience.
|
| In contrast, based on a more in-depth analysis on the nature
| of legal recognition for unions in the US, in the US the
| answer to all of these questions is no. I hypothesize this
| distinction, assuming it is true, is a key reason for the
| different attitudes towards unions in the US and Europe.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| It's definitely not the norm in _Europe_. A few specific
| countries, maybe.
| wincy wrote:
| Serious question though, what's the pay like for a software
| engineer in Switzerland? The last time I checked it was
| something around half or less of what a software engineer can
| make in a third tier city in the USA. I can deal with not
| being in a union when I make close to three times the average
| cost of living in my area and would be very surprised if a
| union could negotiate a better rate or better working
| conditions as a software engineer.
| danaris wrote:
| So many tech workers bring out this line, that they don't
| think a union could negotiate a better deal for them.
|
| Really? You really think that _you_ are the best negotiator
| out of _everyone_ who could join a union local in your
| area? You really think that _by yourself_ you have more
| leverage than if you were negotiating alongside _everyone
| else_ in a similar position within your company?
|
| You look at the amount, and see that it's good, and you
| make a whole bunch of assumptions founded on stereotypes
| about unions, and come to the conclusion that you are the
| specialest person around...and it's a very seductive thing
| to believe.
|
| But it's just one more way the people making _dozens_ or
| _hundreds_ of times more than you screw you over.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > You really think that you are the best negotiator out
| of everyone who could join a union local in your area?
|
| That's not the sole determining factor. The question is
| not "can someone else do a better job negotiating for
| what I want", the question is " _will_ someone else do a
| better job negotiating for what _I_ want, and will I be
| able to successfully convince _them_ to do so ".
|
| It's valid to ask "does this negotiating body actually
| represent me". Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.
| But it's not reasonable to ignore and dismiss people who
| believe it does not, and who believe they're unlikely to
| be able to change that.
|
| In the context of the article, it sounds like this
| organization is quite likely to represent the goals of
| its members, and I hope that it stays that way.
| kennywinker wrote:
| I think it's just another way of saying they think unions
| level the pay scale (bring up the bottom, bring down the
| top) and they believe they're above the median line.
|
| I'm not sure if that's actually the effect unions have,
| but assuming it is - that position is still so incredibly
| selfish. Even if you are on the high end, you weren't
| aways. Hold the door open for the next generation. Lift
| everybody up. Let everyone get a first helping before you
| go back for seconds.
| thecopy wrote:
| Seems to be around 100-200k https://www.levels.fyi/comp.htm
| l?track=Software%20Engineer&c...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| talk to a twenty year veteran software developer who is
| systematically passed over due to "bad cultural fit" about
| your salary survey.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There are plenty of 50 year old developers I know who are
| VERY actively pursued by recruiters.
|
| Maybe it's because he really is a "bad cultural fit".
|
| Everyone meets an asshole every now and then, if you meet
| assholes all the time, maybe the problem is that you're
| an asshole...
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Like even if this was true in 5% of dysfunctional
| startups, there's a vast pool of mature tech companies
| desperate to hire good developers.
|
| And even beyond that, there is an even larger pool of
| NON-tech companies desperate to hire ANY developer at
| all.
|
| I don't want to pretend that this doesn't happen, and it
| sucks, but this does not block any competent developers
| from software employment.
| soco wrote:
| I make over 140k in Switzerland and I'm definitely no
| genius yet still in demand at over 50. It can be done.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Americans love feeling like they're about to be rich (all
| 300+ million of us), thus unions are bad because they
| redistribute power to the poor.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Is it a feeling of imminent wealth? Or is it a feeling of
| equal opportunity for everyone? It seems disingenuous to
| frame it as "those silly Americans thinking they're about
| to be rich". You might as well frame unions as "protecting
| the most useless employees from being fired".
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| I'm sure its a complex mix of 200+ years of socioeconomic
| development that goes well beyond my glib comment. I do
| really believe there is something to it though and
| understanding American culture (and politics).
| hourago wrote:
| > "protecting the most useless employees from being
| fired"
|
| Unions don't do that, that's pure propaganda. Unions
| bargain for more free time, better pay, better work
| conditions (healthier, safer).
| jimbob45 wrote:
| You're right - unions don't do that. They could be
| incorrectly _perceived_ as doing that though, which is
| the comparison I 'm making to "Americans love feeling
| like they're about to be rich". That's very clearly not
| how Americans feel and framing it that way is pure
| propaganda, as you put it.
| hourago wrote:
| Answering to the wrong comment? I never said that.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| > Unions bargain for more free time, better pay, better
| work conditions (healthier, safer)
|
| They do that AND make it hard to fire useless employees.
| It's a mixed bag, as all organizational layers are.
| juve1996 wrote:
| Meh, useless employees will be there either way, union or
| not. That's just the world.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| You might want to look into the practices of police
| unions. The inability to fire for bad behavior is part of
| why police forces turn into self serving monstrosities.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| It also plays into the whole phenomena where many people
| for some reason would rather ensure one person is
| punished than a hundred helped.
| Melatonic wrote:
| We are all just "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
| after all!
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| We have a very long history of killing each other over
| unions. Union violence has been committed as recent as
| 2018-2021.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S.
| .. / https://listverse.com/2017/09/14/10-tragic-times-the-us-
| gove... / https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/feature
| s/themine... /
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars /
| https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/219
|
| In the 1970's Reagan ushered in an era of busting unions and
| they have been declining ever since. Ironic as Reagan in his
| youth had actually fought _for_ unions.
|
| https://medium.com/the-future-of-labor-unions/ronald-
| reagans... / https://medium.com/the-future-of-labor-
| unions/why-has-union-...
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > We have a very long history of killing each other over
| unions. Union violence has been committed as recent as
| 2018-2021.
|
| Numbers are really, really low here, if you compare them to
| owners' lead violence, especially committed by police.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| baisq wrote:
| QA workers are not tech workers.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I wonder how this will mesh with the microsoft acquisition
| smiddereens wrote:
| bsagdiyev wrote:
| "Update: An Activision Blizzard spokesperson says that the
| company will not willingly recognize GWA Albany."
|
| Gonna go down kicking and screaming instead of just doing better.
| nimbius wrote:
| I work in a union shop, and ive been in shops that have
| unionized.
|
| before the inks dried the company is going to throw every
| single thing they have at you to fight. youll get calls, youll
| get meetings, youll get your hours chopped stretched and moved
| all over the place. management will tell you what youre doing
| is illegal, that they can close the shop and walk away, that
| all your benefits will go away.
|
| and in the end, youll take a 15k raise, pick up some nice new
| PPE, sit at the same table as management and ask them to recall
| why they said all these things that werent true while they tell
| you they do not comment on any prior business conducted outside
| of a union agreement.
|
| our union ended mandatory overtime, slashed shift injuries, got
| healthier vending machines, and got health insurance for
| everyone.
| Ekaros wrote:
| >healthier vending machines?
|
| As in less injuries from them or?
| FrenchDevRemote wrote:
| as in food that won't kill you in the next 20 years I guess
| chrsig wrote:
| or food that hasn't been there for the last 20 years,
| possibly
| ketralnis wrote:
| The vending machines are required to exercise at least 30
| minutes per day
| wccrawford wrote:
| I assume that means foods that aren't just sugar and empty
| calories in general.
| Ekaros wrote:
| That sounds as net negative to me... At least if it
| removed choice.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Sure he got a 15k raise..., but they removed doritos from
| the vending machine.
| Volundr wrote:
| Seems like it's adding choice, once there was only junk,
| now there's some healthier options.
|
| Even if it removed the junk in favor of health food it's
| still the same amount of choice, now it's just the people
| who want junk that have to source it elsewhere instead of
| the people who want healthier options.
| jacobolus wrote:
| If you spend all day eating carrot sticks and peanuts and
| drinking unsweetened iced tea vs. eating Snickers bars
| and Cheetos and drinking Coca Cola (or whatever), after a
| few months you'll see a pretty big difference.
|
| Many people will eat whatever snacks are available
| against their better judgment, and then regret it later.
| Having unhealthy snacks there and in people's faces is a
| kind of psychological manipulation that takes some people
| nontrivial willpower to overcome.
|
| If someone really wants candy bars, they can bring them
| from home.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If someone really wanted healthy options they could have
| brought them from home. No need for unions for that...
| Seems like total overreach to me.
| jacobolus wrote:
| If presenting (the most profitable for the vending
| machine company) choices is the only criterion, we should
| skip foods and just have vending machines that offer porn
| magazines, cigarettes, and hard liquor. Or just install
| slot machines.
| Volundr wrote:
| If people want unhealthy options they can just bring them
| from home as well.
|
| And yeah if the vending machines were the primary reason
| behind unionizing... Probably an overreaction (then again
| I'm not going to tell someone else what should be
| important to them), but in this case it's literally the
| least of the benefits mentioned.
| wccrawford wrote:
| It wasn't that long ago that I've have also been
| disappointed in the change, but today I'd be happy about
| it.
|
| So yeah, so long as there's more options, rather than
| just completely changing everything to be "healthy", I
| think it's an improvement. Otherwise, someone gets the
| shaft.
| [deleted]
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >and in the end, youll take a 15k raise, pick up some nice
| new PPE, sit at the same table as management and ask them to
| recall why they said all these things that werent true while
| they tell you they do not comment on any prior business
| conducted outside of a union agreement.
|
| And all your up and coming young techs you were hoping to
| train into more advanced positions leave to your competitors
| who can actually offer them a quick promotion and raise
| outside of the stupid seniority and job title based system
| the union got you and the workplace steadily inches toward
| "everyone does exactly their job and nothing more" type clock
| punching culture that makes everyone hate work.
|
| Whether the tradeoffs are worth it is an argument I'm willing
| to have. but don't lie to us and act like there's no
| downsides.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> our union ended mandatory overtime, slashed shift
| injuries, got healthier vending machines, and got health
| insurance for everyone.
|
| With perhaps the exception of health care, none of which
| seems relevant to white-collar office workers though.
| badrequest wrote:
| Do you seriously think that _checks notes_ video game QA
| workers are not subject to concepts like mandatory
| overtime?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Insurance companies give discounts for employers that
| institute wellness programs. The healthier food on site is
| part of that.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| The article said 1 of the QA workers' complaints is crunch.
| Crunch is mandatory overtime. And they want to change
| disciplinary processes. Many office workers have fancy
| chairs and so on to prevent injuries. And how are healthier
| snacks and drinks not relevant to office workers?
| superjan wrote:
| Is there any legally valid objection management can make
| against unionizing in the US?
| p4bl0 wrote:
| Congrats!
| sidlls wrote:
| Good for them! If it's anything like EA, their QA workers are
| overburdened and poorly treated.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-20 23:02 UTC)