Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That solves problems and creates problems.

Many things that are decided today based upon merit or by management discretion become tenure based. That is good and bad.

The good: - Your contract will require things to be done in a fair and equitable way, per the contract. - Your pay will be more predictable. - Benefits will probably be better. - You will have an advocate in the event of a dispute.

The bad: - Your contract will require things to be done in a fair and equitable way, per the contract. - Everyone has an incentive to stick around. - Certain types of people are very good at manipulating systems to their benefit. (This is present in all organizations, but the dynamic is different with a union)

I've worked in union positions in the past. IMO, the best thing about it is that there are no secrets with regard to compensation.



The main "good" bullet point that I think we're missing in tech isn't so much the pay as some sort of collective advocacy on onerous contract provisions. If you're very much in demand, you can cross out parts of your employment contract individually, but it's often hard to individually negotiate those kinds of variances, while lots of people negotiating together could probably get a more reasonable deal.

The alternative is to negotiate really collectively at the government level and outright ban the onerous contract provisions, like California's done with many forms of noncompetes.


You are wrongly assuming that M&P (managerial and professional) unions follow the old craft based union model which no M&P union does.


I was a member of such a union, and when the rubber hits the road, seniority rules.

I'm not anti-union either. If you're in a big multinational company, they are almost almost certainly better than not having a union.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: