I agree wholeheartedly that collective action is how we stop balancing poor management on the backs of engineers, but good luck getting other engineers to see it that way. There's heaps of propaganda out there telling engineers that if they join a union their high salary will go away, even though unions have never been shown to reduce wages.
I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me.
I also think people here misunderstand what unions do. Unions are inherently conservative (small c) institutions that aim to protect the status quo. Improving processes is not a fundamental goal to unions. We saw this with the ILA that fought to essentially ban automation in the ports that would drastically increase efficiency because of the belief that this would reduce union jobs. It's foolish to think software unions wouldn't end up becoming like this.
I'd rather have the protections for my working conditions than worrying about whether my co-workers are contributing enough to the company's bottom line but maybe that makes me an outlier here.
I'd say it does. I take pride and meaning in working. Life's too short to not care about a thing you do 8 hours a day. And bad colleagues doesn't just include people not contributing enough.
> I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me.
In MANY other countries there is already WAY more regulations regarding layoffs and firing employees that has nothing to do with unions.
In Germany there is a probationary period in which you can just fire somebody for no reason basically. That time can be like half a year (in my case) and in most cases it becomes clear if the new hire fits your team or doesn't.
All unrelated to unions though. The big unions in Germany for example have a lot of power and if you are just a simple welder for example you'd have no chance getting anything done without a union.
When your scope is Europe ... The US is not the exception in the world, it's Europe which is.
The US has a dynamic job market where it's easy to lose your job, but easy to find another one. In Europe, and that's true for most EU countries, it's really hard to lose your job, but it's also really hard to get one for the very reason it's hard to get fired - and when you get a job, you will have to compromise on compensation and other benefits. It's not black and white here. While the European market is appealing to some people, the US market is preferable to others.
> It's not black and white here. While the European market is appealing to some people, the US market is preferable to others.
I agree with that, it's a very individual topic. I'd say for high paying "high performance" jobs the US model definitely has an advantage but for low-wage jobs it's quite the opposite.
Counterpoint: Denmark has something called Flexcurity: "flexible" + "security". Basically, it means you can hire and fire more easily than traditional socialist market economies. There is a good social safety net, but it is (somewhat) time constrained to pressure people to return to work quickly.
To be clear, the modern programme started in the 1990s. That makes it about 30 years old. If it had major problems, I assume they would be fixed by now.
Re-reading your comment again, I'm not sure that I understand it: "Let's see whether Denmark remains competitive." What do you mean?
Did they vote left? And that's the same left pushing over and over the Chat Control? That's an interesting twist if it turns out it's not always the right wing trying to undermine privacy rights.
She is the European Commission president, that's unrelated.
But that made me curious, and answering my own question, it's this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hummelgaard who is indeed a Social Democrat .. So much about workers rights, funny ...
I've worked places that refuse to fire low performers and its hard for it to not be toxic. I'm not saying this outcome is a forgone conclusion of unions, but my union experience is that poor performers take even longer to get rid of and I'm not sure I would be interested in that sort of environment again. This is more of an implementation problem than philosophical, but theoretically good and practically bad is still just bad.
Until healthcare and housing aren't tied to employment, making it easier to fire people will always be the monstrous position. If you want firing people with abandon to be socially acceptable then you need a public safety net. Until that's in place, I'm always going to be on the side of labor organizations demanding dignity than the people destroying lives.
How do you feel about consensual relationships? I don't impose myself on my employer, we have a mutual and consensual relationship. I don't understand, what do you want peoples material resources tied to if not their own assets?
My relationship with my employer is coercive, not consensual. They have something I need in order to survive. If I leave it will have deleterious effects on the quality of my life. You could make the argument that they are not the ones coercing me, society is or something, but I do not associate with them freely.
This was even more apparent before the ACA passed, when insurance providers were not prevented from denying or charging more for customers with pre-existing conditions. Hate your job but have cancer? Better not leave, you might not even be able to get insured at your next job.
You don't have to fire "low performers" you just have to be realistic about their skillsets and use them that way.
If you see an engineer is out of his depth then change his position, no need to fire them since like others have pointed out, that can have severe consequences in their personal lives and most of the time they can still be useful if they get more adequate work.
My hunch is that software engineers are averse to unions because they correctly perceive that unions are a wide angle away from the type of professional organization that would be most beneficial to them. The industry is sufficiently different that the normal union model is just not very good and has a 'square leg round hole' feeling.
For instance by and large the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities... Wasted work, lack of forethought, bad management, arbitrary layoffs, etc. So it is much more about governing management with good practices than about keeping wages up; at least for now wages are generally high anyway.
there are also reasons to dedend jobs/wages in the face of e.g. outsourcing... But it's almost like a separate problem. Maybe there needs to be both a union and a uncoupled professional standard or something?
what type of professional organization is most beneficial? Standards are already out there, but they need a union or government regulation to be enforced. Devs who want real change need to pick their medicine, or continue to let the industry stagnate.
>the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities
agreed. And I think that's why it's going to really start taking hold as we enter year 4 of mass layoffs in the US (because outsourcing). Alongside overwork from the "survivors" and abusive PIPs to keep people on edge.
> year 4 of mass layoffs in the US (because outsourcing)
A lot of the layoffs appear to be about conserving cash for investment in AI. In many cases the jobs that are cut are not backfilled by workers in the US or abroad.
It's wild to claim that the industry is stagnating. By any objective measure the industry is larger, more influential, and more innovative than ever before. Perhaps the problems that people are complaining about here just don't matter very much?
I take it you have a good reputation and a network then. It is getting increasingly difficult to get hired lately, even as a senior. At least in the EU.
It's a shame how the EU has sabotaged their own software industry through a mix of excessive regulation, misguided labor protections, and failure to develop broad capital markets. It's like they're collectively choosing to be poor and backward. I can't understand it.
I can't understand it either. To me it seems people are excessively risk-averse. I can understand that but I don't understand the leadership not trying to stimulate a little bit of risk and growth there. It's getting to absurd levels at places.
But regardless. Not like USA companies are open to EU citizens currently. Whether it's politics, compliance / legal, or tax-related, it does not matter much. Most US job ads I've seen lately are making it super clear that they want only US citizens.
Pick any measure you like: total employment, revenue, patents, new venture formation, products shipped, etc. There are fluctuations from year to year due to the business cycle but overall the trend is up.
Guess that's why gamedev is the one region where this is really starting to gain momentum. High salaries were already not a thing, and tend to mean nothing if you're laid off after 3 years of development for the release of a new game.
Though I think Gen Z in general will be making waves in the coming years. They can't even get a foot in the door, so why should they care about "high salaries"?
People aren't going to try to wrest control from management because some project is going off the rails. No one has any particular faith their coworkers will run anything better, and the pay checks show up regardless.
How about licensure and liability instead? That’s the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the rest of the engineering world. Sure it’s a guild system with a new name, but if the bridge collapses, somebody is going to be in a courtroom.
Customers are free to demand that software vendors take liability for certain defects or failures as part of contract negotiation. There's no need for governments to get involved.
For software that's actually safety critical, like avionics, there are already sufficient regulatory controls.
Actually it is necessary. That’s why your bridge engineer has to satisfy a licensing board that he or she knows what they’re doing before they seal a set of plans. Clients can’t distinguish good from bad engineering. They shouldn’t have to figure out if you know what you’re doing.
Actually it isn't necessary. Unlike bridges, very little software is safety critical. Clients don't need to try to distinguish good from bad software development, they can just require a certain level of performance and reliability in the contract with clear financial penalties for failure.
A union might help improve wages and working conditions in some organizations (although I personally wouldn't want one). But there is zero chance that a union could ever achieve widespread improvement in software architecture, methodologies, or project management. We don't have much consensus on the right way to do things, and what worked well in one circumstance often causes disaster in another.
I don't think unions are the right thing here, you just need to get together as a team and talk with your higher ups, that's a far smaller scope than where unions normally come in.
But I totally agree, I think people are too compliant and fear banding together to have influence on higher ups. I'd argue in most places the engineers have far more power than they realize since they are in high demand due to shortages of qualified personnel. (at least in many countries in Europe)
There are tons of factors in play though that I believe contribute to this like some employees being friends with their higher ups not wanting to hurt their careers, not wanting the tough discussions, the repercussions if management says "no" etc..
"Just". Come on, man, you know better than that. I too like my sci-fi to be over the top unrealistic.
Truth is, nobody ever thinks about their rights before it's too late. The paycheck shows up on time every month and people just don't want to rock the boat. Not to mention all the opportunists that will tell on you immediately to gain the favor of the upper class.
These things are well-known and apparently nothing ever changes before the guillotines start working. I don't think anything will ever improve in our area. Nobody is bothered. The people who are have zero power. And so it goes.
The "just" was more in the sense that it technically is not that hard to get together, there is nothing directly preventing that.
I honestly think it's just people who don't mind these problems and are fine working under those conditions, or they just quit once they are too annoyed. Change is way harder just than just leaving, I think that's also part of the reason why this keeps going on.
Absolutely not, barely anyone is okay with it -- only the most naive and fresh of young workforce, and then not even half of them by my observations chatting with many people 20+ years younger than me. It's just that people have too much at stake to risk it. Families, mortgage, basic respectful existence even. Nobody wants to live under a bridge.
It's extremely sad. I did not want to live in such times but oh well, good thing anyone asked us, right?
