As a California tech worker (where the article is focused), I have zero interest in joining a union and firmly believe that much of what has been possible as a tech employee (high paying, interesting career) is in part because we don't have unions, and instead employees own equity and get valuable skills.

Modern tech workers arguably have the best career deal in the history of humankind. I see no upside in killing the goose with the golden egg.

Yeah just wait until you get laid off

I've been laid off. It was fine because software is literally the most marketable skill in the world.

Edit: But also, this was a pre-profit VC-backed company. If those companies can't lay people off, it's not like you make good money with more job security. Either the company just has less runway (so I still lose my job, just later and with everyone else) or they adapt by hiring fewer people at lower salaries.

Within the last four years?

It's still not clear to me whether union protection is going to be worth the decrease in job creation. There's a reason Europe has way less IT positions with worse salaries.

Unions don't help with that as can be seen with Volkswagen or much of Detroit.

Or, from an IP-driven industry perspective, the offshoring of Hollywood following the SAG and WGA strikes.

This golden egg has a funny smell. You are exclusively focusing on high paying as interesting is found in many careers. Lots of people don't trade rights for cash. Many prefer a comfortable lifestyle that protects their families and life style, whilst allowing them to just do a fair day's work in exchange for pay. It is far better if people don't feel they need to put in endless hours or always have to please someone to avoid getting fired.

ZIRP era perspective

This article is really about IT support, not "tech" workers.

What tech workers need, if they need anything, is a professional organization like lawyers, doctors, and architects have.

This is essentially a story about front-line traditional desktop support/sysadmins at a public university.

It's not going to be the same story at much higher paid shops where workers often have equity, good benefits, and the market has provided access to other jobs if you lose yours (in my experience, there are still shortages of qualified and competent engineers).

I would like a different method to deal with the pitfalls, but the politics, drama, overhead, and costs of unionization just don't interest me. I'm not interested in being at one job for life.

Financial equity, benefits and opportunities at other companies in my experience are not the determining factors for tech workers. Lack of or loss of self-determination and self-governance are.

The tech workers who are unionized that I know didn't join for financial gain because there is none (except for a few who are bad at bargaining). They joined to exert control over their workplaces and help build companies they can be proud of.

My ask for these is always the same. I just want to see how this union would work, specifically.

Don't compare it to other unions or say it could be like X. Just write a few hundred words on what it would actually be like.

I agree in general, but this article claims that the unionized tech workers now have pay increases, cheaper health benefits, and layoff protections. There is also a discussion about the process. This article at least is not just "unions good" (waves hands).

My experience has been that most tech employees are "exempt" employees, but other than being denied overtime pay, they're mainly treated by employers as non-exempt. Exempt was meant for organizations full of professionals who are generally autonomous, which rarely is the case in tech, especially software development where the micromanagement can be extremely high. Tech workers aren't treated like doctors and lawyers. Employment law shouldn't pretend that they are.

Unionization of the industry is long long overdue, if for no other reason than professional ethics.

A small town lawyer can fuck up paperwork badly enough that they lose their ability to practice law. A software engineer can fry the brains of hundreds of thousands of people and it's all ok so long as they managed to get a few of them to click ads.

It should have the same requirements for personal liability like other professions do.

Nothing wrong with stating the sources up front. They are clearly pro-labour and pro-union. It helps to know where the authors stand. Would you rather the authors were buried under seven layers of shell companies?

I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that an article from jacobin has these biases. Perhaps it is notable because you're so frequently exposed only to billionare and corporate biases.

Well, it's jacobin.com.

For some tech workers maybe but the issue is that for much of vc backed tech work, Marxist analysis a la Jacobin et Al do not work. Marxists delineate the working class from the owning class but in my experience in these vc backed startups and large public companies that come out of them, the working class quickly becomes part of the owning class.

The union would only serve to make sure that transition never took place.

No thanks, I'll take my seven figure options please.

This is not a useful comment, please provide substance that contributes to a fruitful conversation.

This is the absolute last thing that tech needs. What a blow it would be, a nightmare.