We believe that employees should come together and clearly define the values and policies they'd like to see their companies uphold. A tech union isn't the perfect metaphor for this, but it's not far off.
If it's going to do anything but be window dressing then it needs to have the teeth of union - so just call it what it is.
I've argued for a while that tech workers need a union, but the chorus on HN and other places is "we're too special for a union." Which is bogus on it's face - otherwise SAG for example wouldn't exist.
If this moves the needle on a union then great, but I'm wary of the source being a pure power move (which all unions are - rightfully). I think whomever leads this needs to be above reproach in every sense as an advocate for the tiny introverted developer.
edit: I should note that the reason SAG worked is because some of the highest profile actors joined in the early days and arranged to collectively bargain for the rest of the group. It will probably work best if you get the top 50 most high profile developers (Eg. Carmack) to join and then advocate for the small guy. Sadly, in reality, a union is only as good as it's most high profile members.
> If it's going to do anything but be window dressing then it needs to have the teeth of union - so just call it what it is.
This sounds like it's going to have exactly zero to do with what a labor union would normally be concerned with -- pay, working conditions, etc. Instead, I have a strong suspicion this is going to be some sort of enumeration of the progressive ideals that all tech workers "should" be concerned with, as dictated by a group of Bay Area tech workers. Namely, LGBT stuff, female and minority representation, immigrant's rights, etc.
My main objection to unions is that, once they're in a company, employees lose the right to negotiate their own compensation. I want to be able to skip my union dues and deal directly with the company. OR I want to be able to make a union of my own, especially for a functional or values-based subset of coworkers, and have us negotiate separately.
This is not just a tech-unions-related complaint, this is a critique of unions as a whole. But yeah.
I think that tech workers are in a special place because we have a lot of disposable income. I've gotten over my college-era "can't pay for anything" attitude, and I'm willing to pay for content that could be gotten for free. Entertainment was the first one, but now I'm also supporting some people on patreon and donating to causes. We don't need a union to drive that-- we can just remind tech workers that if we all donate a little, we can make big changes.
What's in a name? Lawyers and doctors have unions, but they're called associations, but there's a test, with the full force of the law, for doctoring or lawyering without having passed their respective tests. Github's 'like' button has proved that we developers are just as vain (and lazy) as the next human, so I feel this has more of a chance to succeeded if we recognize that. Some of us take pride in thinking that we are better than plumbers, despite most of us merely being the digital equivalent.
I agree with the what (I think) the parent post is getting at: if you're going to form a union, form a union. As in, a labour monopoly. This might sound radical, but I think there is good reason for developers and tech workers to consider this.
There are strong network effects and nearly unlimited economies of scale in most tech markets. In these cases, given enough time, the end result will be a monopsonist employer.[0] This results in lower employment, lower wages and, ultimately, the replacement of labour with additional accumulated capital (e.g. ML algos) and/or cheaper substitute labour (e.g. imported foreign workers). Even in cases where there are a few large firms in competition (e.g. Google and Apple), they will have incentive to collude and make illegal agreements on hiring practices, wage ceilings etc (and there have been documented instances of this).[1][2]
The logical way for software developers to avoid exploitation is to form a labour monopoly (i.e. a union or a guild).
I've noticed some interesting features of the software development labour market: quite a lot of the work is creative in nature, you produce non-rivalrous products (i.e. my consumption of 'software x' does not block someone else's consumption), and the workforce is supposedly peppered with unusually talented individuals who produce 50-100x the value that the average worker does.
There are two other industries that have similar features: traditional screen entertainment (TV & Movie), and professional sports leagues. In both of these industries, the content producing workers (baseball players, actors) are invariably a member of an industry guild or union, and they operate more like independent contractors than employees.
I have to wonder if this isn't an attempt to co-opt the movement started by @TechSolidarity / Maciej.
I also think -- particularly if the HN audience is in any way representative -- that engineering in particular is far too deeply bought into the narrative of the rights of capital owners to unionize. Much like America, we think we're all temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I'm well aware unions aren't perfect. But they are a countervailing center of power who work for employees. The relationship between the employeed and the employers is a fundamentally contentious relationship: sometimes your incentives align, but often they don't. See eg things like the option trap vs 10 year exercise periods, or even founders getting millions of cash off the table while employees get $0. Much like how VCs can whine all they want, founders get better deals because of economic forces such as decreased engineering costs from open source software and better tooling, more capital seeking investment, etc; employee unions are a way to better the outcome of the employees themselves.
It's interesting because it would need to have the teeth of a union yes, but unlike unions of the past that lobbied for better wages and working conditions, what is being proposed is a union to ensure their company does what the workers feel is morally right for the world (not necessarily their customers, but the greater community of people affected by each companies goals and purposes).
I'm trying to figure out why a tech worker union would want to sidle up to, say, YC. As someone who spent a few years as part of the Canadian Autoworkers Union, management were adversaries, not partners. Are the bourgeoisie trying to get out in front of this thing?
it's odd the tech community in sv wouldn't want a union. i mean the tech alone is already attracting top talent imagine what a decent union would do. people from all over would be like omg they work normal hours and have decent benefits and they get to work at these huge companies and they're protected by a union damn
but the execs are waiting for most of us to be replaced by the algos we're writing before that happens so who knows
Who is the "we" he's speaking to here? I know that Twitter and HN, i.e. the generic internet, are the only places Sam and I typically might cross paths, so who is the community he's speaking for? Gavin de Becker and "forced teaming" comes to mind.
Is this YC trying to stay on top of the tech activism bubbling in various corners these days? He doesn't say, the entire post is expressed as self-evident, which makes me think his (et al) motivation is competitively strategic, and specifically political. Vagueness is construed against the writer, especially when it's intentional.
If he is indeed speaking to the DSA and ersatz-unionization ideas floating around, why not join forces with people who are already working on this? Fragmentation? Disruption? Narratology?
We’d also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country
Evergreen take, but you still can't solve a people problem with technology.
"Sam Altman, Debra Cleaver, Matt Krisiloff". They sign the post.
>I know that Twitter and HN, i.e. the generic internet, are the only places Sam and I typically might cross paths, so who is the community he's speaking for?
There's already a solution for this - worker ownership of companies with corresponding democratic rights.
We've just emerged from an era where benevolent tech companies were supposed to stand up for us and reflect our values. Instead, they put on a polite face, said the right words to us, and then did whatever served their interests irrespective of our concerns. Repeating this scenario is foolish and only going to worsen the situation.
I like the fictional future on Mars in the Kim Stanley Robinson novels where there are no companies, but co-ops. Your time goes into the co-op and everyone owns a portion of that for life.
This is a greater dramatic shift and I'm not sure if we'll see it in our lifetimes, but it would be nice that, even that first high school job at a cinema would earn you shares in that company equal to the time you put in, for life. In some ways, that would make more sense than basic minimum income.
Tech workers are as disparate and varied as non-tech workers...
There is a hierarchy and I think it is unlikely we will see common ground emerge. Survival of the fittest and the best will still win the day. Just like the labor unions of the industrial era, efforts like this are doomed to be spikes of ideology rife with the same contradictions of those it proposes to keep in check.
Some tech workers run multimillion dollar businesses and some push bits around for them in the wee hours of the morning for much less.
Some have PhDs in category theory and write Haskell on a multiple 6 figure salary in finance and some maintain dated ruby on rails systems they didn't write for much less.
Some roll around on scooters in data centers putting out real fires in environments that need high availability. Others spend their days upgrading old versions of windows in small town school districts.
The same divides that existed before the internet will follow us. Nothing new here. Work hard, strive to get to the top, and hang on. Unions are not the answer. Darwin always wins the day.
Exactly. This post is founded on so many bad assumptions..
We'd also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country.
Why _shouldn't_ there be divides in our country? Which divide is being referred to? Religious? Political? Net worth? Productivity? Persuasion?
Why assume differences need "healed?" Why this constant, desperate push for homogeneity?
Why can't people simply be different, and have conflicting opinions and worldviews? Why can't these disagreements, alongside of passionate debate, be lauded and encouraged instead of shamed?
Why can't people simply not like one another sometimes, without needing "healed"?
Tech workers have something so much better than that. Freedom. If you do not like the values of the current company find a new one or start one.
Mob rule knows no fairness. When your ideas are vague, people fill them up with their version of fairness. Employees who are just starting out do not know anything about making sacrifices to build something bigger than themselves. If they collectively form a gang and override the will of the founders and investors who made more sacrifices, it drains the spirit of the individual to risk their time and savings to start something new.
People are free to organize their efforts but it takes founders and their sacrifices to make things happen. This collective power should embrace ideas of fairness and voluntarism instead of laws and force to get their way.
You could make the same argument about most engineering disciplines. Yet other engineers have unions, because historically they've had unions and they've worked out well. The only reason that software engineering unions aren't common is because we didn't adopt them at the beginning.
Quick reminder that unions are the reason that many of the benefits you have in the workplace today are standardised across the workforce -- a union that has teeth can actually make a difference to your employer's actions.
> it takes founders and their sacrifices to make things happen
I believe that in many cases, the very first employees are equally responsible for the success of a company. I think this is especially true for tech companies founded by non-engineers.
This is a pretty bizarre and direct ripoff of pinboard's Tech Solidarity, except run by The Man and they'll "select" who's allowed to attend. Classless and tone-deaf would be charitable interpretation.
As someone who knows little about Tech Solidarity, other than what's shown on their site, it seems like they're a bit different. Sam's group is a little more pointed in the direction of promoting the broader tech community's values into a company, and Tech Solidarity seems to be more about connecting developers to their community and supporting that interaction.
Because it means de-emphasizing individuals by merging them into a group with one unified set of values.
This necessarily means erasing the voices of people who hold minority positions in that group.
It has every potential to be another place where those with the most time to burn, the most anger, and the most refined ideological weaponry grab power over those with minority viewpoints or healthy self-doubt.
Unions are supposed to fight for the thing the workers definitely have in common - their direct economic interests. Lashing that union structure to entirely different political fights invites the above kinds of problems.
"We’d also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country. [...] We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create."
Easy as could be: switch to the other side
"We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans"
Probably step #1 is to hire Americans.
"by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country and other measures. [...] We are planning to hold a meeting on the evening of April 9th in the Bay Area."
Oops. To fix, move the meeting to one of the following: Wyoming, Oklahoma, northern Texas excluding Dallas, Alabama excluding Huntsville, Georgia excluding Atlanta, West Virginia, Tennessee, Montana...
> We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create.
I guarantee this is code for "we think Trump wouldn't have been elected if he couldn't use Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook. Let's figure out how to make that possible."
When you claim all of our thoughts on and off the clock, you encourage us to avoid creatively-fulfilling ventures, burn out, and leave for greener pastures.
It's good that Altman recognizes that something needs to be done here. Something does need to happen.
However: Altman is a business owner and an executive. I don't think he can coordinate the solution. The kernel of the issue here is the disengagement rank-and-file employees have from the public policy implications of their work. Employees don't need permission from owners and managers to be accountable for those implications. The widespread, implicit belief among the rank-and-file that they do need permission is the first obstacle that we need to address.
Rather than staging meetings and attempting to help shape the outcome, Altman and other executives should encourage their employees to work amongst themselves. Getting directly involved, however, is problematic, and I think owners and executives should probably avoid doing that.
I'd suggest that, if your net worth exceeds a million dollars and your entire income/value is derived from the current startup trends embodied by YC, you are uniquely unqualified to start talking about helping workers.
sama is a leader in the class of the exploiters, and crowdwashing like this won't change anything.
From the earlier sama post, What I Heard From Trump Supporters:
> Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter.
..
> We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create.
Are tech employees the correct population to attempt to bridge a political divide? I'm not convinced that's the case.
And how do they propose reducing polarization of strongly held beliefs? Forcing one side, or the other, or both.. to abandon those beliefs? Forced non-diversity of thought?
"Tech companies are very receptive to their employees' influence. We believe that employees should come together and clearly define the values and policies they'd like to see their companies uphold."
Maybe he should replace "employee" with "investor" and start working on that? In the end it's the investors that force companies to make money at any cost.
> We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country ...
From what I can tell, this doesn't really line up with the location and remote-friendliness of YC companies. Most seem to be in the Bay Area and few that I can tell allow remote engineers, managers, or execs.
Sorry, but being an Instacart delivery person in Dallas isn't a high-paying technology job.
I have no clue what he's talking about, and what it sounds like he's saying makes me a little angry.
- Unions are a force to protect the 99% from the corruption of the 1%. They are not a force to drive a liberal agenda, though by protecting the little guy they may indirectly align.
- Increasing competition by getting more people into coding (be them from outside the country or from outside of cities) is the exact opposite of what a union would do. It would drive down wages for the skilled workers that investors are getting rich off of.
- Technology making peoples lives worse is the fault of a combination of capitalism and the fact that CEOs and investors are more motivated by adding 0s to their bank account than anything as nebulous as "good." Why should tech workers risk their jobs to force the hand of the companies they work at?
- Is he talking about automation taking jobs? Because the profit from the concentration of wealth again is at the hands of the 1% and .1%. Unless he's saying tech workers need to pass the buffet rule, or tech workers need to refuse to work at companies that don't give enough equity then I don't see how the average tech worker is the solution to the wealth being drawn away from the average citizen (who can't afford $500 in an emergency) into an investor's portfolio....
The same forces that have killed unions in the US will kill this. As long as labor can be shipped to areas of the world with a lower quality of life, they will do so. Lower level tech positions like tech support have already been shipped overseas, and once countries like India and China develop the infrastructure to take higher level tech jobs, they will go there too.
If we want to protect our workers, our labor laws, and our standard of living, we have to stop globalization.
1. "Overseas" is a curious definition. Linux was written in Finland, after all. Would blocking US workers from aiding Finnish technology have been productive?
2. Can it be stopped? If US companies refuse to work with Indian or Chinese employees, what is preventing India or China from out-competing the US company in the international market? If the US places tariffs on technology products and services from other countries, what is preventing those other countries from outpacing our standard of living?
As members of the community, we're interested in ways in which tech companies can use their collective power to protect privacy, rule of law, freedom of expression, and other fundamental American rights
And this:
We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create.
are not really compatible. People from Red America already aren't welcome in tech (I am from Red America). This makes polarization worse by creating yet another filter bubble. Making tech companies into even more explicit vehicles for progressive activism might be a good thing on balance, but it won't help with polarization. Pick one.
At least the words are compatible, though the intent is probably not. Red America is perfectly happy to "protect privacy, rule of law, freedom of expression, and other fundamental American rights", and would love to "reduce the polarization".
Let's start with the easy one, polarization: that gets reduced if the tech industry accepts Red America values. Well? It works. It is a solution to polarization. Problem solved.
Red America is fond of privacy. FYI, the recent ISP thing isn't going over well with non-politicians. When gun registrations were published in a newspaper, that didn't go over too well. Opposition to stuff like home/family/schooling inspections (kid-related government agencies) is intense in Red America.
Red America loves the rule of law. You can tell that Trump has disappointed them on this when they chant "LOCK HER UP" and he evades the issue. Red America prefers that the constitution be interpreted very literally, using the actual text, with the meanings of words as they were in the English language at the time they were written.
Red America accepts freedom of expression even when they don't like it very much. It wasn't Red America that violently shut down Milo's speech. That was all blue.
Red America is obviously fond of other fundamental American rights. When the ACLU counts to ten, they do this: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (skipping the amendment they don't like)
These recent interviews with Alan Kay [1][2] cover this topic from a perspective I find valuable. In addition, there are many other relevant presentations he has made and in which he presents his own perspectives and points to the ideas of others like Douglas Englebart, Neil Postman, Seymor Papert, Marshall McLuhan, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Paine [3]
Lots of focus in the comments here, on the Unions aspect of this post, but Sam leads with how it's "tech companies" who have the power and responsibility to change things. And then follows up saying that unions might be a good way to make companies beholden to popular belief.
This is mostly bullshit. Instead of putting the honus on the executives and VC's who define the growth-first business models, it's somehow the responsibility of their employees to wield the power of a tech company responsibly? To shape the direction of a company?
Maybe in a round-about way, Sam is saying that unions are the only way to responsibly limit the power of tech companies' leadership. But make no mistake, the responsibility for the power of technology falls directly in the laps of a company's leaders.
"We’d also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country. We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country and other measures."
Isn't the elephant in the room extreme capitalism? Tech is just accelerating it.
Perhaps the alternative is workers managing their own workplaces:
Every time the idea of a tech workers' union is brought up, the same tired criticisms of organized labor are brought up again and again.
Do people forget that this industry is built upon the ideal of innovation? Why can't we build a new type of union that fixes the bugs that prior unions suffered? Why can't we experiment and find new solutions? Why can't we disrupt the relationship between capital and labor?
The notion that unions are somehow inherently unworkable flies in the face of everything that the tech industry stands for.
A Tech Union is a great idea, starting with Bay Area employees banding together for higher equity at startups. If VC-funded startups suddenly couldn't hire their first employees for 1% equity (against the founders' 50-70%) then we'd see fairer payouts for successful startups.
We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country and other measures
I believe this is key. Technology does not have to be binded to one or a few locations. If tech could once again try to be spread across other cities and states that will be good for everyone. It will be good for remote work, cost of living, people will support tech growth more nationwide, there will be new ideas that might not emerge in a tech hotspot and not everyone will have to move to one place which is really a single point of failure.
> We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country and other measure
While an obvious positive, this completely ignores the fact that these higher salaries are precisely because we write software that increases efficiency over what a handful of humans can do. So while there is an increase in high paying jobs, there is inevitably a decrease in many more low paying jobs (short-term at least, likely long-term unless we learn how to re-train people better)
I both like the idea of unions on the one hand (have greater group self-determination) but on the other hand it can lead to ossification and ultimately our own demise (through complacency, irrelevancy, protectionism, etc.)
I do like the idea of spreading the wealth to other parts of the country, especially those that are hit hardest by the changing characteristics of the economy --people we often forget, hollowed out industrial cities, forgotten rural areas, etc.
I would love participate in this event and I believe this effort may be an important step in moving us towards ethical software. Unfortunately, despite having a fairly unique and well-suited pedigree to contribute, I live a good thousand miles away.
Would there be an opportunity for individuals not located in the Bay Area to attend, provide commentary on meeting notes, or somehow participate without being present locally?
There used to be tech in interior California which is an inexpensive area. Sierra Online/Sierra Entertainment was a notable example. The Grass Valley Group was another.
Paul Graham's "How To a Silicon Valley" [0] has the best recommendations I've seen.
Should this have some sort of warning attached? I'm not sure every company will like having their (unauthorized) employees defining their policies and values. A common controversy with unions, especially when they're forming, is employer discrimination against participants.
It's pretty much the nature of tech hiring to select the most elite candidates from around the world. Distributing the offices through Rust Belt exurbs does not mean tech jobs for laid-off steelworkers in Rust Belt exurbs.
While it may not mean jobs for laid off rust belt workers if there were a number of tech workers living in the rust belt they would spend most of their salary in the rust belt which could very well lead to jobs in other sectors in the region.
One way to start "spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country" would be to advocate for distributing H1-B jobs via auction, rather than lottery. Perhaps the union could work on this!
Out of the whole agenda, privacy is the only item for which it matters at all that we're in tech. Everything else seems to be things he hopes wealthy people in any booming industry care about.
"What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The masters upon these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the necessity superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders."
-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776. Book I, Chapter VIII, "On the Wages of Labour".
Sorry for digressing from the main intent of the post, but I find it a little odd when in 2017, someone uses the term "worker" to describe me. I try to be definitely more than just that to my team and my organization. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it just feels weird.
AndrewKemendo|9 years ago
If it's going to do anything but be window dressing then it needs to have the teeth of union - so just call it what it is.
I've argued for a while that tech workers need a union, but the chorus on HN and other places is "we're too special for a union." Which is bogus on it's face - otherwise SAG for example wouldn't exist.
If this moves the needle on a union then great, but I'm wary of the source being a pure power move (which all unions are - rightfully). I think whomever leads this needs to be above reproach in every sense as an advocate for the tiny introverted developer.
edit: I should note that the reason SAG worked is because some of the highest profile actors joined in the early days and arranged to collectively bargain for the rest of the group. It will probably work best if you get the top 50 most high profile developers (Eg. Carmack) to join and then advocate for the small guy. Sadly, in reality, a union is only as good as it's most high profile members.
xienze|9 years ago
This sounds like it's going to have exactly zero to do with what a labor union would normally be concerned with -- pay, working conditions, etc. Instead, I have a strong suspicion this is going to be some sort of enumeration of the progressive ideals that all tech workers "should" be concerned with, as dictated by a group of Bay Area tech workers. Namely, LGBT stuff, female and minority representation, immigrant's rights, etc.
civilian|9 years ago
This is not just a tech-unions-related complaint, this is a critique of unions as a whole. But yeah.
I think that tech workers are in a special place because we have a lot of disposable income. I've gotten over my college-era "can't pay for anything" attitude, and I'm willing to pay for content that could be gotten for free. Entertainment was the first one, but now I'm also supporting some people on patreon and donating to causes. We don't need a union to drive that-- we can just remind tech workers that if we all donate a little, we can make big changes.
fragmede|9 years ago
The G in SAG doesn't stand for union.
spangry|9 years ago
There are strong network effects and nearly unlimited economies of scale in most tech markets. In these cases, given enough time, the end result will be a monopsonist employer.[0] This results in lower employment, lower wages and, ultimately, the replacement of labour with additional accumulated capital (e.g. ML algos) and/or cheaper substitute labour (e.g. imported foreign workers). Even in cases where there are a few large firms in competition (e.g. Google and Apple), they will have incentive to collude and make illegal agreements on hiring practices, wage ceilings etc (and there have been documented instances of this).[1][2]
The logical way for software developers to avoid exploitation is to form a labour monopoly (i.e. a union or a guild).
I've noticed some interesting features of the software development labour market: quite a lot of the work is creative in nature, you produce non-rivalrous products (i.e. my consumption of 'software x' does not block someone else's consumption), and the workforce is supposedly peppered with unusually talented individuals who produce 50-100x the value that the average worker does.
There are two other industries that have similar features: traditional screen entertainment (TV & Movie), and professional sports leagues. In both of these industries, the content producing workers (baseball players, actors) are invariably a member of an industry guild or union, and they operate more like independent contractors than employees.
Food for thought.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Welfare_implications
[1] https://www.cnet.com/au/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
amorphid|9 years ago
x0x0|9 years ago
I also think -- particularly if the HN audience is in any way representative -- that engineering in particular is far too deeply bought into the narrative of the rights of capital owners to unionize. Much like America, we think we're all temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I'm well aware unions aren't perfect. But they are a countervailing center of power who work for employees. The relationship between the employeed and the employers is a fundamentally contentious relationship: sometimes your incentives align, but often they don't. See eg things like the option trap vs 10 year exercise periods, or even founders getting millions of cash off the table while employees get $0. Much like how VCs can whine all they want, founders get better deals because of economic forces such as decreased engineering costs from open source software and better tooling, more capital seeking investment, etc; employee unions are a way to better the outcome of the employees themselves.
cholantesh|9 years ago
djsumdog|9 years ago
bigtimeidiot|9 years ago
I'm trying to figure out why a tech worker union would want to sidle up to, say, YC. As someone who spent a few years as part of the Canadian Autoworkers Union, management were adversaries, not partners. Are the bourgeoisie trying to get out in front of this thing?
unknown|9 years ago
[deleted]
debt|9 years ago
but the execs are waiting for most of us to be replaced by the algos we're writing before that happens so who knows
paulddraper|9 years ago
rhizome|9 years ago
Is this YC trying to stay on top of the tech activism bubbling in various corners these days? He doesn't say, the entire post is expressed as self-evident, which makes me think his (et al) motivation is competitively strategic, and specifically political. Vagueness is construed against the writer, especially when it's intentional.
If he is indeed speaking to the DSA and ersatz-unionization ideas floating around, why not join forces with people who are already working on this? Fragmentation? Disruption? Narratology?
We’d also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country
Evergreen take, but you still can't solve a people problem with technology.
coldtea|9 years ago
"Sam Altman, Debra Cleaver, Matt Krisiloff". They sign the post.
>I know that Twitter and HN, i.e. the generic internet, are the only places Sam and I typically might cross paths, so who is the community he's speaking for?
The tech community.
alphonsegaston|9 years ago
We've just emerged from an era where benevolent tech companies were supposed to stand up for us and reflect our values. Instead, they put on a polite face, said the right words to us, and then did whatever served their interests irrespective of our concerns. Repeating this scenario is foolish and only going to worsen the situation.
djsumdog|9 years ago
This is a greater dramatic shift and I'm not sure if we'll see it in our lifetimes, but it would be nice that, even that first high school job at a cinema would earn you shares in that company equal to the time you put in, for life. In some ways, that would make more sense than basic minimum income.
throwaway29292|9 years ago
-companies violate privacy rights to gather more big data
-more data translates to more investment (I'm seeing this happen at my current company right now)
-VCs, who are the top of the food chain, are the ones pushing for higher returns (like any rational actor would do)
-then shouldn't the government step in and regulate this area?
Define standards that would limit the amount of funding/valuation based on 'user as product'?
csneeky|9 years ago
There is a hierarchy and I think it is unlikely we will see common ground emerge. Survival of the fittest and the best will still win the day. Just like the labor unions of the industrial era, efforts like this are doomed to be spikes of ideology rife with the same contradictions of those it proposes to keep in check.
Some tech workers run multimillion dollar businesses and some push bits around for them in the wee hours of the morning for much less.
Some have PhDs in category theory and write Haskell on a multiple 6 figure salary in finance and some maintain dated ruby on rails systems they didn't write for much less.
Some roll around on scooters in data centers putting out real fires in environments that need high availability. Others spend their days upgrading old versions of windows in small town school districts.
The same divides that existed before the internet will follow us. Nothing new here. Work hard, strive to get to the top, and hang on. Unions are not the answer. Darwin always wins the day.
Danihan|9 years ago
We'd also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country.
Why _shouldn't_ there be divides in our country? Which divide is being referred to? Religious? Political? Net worth? Productivity? Persuasion?
Why assume differences need "healed?" Why this constant, desperate push for homogeneity?
Why can't people simply be different, and have conflicting opinions and worldviews? Why can't these disagreements, alongside of passionate debate, be lauded and encouraged instead of shamed?
Why can't people simply not like one another sometimes, without needing "healed"?
brandonmenc|9 years ago
Yes, he should visit the rust belt (where I grew up) some time - there are gasp actual programmers making decent money there!
And a whole lot of people who are just never, ever going to be able to learn how to code.
plainOldText|9 years ago
yanilkr|9 years ago
Mob rule knows no fairness. When your ideas are vague, people fill them up with their version of fairness. Employees who are just starting out do not know anything about making sacrifices to build something bigger than themselves. If they collectively form a gang and override the will of the founders and investors who made more sacrifices, it drains the spirit of the individual to risk their time and savings to start something new.
People are free to organize their efforts but it takes founders and their sacrifices to make things happen. This collective power should embrace ideas of fairness and voluntarism instead of laws and force to get their way.
cyphar|9 years ago
Quick reminder that unions are the reason that many of the benefits you have in the workplace today are standardised across the workforce -- a union that has teeth can actually make a difference to your employer's actions.
plainOldText|9 years ago
I believe that in many cases, the very first employees are equally responsible for the success of a company. I think this is especially true for tech companies founded by non-engineers.
zorpner|9 years ago
rhizome|9 years ago
But hey, Friday flamebait I guess.
ryanisnan|9 years ago
Perhaps you can expound?
eli_gottlieb|9 years ago
>“Tech workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your goddamned open-plan offices.”
This is the greatest thing I've read all week.
_xhok|9 years ago
lackbeard|9 years ago
> We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create.
I'm pretty sure this kind of thing is just going to make the polarization worse.
Banthum|9 years ago
This necessarily means erasing the voices of people who hold minority positions in that group.
It has every potential to be another place where those with the most time to burn, the most anger, and the most refined ideological weaponry grab power over those with minority viewpoints or healthy self-doubt.
Unions are supposed to fight for the thing the workers definitely have in common - their direct economic interests. Lashing that union structure to entirely different political fights invites the above kinds of problems.
tropo|9 years ago
"We’d also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country. [...] We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create."
Easy as could be: switch to the other side
"We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans"
Probably step #1 is to hire Americans.
"by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country and other measures. [...] We are planning to hold a meeting on the evening of April 9th in the Bay Area."
Oops. To fix, move the meeting to one of the following: Wyoming, Oklahoma, northern Texas excluding Dallas, Alabama excluding Huntsville, Georgia excluding Atlanta, West Virginia, Tennessee, Montana...
xienze|9 years ago
I guarantee this is code for "we think Trump wouldn't have been elected if he couldn't use Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook. Let's figure out how to make that possible."
r_smart|9 years ago
leggomylibro|9 years ago
When you claim all of our thoughts on and off the clock, you encourage us to avoid creatively-fulfilling ventures, burn out, and leave for greener pastures.
iamacynic|9 years ago
you can't be serious. why would a company even exist if all the work it paid for would be owned by someone else?
i mean sure, you can live in that world, it's just nobody would pay for anything to happen.
tptacek|9 years ago
However: Altman is a business owner and an executive. I don't think he can coordinate the solution. The kernel of the issue here is the disengagement rank-and-file employees have from the public policy implications of their work. Employees don't need permission from owners and managers to be accountable for those implications. The widespread, implicit belief among the rank-and-file that they do need permission is the first obstacle that we need to address.
Rather than staging meetings and attempting to help shape the outcome, Altman and other executives should encourage their employees to work amongst themselves. Getting directly involved, however, is problematic, and I think owners and executives should probably avoid doing that.
angersock|9 years ago
sama is a leader in the class of the exploiters, and crowdwashing like this won't change anything.
EDIT: The "general you", not "you, tptacek". :)
rfrank|9 years ago
> Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter.
..
> We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create.
Are tech employees the correct population to attempt to bridge a political divide? I'm not convinced that's the case.
PKop|9 years ago
EduardoBautista|9 years ago
EduardoBautista|9 years ago
[deleted]
maxxxxx|9 years ago
Maybe he should replace "employee" with "investor" and start working on that? In the end it's the investors that force companies to make money at any cost.
adrianratnapala|9 years ago
If you are not doing that, you should.
callmeed|9 years ago
From what I can tell, this doesn't really line up with the location and remote-friendliness of YC companies. Most seem to be in the Bay Area and few that I can tell allow remote engineers, managers, or execs.
Sorry, but being an Instacart delivery person in Dallas isn't a high-paying technology job.
Prove me wrong with real numbers please.
alexandercrohde|9 years ago
- Unions are a force to protect the 99% from the corruption of the 1%. They are not a force to drive a liberal agenda, though by protecting the little guy they may indirectly align.
- Increasing competition by getting more people into coding (be them from outside the country or from outside of cities) is the exact opposite of what a union would do. It would drive down wages for the skilled workers that investors are getting rich off of.
- Technology making peoples lives worse is the fault of a combination of capitalism and the fact that CEOs and investors are more motivated by adding 0s to their bank account than anything as nebulous as "good." Why should tech workers risk their jobs to force the hand of the companies they work at?
- Is he talking about automation taking jobs? Because the profit from the concentration of wealth again is at the hands of the 1% and .1%. Unless he's saying tech workers need to pass the buffet rule, or tech workers need to refuse to work at companies that don't give enough equity then I don't see how the average tech worker is the solution to the wealth being drawn away from the average citizen (who can't afford $500 in an emergency) into an investor's portfolio....
TheAdamAndChe|9 years ago
If we want to protect our workers, our labor laws, and our standard of living, we have to stop globalization.
geofft|9 years ago
2. Can it be stopped? If US companies refuse to work with Indian or Chinese employees, what is preventing India or China from out-competing the US company in the international market? If the US places tariffs on technology products and services from other countries, what is preventing those other countries from outpacing our standard of living?
nthitz|9 years ago
nsxwolf|9 years ago
idlewords|9 years ago
sweis|9 years ago
zanzibarwutwut|9 years ago
tropo|9 years ago
Let's start with the easy one, polarization: that gets reduced if the tech industry accepts Red America values. Well? It works. It is a solution to polarization. Problem solved.
Red America is fond of privacy. FYI, the recent ISP thing isn't going over well with non-politicians. When gun registrations were published in a newspaper, that didn't go over too well. Opposition to stuff like home/family/schooling inspections (kid-related government agencies) is intense in Red America.
Red America loves the rule of law. You can tell that Trump has disappointed them on this when they chant "LOCK HER UP" and he evades the issue. Red America prefers that the constitution be interpreted very literally, using the actual text, with the meanings of words as they were in the English language at the time they were written.
Red America accepts freedom of expression even when they don't like it very much. It wasn't Red America that violently shut down Milo's speech. That was all blue.
Red America is obviously fond of other fundamental American rights. When the ACLU counts to ten, they do this: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (skipping the amendment they don't like)
warlox|9 years ago
jdhopeunique|9 years ago
Not having to support politics I disagree with during or outside of work hours.
Not having my photo and about me on the company webpage. No one wants to know the truth that my hobbies are not rock climbing and playing the guitar.
Not being forced to go to conferences, hackathons, and other company sponsored events.
It would be nice if these values included lobbying for tech workers to not be exempt from overtime pay and reforms of the h1b visa program.
thora|9 years ago
[1] Alan Kay - Inventing the Future Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVUGkuUj28o
[2] Alan Kay - Inventing the Future Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6ZHxUwqPVw
[3] Alan Kay's Reading List http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp
pcmaffey|9 years ago
This is mostly bullshit. Instead of putting the honus on the executives and VC's who define the growth-first business models, it's somehow the responsibility of their employees to wield the power of a tech company responsibly? To shape the direction of a company?
Maybe in a round-about way, Sam is saying that unions are the only way to responsibly limit the power of tech companies' leadership. But make no mistake, the responsibility for the power of technology falls directly in the laps of a company's leaders.
metaphorm|9 years ago
Liquidate Twitter?
clumsysmurf|9 years ago
Isn't the elephant in the room extreme capitalism? Tech is just accelerating it.
Perhaps the alternative is workers managing their own workplaces:
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...
Apocryphon|9 years ago
Do people forget that this industry is built upon the ideal of innovation? Why can't we build a new type of union that fixes the bugs that prior unions suffered? Why can't we experiment and find new solutions? Why can't we disrupt the relationship between capital and labor?
The notion that unions are somehow inherently unworkable flies in the face of everything that the tech industry stands for.
toomuchtodo|9 years ago
dredmorbius|9 years ago
khazhou|9 years ago
drawkbox|9 years ago
I believe this is key. Technology does not have to be binded to one or a few locations. If tech could once again try to be spread across other cities and states that will be good for everyone. It will be good for remote work, cost of living, people will support tech growth more nationwide, there will be new ideas that might not emerge in a tech hotspot and not everyone will have to move to one place which is really a single point of failure.
unknown|9 years ago
[deleted]
pgodzin|9 years ago
While an obvious positive, this completely ignores the fact that these higher salaries are precisely because we write software that increases efficiency over what a handful of humans can do. So while there is an increase in high paying jobs, there is inevitably a decrease in many more low paying jobs (short-term at least, likely long-term unless we learn how to re-train people better)
nemild|9 years ago
https://www.nemil.com/musings/software-engineers-and-ethics....
I was surprised we didn't discuss this more and I wanted to help someone early in their career think through it.
(I also got some good feedback from YC's Paul Buchheit who helped coin "Don't be evil" in the early days of Google)
pizzetta|9 years ago
I do like the idea of spreading the wealth to other parts of the country, especially those that are hit hardest by the changing characteristics of the economy --people we often forget, hollowed out industrial cities, forgotten rural areas, etc.
ABCLAW|9 years ago
Would there be an opportunity for individuals not located in the Bay Area to attend, provide commentary on meeting notes, or somehow participate without being present locally?
jaequery|9 years ago
theparanoid|9 years ago
Paul Graham's "How To a Silicon Valley" [0] has the best recommendations I've seen.
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html
idlewords|9 years ago
nsxwolf|9 years ago
dredmorbius|9 years ago
Clanan|9 years ago
ThrustVectoring|9 years ago
closeparen|9 years ago
j1z0|9 years ago
j1z0|9 years ago
[deleted]
j1z0|9 years ago
[deleted]
Uhhrrr|9 years ago
dredmorbius|9 years ago
E.g., a large and cash-rich firm could bid on more visas than it needs, starving other firms.
It also fails to address the leverage that the visa sponsor has over the visa holder -- lose your job, and you lose your right to remain in-country.
erik_seaberg|9 years ago
intrasight|9 years ago
To have "rights", they must be encoded in the legal code.
moonka|9 years ago
dredmorbius|9 years ago
"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The masters upon these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the necessity superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders."
-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776. Book I, Chapter VIII, "On the Wages of Labour".
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...
throwawaymaroon|9 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|9 years ago
[deleted]
curiousfiddler|9 years ago