> 90% of the workers indicated their support for joining CWA and authorized CWA to be their bargaining representative
> about half of whom work in the New York City headquarters and half of whom work remotely throughout the country
> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues, including sexual assault and harassment, ageism, unequal pay, “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking), poor treatment of contract workers, inadequate racial and gender diversity, and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
> “We appreciate that unlike so many employers, the Glitch management team decided to respect the rights of its workforce to choose union representation without fear or coercion."
> CWA was founded by telecom workers, and supports media workers through its Newsguild-CWA and NABET-CWA sectors.
Game studios especially need this. I'm a conservative in most other labor-related things (liberal on social issues), but holy shit the devs are abused by the game studios.
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that bosses will often try to slow down, stymie, or break up organizing drives by dragging out legal arguments at the labor board. This means arguing that the bargaining unit should be broken up, that certain employees are actually supervisors and shouldn't be included, that certain supervisors actually aren't and therefore _should_ be included in the vote, that the proposed bargaining unit is too small and should include more employees, etc. Typically you'll need a lawyer to navigate this process, lawyers are very expensive, and national/international unions have money.
Organizing a union is also fairly hard, and staff of established unions are more likely to have the skill set to teach you how to have convincing conversations with your co-workers, make sure they stick together, keep everybody from freaking out when the boss starts threatening to fire people, etc. It's also good to have them around to provide financial/legal support if the boss follows through on those threats.
Other countries have much less liquid labour markets, or have bargaining powers of unions backed by governments, so they don't have to grow so much to make a difference.
There's an enormous amount of infrastructure behind the big ones. They save up enough money to pay wages during strikes, they lobby heavily on the state and federal level, etc.
> Here is a question: Why don't we have more smaller unions in America, but instead these GIANT mega unions?
US labor law differs from European labor law, and it essentially encourages/requires a small number of conglomerate unions, each of which have exclusive representation within a company, rather than a larger number of independent unions which can coexist within a single company.
As workers tend to have one goal, to have less of their labor time expropriated, there really isn't a reason to have more than one global union. Walmart has over half a trillion in revenue and over two million workers, and it makes sense a union containing those workers be of that size.
Also, if carpenters work for UPS, should they be in the carpenters union or the Teamsters? Large industrial unions do away with such jurisdictional problems.
Interesting development. Glitch used to be Fog Creek, where Joel Spolsky talked of treating developers well (latest hardware, private offices etc) and paying them well. I wonder if the culture has changed and that's why the developers felt the need to create a union.
Joel talking about the great care they took to build their offices (in a way that I felt was a huge mistake) was sort of the beginning of me realizing that he doesn't get everything right.
There's also an uncanny valley effect, where ignoring a problem entirely means that your employees may have needs they aren't aware of, and as soon as you shine a light on it, their job satisfaction is actually lower until you get it right.
I think a couple of my bosses understood this intuitively and would invite us to participate in developing solutions. We are much more patient with ourselves than with others.
I hope the CWA treats them better than they treat the SUNY grad students they represent.
All State University of New York graduate students are also represented by CWA. [1] Out of the lowly salary I earned as a grad student, I had to pay dues to them throughout the entire five years I spent in grad school. I never felt like they particularly cared about us or got to see a return on this investment.
They made a show of coming by the campus once in a while, especially when elections were happening, but other than that I can't recall a single time where I felt it was beneficial to be part of the CWA.
This is the thing with unions they don't care about one persons issues at a workplace but general issues like pay when compared to other companies in the same field. If the company previously had toxic people in high places the people will just adjust to follow union rules while still being toxic.
It's usually a percentage of workers' paychecks, between 1-2% is pretty standard.
Founding, organizing, and legal stuff for newly forming unions can be handled by the larger organization (e.g. CWA) using pooled dues from existing unions within that organization.
It depends, some unions have it as a percentage of salary, others have a set rate per position (all juniors pay X, all mids pay Y, etc.), and yet other have a single fixed amount for all members.
1. If the union is complacent and is willing to put its financial situation in the hands of the employer, to be used as leverage against any struggle - then the union and the employer arrange for a fraction of each employee's salary to be deducted by the employer and passed to the union.
That, at least in the US, is the common case. It is also extremely tempting - and I say this as a past union activist - to go for this option.
2. If, however, the union values its independence from the employer, then union dues are collected either:
2.1 By hand from time to time (much harder, but you get independence from the banking system), or
2.2 Each member signs a standing transfer order, transferring a certain amount of money from their account to the union every month/quarter/year. It's still a challenge to collect anything from non-members, despite them enjoying everything the unionized workers have achieved.
Throwaway account because duh. Note that I am not a current Glitch employee, but am well-connected to Glitch née Fog Creek.
Management was basically incredibly incompetent, for a long time, and were so unfair to employees at the company that they felt this was the only option. There is a Tweet stream a couple months ago from someone who left the company who highlighted the amazing degree to which they were unfairly reviewed and unfairly criticized, alongside how much work product they were expected to produce (which was unreasonable). I have enough corroboration to say that the tweet stream as written is fairly unbiased, and that their experience was common. My understanding is the employees felt backed into a corner.
I think unions can be very, very valuable, but I think needing one at a small company that took a series A round quite recently speaks more to management failure than anything else. I'm happy that they unionized, because it sounds like they needed to, but I am so fucking disappointed that it was necessary.
A myth Americans believe is that you only need to form unions when there is an existing problem. That's like wanting medical coverage only after you get sick. You will not have the resources and voice if you wait until a crisis to organize. The employers relationship with unions is only antagonistic because of this waiting until crisis.
on a secondary note, there is nothing wrong with living in a democracy and wanting representation in your community. Our work is a part of our community as much as any other space, especially since we spend so much time there and center our lives around it.
I can't tell if there's a trace of sarcasm in the comment, so for the avoidance of doubt, I'll link to a pretty good lay read on issues in the game industry.
The recent flowering of union membership in the tech industry really warms my heart and makes me hope that this is the start of a pro-union resurgence nation-wide that reverses the conservative anti-union backlash that has dominated the US for decades.
Unfortunately, conservatives have been mostly successful in gaining control of the courts, so expect union-busting measures to be rubber-stamped by them.
There is likely to be much conflict between labor and owners.
My concern as a libertarian is that unionizing tech will lead to calcification, decline of agility and innovation, and diversity of business structure. There's no question that the U.S. has been more innovative in tech than other countries over the past few decades. That's thanks to an entrepreneurial culture that encourages risk taking. Unions attempt to limit risk to employees. In doing so, they limit the agility of organizations. That is a significant trade-off worth pondering and debating.
That’s why you have wildcat and general strikes. Courts rubber stamp union busting? Good luck getting your trash picked up or your grocery store stocked. Europeans figured this out a long time ago.
For a union, it's concerning when some things are more tailored to the whims, edge cases, personal niches of the most vocal, rather than shielding the common denominator of the cooperative from management's business decisions.
I'd like to explain what I like, and what I'm concerned about:
> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues,
Very union related, that's what unions are for.
> including sexual assault and harassment,
Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system.
> ageism,
That's vague, but there are protections against this
> unequal pay,
Not sure what this means, pay between workers of the same level of seniority performing the same responsibilities? Overtime? A lot of things factor into equal pay. A junior employee isn't going to make as much as a 20 year employee.
> “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking),
Looks right. These are covered in union contracts
> poor treatment of contract workers,
If they have union membership? Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?
> inadequate racial and gender diversity,
What does that mean? Inadequate to whom? What makes those characteristics worthy but other characteristics not?
I find it very hurtful and insensitive to people who struggle, suffer, overcome odds, from difficult upbringings, but not member of some class or facet. Why reduce the struggle, character, and worth of someone down to those things? Where does this come from?
What does this say to your colleagues who don't have these traits? Do they have life easy? Have you walked a mile in their shoes?
> and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Though if a larger organization wanted to allow someone to move somewhere else in the org, that seems fair
> Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system.
> That's vague, but there are protections against this
> Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?
Unions can be an additional safety net/layer of protection/tool against these discriminations and abuses. In a time when HR departments are often derided as existing to protect the company instead of workers, and it often takes either media exposure or self-publishing (as with Susan Fowler) for discrimination against protected classes to be acknowledged, a union could be a place for the discriminated to turn to where HR reps fail. At least then you don't have to hire your own lawyer.
> unequal pay,
This might be a gender gap criticism meaning unequal pay between workers with the same title but of different genders.
> That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding.
Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general?
[+] [-] Apocryphon|6 years ago|reply
> 90% of the workers indicated their support for joining CWA and authorized CWA to be their bargaining representative
> about half of whom work in the New York City headquarters and half of whom work remotely throughout the country
> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues, including sexual assault and harassment, ageism, unequal pay, “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking), poor treatment of contract workers, inadequate racial and gender diversity, and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
> “We appreciate that unlike so many employers, the Glitch management team decided to respect the rights of its workforce to choose union representation without fear or coercion."
> CWA was founded by telecom workers, and supports media workers through its Newsguild-CWA and NABET-CWA sectors.
[+] [-] m0zg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbotos|6 years ago|reply
Why don't we have more smaller unions in America, but instead these GIANT mega unions?
I get collective bargaining is better with more numbers, but it feels like there is no way to have a "new" union exist?
[+] [-] cfqycwz|6 years ago|reply
Organizing a union is also fairly hard, and staff of established unions are more likely to have the skill set to teach you how to have convincing conversations with your co-workers, make sure they stick together, keep everybody from freaking out when the boss starts threatening to fire people, etc. It's also good to have them around to provide financial/legal support if the boss follows through on those threats.
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
Other countries have much less liquid labour markets, or have bargaining powers of unions backed by governments, so they don't have to grow so much to make a difference.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|6 years ago|reply
US labor law differs from European labor law, and it essentially encourages/requires a small number of conglomerate unions, each of which have exclusive representation within a company, rather than a larger number of independent unions which can coexist within a single company.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] peisistratos|6 years ago|reply
Also, if carpenters work for UPS, should they be in the carpenters union or the Teamsters? Large industrial unions do away with such jurisdictional problems.
[+] [-] whalesalad|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|6 years ago|reply
[https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/07/a-field-guide-to-d...]
[+] [-] hinkley|6 years ago|reply
There's also an uncanny valley effect, where ignoring a problem entirely means that your employees may have needs they aren't aware of, and as soon as you shine a light on it, their job satisfaction is actually lower until you get it right.
I think a couple of my bosses understood this intuitively and would invite us to participate in developing solutions. We are much more patient with ourselves than with others.
[+] [-] jypepin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ridv|6 years ago|reply
All State University of New York graduate students are also represented by CWA. [1] Out of the lowly salary I earned as a grad student, I had to pay dues to them throughout the entire five years I spent in grad school. I never felt like they particularly cared about us or got to see a return on this investment.
They made a show of coming by the campus once in a while, especially when elections were happening, but other than that I can't recall a single time where I felt it was beneficial to be part of the CWA.
[1] https://cwa1104.com/apprenticeship-program
[+] [-] nwmcsween|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
Anybody privy to the info how it fared?
[+] [-] whoisjuan|6 years ago|reply
Also I assume there’s a formation/founding cost. How does that work?
[+] [-] kyoob|6 years ago|reply
Founding, organizing, and legal stuff for newly forming unions can be handled by the larger organization (e.g. CWA) using pooled dues from existing unions within that organization.
[+] [-] xav0989|6 years ago|reply
It depends, some unions have it as a percentage of salary, others have a set rate per position (all juniors pay X, all mids pay Y, etc.), and yet other have a single fixed amount for all members.
[+] [-] einpoklum|6 years ago|reply
That, at least in the US, is the common case. It is also extremely tempting - and I say this as a past union activist - to go for this option.
2. If, however, the union values its independence from the employer, then union dues are collected either:
2.1 By hand from time to time (much harder, but you get independence from the banking system), or
2.2 Each member signs a standing transfer order, transferring a certain amount of money from their account to the union every month/quarter/year. It's still a challenge to collect anything from non-members, despite them enjoying everything the unionized workers have achieved.
[+] [-] ryanmarsh|6 years ago|reply
I kinda wish proper guilds would become a thing in tech. I feel they could solve both the craftsmanship and workers rights problems but oh well...
[+] [-] quest88|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway10018|6 years ago|reply
Management was basically incredibly incompetent, for a long time, and were so unfair to employees at the company that they felt this was the only option. There is a Tweet stream a couple months ago from someone who left the company who highlighted the amazing degree to which they were unfairly reviewed and unfairly criticized, alongside how much work product they were expected to produce (which was unreasonable). I have enough corroboration to say that the tweet stream as written is fairly unbiased, and that their experience was common. My understanding is the employees felt backed into a corner.
I think unions can be very, very valuable, but I think needing one at a small company that took a series A round quite recently speaks more to management failure than anything else. I'm happy that they unionized, because it sounds like they needed to, but I am so fucking disappointed that it was necessary.
[+] [-] NullInvictus|6 years ago|reply
on a secondary note, there is nothing wrong with living in a democracy and wanting representation in your community. Our work is a part of our community as much as any other space, especially since we spend so much time there and center our lives around it.
[+] [-] wolco|6 years ago|reply
Glitch isn't a startup. It's a 20 year old company with probably rigid rules.
[+] [-] rideontime|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monadic2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eganist|6 years ago|reply
https://time.com/5603329/e3-video-game-creators-union/
[+] [-] pmoriarty|6 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, conservatives have been mostly successful in gaining control of the courts, so expect union-busting measures to be rubber-stamped by them.
There is likely to be much conflict between labor and owners.
[+] [-] chrisco255|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claudeganon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pje|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ColonelSanders|6 years ago|reply
I'd like to explain what I like, and what I'm concerned about:
> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues,
Very union related, that's what unions are for.
> including sexual assault and harassment,
Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system.
> ageism,
That's vague, but there are protections against this
> unequal pay,
Not sure what this means, pay between workers of the same level of seniority performing the same responsibilities? Overtime? A lot of things factor into equal pay. A junior employee isn't going to make as much as a 20 year employee.
> “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking),
Looks right. These are covered in union contracts
> poor treatment of contract workers,
If they have union membership? Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?
> inadequate racial and gender diversity,
What does that mean? Inadequate to whom? What makes those characteristics worthy but other characteristics not?
I find it very hurtful and insensitive to people who struggle, suffer, overcome odds, from difficult upbringings, but not member of some class or facet. Why reduce the struggle, character, and worth of someone down to those things? Where does this come from?
What does this say to your colleagues who don't have these traits? Do they have life easy? Have you walked a mile in their shoes?
> and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Though if a larger organization wanted to allow someone to move somewhere else in the org, that seems fair
[+] [-] Apocryphon|6 years ago|reply
> That's vague, but there are protections against this
> Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?
Unions can be an additional safety net/layer of protection/tool against these discriminations and abuses. In a time when HR departments are often derided as existing to protect the company instead of workers, and it often takes either media exposure or self-publishing (as with Susan Fowler) for discrimination against protected classes to be acknowledged, a union could be a place for the discriminated to turn to where HR reps fail. At least then you don't have to hire your own lawyer.
> unequal pay,
This might be a gender gap criticism meaning unequal pay between workers with the same title but of different genders.
> That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding.
Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general?