Discussion on:

Should IT be unionized?

...that states they cannot do that it is their perogative. Again, this is not your company unless you have stock. And if you have stock you have a vote. Why is it ok to refuse to allow a company go to China AND also ok to refuse a company go to a Right To Work state for lower labor costs? If NLRB can refuse someone to move from Washington state to say South Carolina what is to stop them from telling them to move to say Detroit to pump up their economy? Too much power in the governments hands and in the unions hands. The next logical step is to outsource until it becomes illegal.

I doubt you go into a store and ask for the highest priced item, so the labor force making it can get the vacation they wanted. Labor is a resource. Resources cost. A good company looks for the best cost effective resources they can find. You do the same. If someone else can do your job more cheaply than you, and do it as well, you are overpriced. It is your job to convince a company to pay you what you think you are worth. It is the company's job to be cost effective with its resources. If you cannot convince a company that what you ask for is cost effective, then they should not hire you. Over time, unionization distorts this relationship and causes products and services to become overpriced. Our education system is a case in point - lousy education for a an extremely high price. Why? Because it is unionized.

I ask for an item that is not made in China, which is much the same thing, and if they don't have anything that isn't made in China then I don't waste my money buying cheap rubbish that falls to bits. I'm not the only person who asks for goods that don't come from China. Nobody I know thinks that Chinese goods are made to a satisfactory standard.

Unions drive up the cost of labor - period.

One of the largest costs of IT to a company is the IT Staff. If the IT Staff costs more because the unions demand more from the employer, the choice to off-shore and out-source will become even more attractive. Be a valuable employee. If you are not treated well because of the value you provide, find somewhere that will treat you well.
Unions served a very important role in the US through the last half of the 1800's and the first half of the 1900's. Most of the gross exploitation of workers was corrected by the unions and eventually they pushed to the point that most of our current labor laws would not exist without union influence. But - those laws now exist - and we are not talking about the industrial revolution anymore - we are living in a knowledege economy. Knowledge is power. Unions do not provide knowledege. As an IT worker you need to do your job and do it well, be ready willing and able to learn more, and manage your career carefully. You are always replaceable. Everyone is. But you have the ability to make yourself so valuable that your employer will want to keep you and treat you well. If they don't - you can always work somewhere else.

That's right. Unions drive up the cost of labour, which means you get paid properly for what you do. What's wrong with that?

...proper? You, the Union, the Federal Government? If I own a confectionary shop and have someone run the register and I make the candy shouldn't I get paid more for risking my money to create the job? And what if I want to outsource the making of certain candies to another country, when did MY business become a ward of the state and when did MY business become beholden to any one group other than myself?

At what point is a company evil? Dayton Dry Goods started as a small department store. Did they become Evil the day they opened their 2nd, 3rd, 4th store? Did they become evil when they changed their name to Target? Or did they become evil trying to save the customer, the one who buys in their store, money by buying goods from other locations to sell to their customers?

Again, when does any business become evil? Maybe they're evil when they refuse to go Union. Maybe that's the deciding factor.

The abuse and B.S. I have put up with over the past 3 years is nothing short of phenomenal. I'll be blogging about it soon. Outright fraud, deceit, cheating - are all rampant in the IT consulting segment.
These a-holes are unrestrained. New laws badly needed to protect contractor rights.

New laws badly needed to protect contractor rights. .? How about steady jobs with good benefits, and over-time pay. Most people in here do not realize that corporations are crooked and exploit employees no matter where they go. If you have a job that sucks and change to another one, if you can find it, you might be jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

So many people have a really dim view of companies, and capitalism in general - it's as if a person, or group of people, can't possibly make over a certain amount of money without becoming instantly corrupt and exploitative. I suspect this belief is often due to inexperience (youth).

In my almost 40 years in the technical workplace I've worked for more than 20 companies - most were just started be someone like many of us - a person with a dream. It usually isn't just about the money - all of the money in the world isn't enough to pay for the hell one must go through to create and maintain a business. Most don't do it for the money - they have a vision. And that vision usually isn't about exploiting people.

Have I worked for some crappy bosses and crappy companies? Of course! But in my experience, most business owners are just folks like the rest of us - they WANT their people to succeed because they want their company to succeed - they realize that one can't really happen without the other.

My problems is that no matter how much you have worked on computers or how many certifications or degrees you have, companies are always asking for 2 to 5 years experiance. Now how are we suppose to get that experiance unless someone take the chance to hire us? So if you ask me, if unions will help me get the job I would do it. And while people often talk about "supporting veterans" when it comes to hiring, veteran status gets thrown out of the window. All companies want is 2 to 5 years experiance.

What do veterans have anything to do with anything? Since you brought them up I personally wouldn't hire a veteran over someone I considered a better qualified applicant. While I don't have any problem with veterans, I don't consider their earlier service anything more than a previous job they held. Call me crazy I guess.

And that is probably why veterans have such a high unemployment rate. Support them, yes. Hire them, no.

in my experience Veterans have better work habits and more professionalism than that kid just out of college. So if the veteran is qualified, I am going to hire him over Jr. who still wants to PARTY!

You obviously never served or worked with someone who has. The veteran has had more training in his first 4 years than some college students can ever hope to attain in a lifetime. Most veterans have a work ethic that is unequaled by any college graduate. They have learned skills to help them quickly adapt, multi-task and manage people and resources. Additionally, many vets have college degrees they earned while in the service. Maybe you should take a step back and do some research, Most vets are highly qualified individuals who can work circles around any college only grad. So, YES, you are crazy and stupid to boot. BTW: don't be fooled by buzz words that most new techies use today. Words get you nothing, experience and knowlege is everything.

Why on earth, particularly in today's grim economic climate, would we want to do anything that could and decidedly would stifle America's IT competitiveness in world markets??? We've already crippled our primary education system's ability to turn out future leaders by lowering our standards to accommodate the least capable while generally ignoring the needs of the most capable, so we're already at a disadvantage on the world scene in any industry where science, mathematics and technology are at the forefront. Unionization of IT would cause a similar "dumbing down" of one of the only remaining areas in our industrial space where we truly still are world leaders. Dumb, dumb, dumb idea!!!

The last thing we need is the institutionalized rewarding of mediocrity based on seniority that unionization brings. As a 30 year IT veteran, I'm constantly forced to keep my skills current as technology changes which, in and of itself, is challenging & rewarding. Bringing in a set of Draconian rules preventing those that allow themselves to become dinosaurs from being let go - even though they can't do the job - would kill the explosive innovation that has characterized our industry since the 70's!

I can't see a union working properly in the IT field. There are far too many downsides to a union and they don't fit intelligently into the IT field. For instance pay is based on seniority versus knowledge/ability. There is nothing wrong with a Union for some lines of work, but I don't think to many system admins would agree they should be paid based on seniority. The other problem is the cost that Unions add to labor. IT workers are paid very fairly and typically the more demanding the job the better the pay. An individual worker needs to decide what is best for themselves. A union ideal of one size fits all doesn't work in IT as any hiring manager can attest to that has tried to hire talent. Not all candidates are created equal. I love having the ability to walk out and find another gig if my current one is not meeting MY needs. I also really like being paid based on my skills and not my time on the job. Otherwise I would never have been able to make the kind of money I did at such a young age. I have to agree with Patrick Gray I don't think Unions are a fit for IT.

Hard enough to find jobs in this economy. Unions would make jobs more scarce.

I've seen what union representation brings to the employee and no thank you. Forced unionizm is nothing more than thuggery designed to break the will of the individual with violence and coercion and create a divide between managers and staff. If others want to give part of their pay to a union that's their business but don't force me to belong. Right to work!

Well, you read about those individuals that had a, "dynamic career, job satisfaction, and a plethora of magnanimous statements for the self gratification of ones IT job. Problem is, profound statements and high ideals do not pay the bills. Have a look not to your co-workers but to the ones above you who are getting richer and richer from your endeavors.

There was a struggle a long time ago as to whether or not our IT department should be unionized and after much debate and the risk of the IT staff on a work to rule walkout, we were insulted by the company giving us a union " the Tailors of America". On another note, IT managment had told us that our salaries were in line members of our skill set in other companies. In actual fact, they were in tune with assembly workers at major car manufacturers in the USA. Both cases, nothing to do with IT and the people in senior managment got richer and our pay stood stagnent. What about that major computer manufacture that forced many IT people to take a 5% pay cut and to show that he/she, the CEO was part of the rank and file he/she would also take a 5% pay cut. Yes it happened but, the $45 million dollar bonus that he/she was to get was not touched. Yep they got richer and yep the IT staff and everyone else go poorer.

Shoud they be unionized.. hell yes. Pick a union that has enough power to bring the organization to it's knees until they realize that it is the little people who make the engine work.

Yes, management loves to hear such words, but not technical people.

Collectivist thugs can get bent. I prefer to manage my career on my individual merit.

You're taking personal responsability for your own destiny. Unions will have none of that. You need to get in line mister and join forces with your union brothers to "bring the company to its knees". Yup, that will surely get us higher pay and keep jobs in the U.S. because coercion and violence always works.

Unions worked wel for GM -- Pushed into bankruptcy
In 1910 or so Unions had a reason -- NOT TODAY
How come IBM has been so succcessful for 100years - Never had any Unions.
Look at the Public Union sector --- Dozens of cities bankrupt or nearly so.
The US has unbelievable DEBT and is saddled with UNIONS who still want more
while doing less and less

There is no safety net. if you're working long hours now, being in a union won't change the demand, it will only reduce the ability to meet it, and increase the end cost of whatever it is you're making. Unions don't stop corruption, they industrialize it. Ask Ohio Steelworkers how unionizing to make sure they got 'fair treatment' including 13 weeks vacation, all expenses paid medical and other benefits worked out between the 80s and the 90s. All the jobs went overseas, not because of some CEO fatcat's bonus but because the workforce was being paid top dollar to take more than three months of the year off. Unions are great in fantasyland where luxurious standards and conditions come at no cost, but in real reality, nothing is free, and there is always someone willing to work for less than you are.

You are a manager. As far as the Ohio Steel workers that is just an abuse of union if you corruption everywhere. I think we get rid of Lobbyist and we as the one that votes in our union official should be able to take him out just as quick if you see he is in Hawaii for a conference I have seen both sides but I think with a little change by the smart workers of todaqy I think a Union would work and I also think these companies that are out sourcing should be dealt with.Once they all outsource to these cities on boats 22 miles off shore that is why I mean smart workers. If it gets that bad we should all since there seems to be quite of few of us we could make our own company and hire US and buy US well maybe we could get this country back online if not I see us as the USSR in a few years. For a last point on such a dramatic statement at the end look at just what happened to JP Morgan Chase. Obama's bailout did not last long enough for him to have a shew back into office......

"...we could make our own company and hire US...". IrishLad5150, that's exactly what you should do. Guess what, that will make you an owner / manager. Then you'll REALLY have to compete with companies who will only hire US workers at good wages if it gives them competitive advantage. The only way to deal with companies that outsource is to either beat them, with better product / service / price, or join them. But YOU don't get to make the choice - your customers (or lack of same) will.

Right, all those old guys with their best practices and years uptime. Get in the cowboys, lets find solutions for problems they perceive. Why test, if it wasn't ready they wouldn't have released a public beta. Why pay a decent wage, lets just have a reolving door of staff and when that doesn't work, outsource, let it become someone elses problem. Yes Unions, stability of employees with their dedication and loyalty have just ruined the economy. Not the gambling bankers and the collapse of all wages and the removal of the middle class from outsourcing, it's all the unions faults for this. Maybe this author should leave IT and take a economics course, see what the removal of the middle class does to a nation's GDP.

His fundamental premise is spot on: unionizing anything comes with tradeoffs. My observation is that anything that has been unionized has suffered severe penalties of quality of the output, the quality of the worker, and escalation of costs. In the end, only a truly capitalistic system that rewards hard work and creativity is the one that will win in this global economy. Yes, there are executives out there who are bent on lining their pockets at the expense of the workers. Is it moral? Heck no. If you don't like it, become an executive and do something about it. Become a business owner and show everyone how a business should be run. Unionizing to level the playing field between execs and workers is not the answer. Unionizing to gain artificial security is not the answer. How many union workers have been laid off in the last 5 years? In too many cases, unionizing protects those who should lose their jobs for one reason or another. Our founding fathers put it best, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

They are not capitalistic. They are communistic, and are growing fast.

Welcome IrishLad5150

Wow what's next
What good would come out of this ?
Companies (Top Management ) would only outsource the work to non union shops (3rd world) faster then they already are doing ( not that some of them aren't also incompetent in running these companies). You would end up with some people milking the systems and that are incompetent in their jobs, yet being protected.

So until we change the thinking at companies that it is worth paying higher saleries over here in the US to get and retain good people than moving them to cheaper labor areas.

Understand

IrishLad5150less than a minute ago
.

I understand what you are saying here. Can you tell me that I have worked in the feild for the last 20 years I am 42 and I am veteran. I just finished up a contract with IBM and I worked my butt off and we were not allowed overtime but I worked it anyways. I have 10 to 11 of the top certifications and yes I am have been out of work for about 3 months and I am getting some offers and they are all contracts not one job is out there that is not filled with the minium IT staff and they are being exploited. That benchmarking center that I worked at for BIg Blue is being moved within the next 10 years to China , Singapore. So you tell me if not unions then these companies have to be held accountable for outsourcing. Also read this other article that they are now wanting to build cities on boats 22 miles from silicon valley and what kind of workers are going to be hired there and now do you think the US will let that happen, well we are all supposed to be smart the lobbyist the rich CEO run this country by filling the pockets of Senators that are going to make them richer please tell me you disagree and support it?
.
Edit
Reply
Flag
Favorite
...

If we lived in a society where we had no choice where we worked, I might see the value of a union. However, when you take a job, you are told what you will be paid, what hours you will work, and what is expected. If you don't like it, don't accept the job. If you decide you don't like the job conditions or expectations later, go find a different job. No one has a "right" to have a job at Company X with all the conditions and pay that the worker wants. The Company (owner, manager, etc), however, has a right to determine the job description, salary, expectations, etc. In short, if you don't like the job, go find another one. Period.

First of all, I'd like to state that Unions did not ruin the car industry. Greedy business and ridiculously exhorbitant salaries for CEO's ruined the car industry. Just like it did sports.

Your comment "unions trade merit-based advancement and pay for these worker protections, and with it the core benefit of an IT career." Unions don't trade these off. If you are really good you can still get merit-based advancement and pay. Without the Union you get the "good ole boy network" with promotions/pay given out by who you know. This is the same lame excuse the Republicants are using now to try to break the Unions.

Another comment states "the IT industry is that it???s one of a handful where knowledge can regularly trump experience." Not so. You need the Education and Experience today. You have to keep up your own knowledge level because your company won't pay for training. They'd rather hire someone for 5K more than you are making than send you to a 1.5K training class. Supposedly, it is cheaper. I don't see it.

If workers don't join a Union you can be fired for no reason right before you are about to retire. I could go on but you get the drift. The trick to the Union is you have to have a strong one. Not a weak one.

We all see you are a shill for the SEIU, UAW, AFL-CIO, etc.

Republicants? Interesting how the left ALWAYS has to do name-calling in order to make themselves feel smarter.

You are obviously a government worker, or a union shill, probably both. A car company has one CEO, and tens of thousands of employees. It was the grossly overpaid assembly line workers that broke the car companies, not the lone person at the top.

might've played a role in causing everyone to buy German and/or Japanese vehicles, as well. Union scale and executive compensation made them expensive (bad value), but what about the hideously-undesireable product itself?!

So when Marks and Spencer's chief executives took the decision to outsource to China, the resulting fall in the quality of the goods they sold and the consequent near bankruptcy was the fault of the workers in their manufacturing plant in Lanark, who all got the boot. Did I understand your argument?

You can't possibly think that the salaries for a handful of executives did more damage than the unions. The UAW has over 350,000 active members and 600,000 retired members.
According to the 2007 GM Annual Report, typical autoworkers earn a base wage of approximately $28 per hour - or almost $60K a year. This for a job that requires no technical knowledge or skill. That is just thier base wage - it does not include benefits which could easily cost the company and additional $10K a year.
In the current economy, I would estimate that the average member of the UAW is overpaid (between salary and benefits for a job with little skill and that requires no education) by about $30,000 a year. If this statement is true for only 150,000 of their workers, (well less than half - and none of their retirees who still get money from their former employers) that is 4.5 BILLION dollars - every year. CEO's might make MILLIONS - but Unions cost the industry BILLIONS.

I don't think that base wage is correct. The low end of the wages is $15 an hour, and the upper end is in the mid $50k per year. This is in union and nonunion shops. The overall compensation in union shops is greater though because of the expenses of pensions and healthcare. Maybe that's where that number comes from.

It may not be correct today.

The most current information I could find was as of 2008: http://www.ehow.com/info_8557396_average-wage-american-auto-workers.html
http://www.ehow.com/info_7802584_average-auto-assembly-line-worker.html