Discussion on:

IT pros take a cautious approach to unions

I will have more comments for you later...Just couldn't help this one. My fingers were itchin

You read Atlas Shrugged and you still hold these views...interesting.

No, a boss isn't being communist when he/she
asks me to be part of a team. I am getting PAID to be a team. Unions want me to pay to join a team...see the difference.

Interesting...no country in the history of mankind that was run by socialists has ever survived...and was as prosperous as U.S.A.

U.S.A. is capitalism.
Unions oppose executives, managers, and big bosses and their policies. (Even after they are told they can go somewhere else if they don?t like the working conditions).

Capitalism = Making Money (There are exceptions of course...robbing a bank isn't capitalism).
Executives, managers, big bosses are hired by companies to make money for the company.

Unions oppose management in general.
Socialism is opposite of Capitalism.

So by the equation of A=B, B=C, so A=C

Unions oppose Capitalism and U.S.A. and thus the Constitution.

When I have a complete equation I will let you know but here is something to chew on?later.

LOL!.

I personally think that Ayn Rand took an overly simplistic view of society and that the viewpoints Rand held were flawed because of this. I liked the book and considered it a good read with some valid points but it does not support the entire philosophy that Rand proposes. Still, there are some things that can be taken from the book as useful life lessons.

Anyway, I think that there is one small problem with your equation...

Let us ask if the intent of a union is to oppose or destroy capitalism or the business owners and their executives. If this were true then unions opposed employment, thus unions are opposed to employees.

Yet, this inference does not work since a union is formed to protect employees. The way that they do this is to fight abuses of management, not to fight management itself. A union only opposes management when management abuses the employee, otherwise a union should have no effect on management. Thus, your argument is flawed, though I do appriciate you attempt at using a logical arguement to prove your case.

Also, since when wasn't robbery or theft a function of capitalism? Think about it, theft is the ultimate zero sum transaction and thus should fit rather nicely into the realm of capitalism, shouldn't it?

Define what a function is, then try to explain that statement to me one more time.

When you rob or steal...you are taking away from somebody else who usually worked hard to get it. Capitalism is about making money. How do you make money...by selling. The customer has the power always all the time. He/she has a choice of not just choosing a competitor's product over yours (if there is a competitor that is, which is another discussion unto itself), but also whether or not they want to buy your product. One of the other effects of Capitalism is that it promotes competition, unless when the government gets involved.

I don't know why I am trying to explain this to you. Either you don't understand or you don't want to. Its becausewe are a capitalist country you have other companies to choose from to work for, to buy from, so on so forth. You read Atlas Shrugged...just by reading this book, you should know the answer to the last question you asked. If still confused get some cliffs notes or got http://www.capitalism.org

Rand covered a lot of aspects of capitalism and the socialism that was creeping into government at the time. I make it a point to read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead at least once a year. (Each takes a long weekend of reading. But its fun when you have leather bound copies.)

Unfortunately, Rand was very weak on the accounting side of things. To her pollution was a sign of business success. Unfortunately it is a sign of business failing to pay some of their costs. Or, from another point of view, pollution is a form of stealing.

And then you get to the concept of corporate socialism. There are, unfortunately, 'capitalistic' organizations that make money through special deals that cut costs in ways that are ethically marginal. This usually happens when the government gets involved. (Kind of like the 'deals' that James Taggart arranged to improve profit margins.)

Unfortunately Rand's idealism runs into reality and has problems. Of course, the same can be said about unions.

I agree that Rand didn't illustrate properly on a couple of subjects, but from know what her philosophy is...we can get an idea on what some of her viewpoints would be regarding a situation.

See I didn't think Rand had any sort of idealism like Marx did...and her philosophy Objectivism...or reality is what her book is about (partially anyway) in a philosophical sense. She illustrated what can happen when corrupt government partners with private organization. Exactly what is happening now.
The Democratic party parterning with Sun Microsystems and Oracle, and Netscape and other competitors and suing Microsoft for having a monopoly, when a private organization by the essence can't ever have a monopoly.

Interesting huh?

Interesting...

I wouldn't bet that that private organizations and monopolies are mutually exclusive though.

If you assume that private organizations are always ethical organizations that aren't corrupt, then you would be right. But that assumption would be straining things. Ethics, and pure capitalistic competition, are sometimes eased aside in the pursuit of profit. After all, if you don't meet the stockholder's demands, bad things can happen.

My thoughts on Rand's idealism is that, in a true capitalistic environment, people will compete to provide the best service for the least price. This is emphasized when Dagny Taggart arrives in Galt's Gulch and gets a tour of the businesses and the strikers. That scene sometimes makes me want to get a few million people together and call a John Galt strike.

If we in the United States could somehow promote pure capitalism that considers ALL the costs of production, the entire world would benefit. And if ALL of the costs are considered, these costs including materials, labor, R & D, social costs and environmental costs, then less government would be needed.

It gets down to accounting and ethics.

Gee...imagine that, if we only had better ethical values (whatever that may be) and accountants. Lol.

But all joking aside...i agree with you about the statements. Rand's book focuses on a idealistic character in Galt...and his viewpoints but...the other alternative she illustrates is much, much worse. And that alternative...I don't think its as noble as everyone potrays it to be.

And one more thing...that scene in the book also makes me wanna go on a John Galt Strike.
Lol..I thought I was the only who felt that away. Glad to here someone else feels that way.

So, how come robbing a bank isn't capitalism?
You forgot to explain that one.

Don't mess with what you don't understand - stick to IT.

I think you shouldn't mess with what you don't understand and stay out of IT. lol.

See my perception, if you are capable that is.

You can view capitalism in two ways...One in a political way and another in an economic way.

A political way is when the government doesn't get involved in the economics (not like the 2nd way I listed above) of the people. Separation of church and state...you heard of that...it?s like separation of state and trade/production. Government would not have the power to determine who, where, when, or what can do business.

An economic way of capitalism is when you try to make money by selling goods and services to whoever your customers are. The customers always determine who or what will become successful, i.e. competition. Among other things privatization plays a dominant role in capitalism in both senses.

The political way and the economic way are closely related.

Robbing banks is not capitalism in either sense because you are taking something away from someone without earning it (in a moral sense) Without having any customers, without providing a service or product and taking away someone's freedom to live (by taking their hard earned money). That?s not capitalism.

Unions do similar to what bank robbers do. They take a company's freedom away and force...I repeat force someone to give them more wages than they deserve, take away the company's ability to change, (DAEWOO AUTO) etc.

If you feel you deserve better why rob a bank go work for that money. If you think you deserve better, why work for that company as "slave labor" go somewhere else. You are not lazy or afraid are you?

In the end it will be people like you who will be the undoing of this great country. People like you who think that the world owes them something. The world doesn't owe you anything, you owe yourself everything.

Oh come now, theft is the perfect capitalistic transaction. When someone finds a good deal they call it a "steal". When a salesman finds a sucker they call it "killing". When you find out you've fallen for a salesperson's ploy you claim that you've been "robbed". Theft is the ideal in the capitalist society where the zero sum is perfection and people who make and sell products will allways strive to make it as cheaply as possible and sell it for as much as possible. They will cheat employees asmuch as they can and they will rob the consumer when they are able, is this not theft as well? Is there some higher sense of morality in this action where you rob more people by your actions as a business than a bank robber would when robbing a bank?

See, there is little difference and a salesperson would gladly just take your money without giving you a thing in return if it were allowed. Robbery and the current mode of capitalism in the US are one and the same, there is little, if any, moral difference here.

The mobility of a workforce protects them from abuse so long as they are mobile. If their mobility is taken away then they are open to be exploited. It is my contention that businesses are attempting to limit the mobility of IT professionals and thus exploit them, you can see evidence of this by the decline of salary levels for IT people and the layoffs of late.

You and I agree that the government should stay out of the mix, but they should do so both ways and stay out of the worker's way when they decide to strike back at the company when they go too far in their exploitation of the worker. Right now I would say that the government does more for business than it does for the worker so if you lke business you shouldbe happy to have a government right now.

one more time, perhaps this time use Cliffsnotes. You said you read Atlas Shrugged...and you are still posting comments such as these. Really...I think you should read it more carefully. The answer to your comments and questions are answered in the book. I bought Cliffsnotes yesterday just for the heck of it...I enjoyed it. Increased my knowledge of the book and its relation to the world. This is the last comment I will post to you, cause I don't like answering the same questions twice. Read the book again and be honest with yourself. Good Luck!

When unions were established in the early part of the last century, there was a need to organize to protect the working class, which had fallen prey to the greed of uncaring and out-of-touch, wealthier, upper-class factory and business owners.

There were no state or federal laws at the time to protect worker's or children's rights, and the unions helped to force our corrupt government and businesses to make such laws to come into being.

As soon as those laws became a reality though, the unions purpose and reason for being ceased to exist; but when crime bosses and unscrupulous people saw the money to be made by continuing to extort "dues" from union members, they came up with every dirty trick in the book to go on pocketing honest people's hard earned money. Most of the unions left in America today are just fronts and money pits used to rip off the ignorant or launder money and finance organized crime.

There is not only no reason in the world that the IT community needs a union, there is no reason for unions anywhere in America any more. Stand on your own merrits folks. If you are good, and you hold out for what you are actually worth, they will pay.

Having experienced work requiring union membership and not requiring it, I would NEVER, EVER join a union again. Once a union gets established, its only purpose is to guarantee its own existence and the welfare of the members has no bearing on anything. Sure, they will negotiate for higher wages, but only because they get a cut of whatever the members earn. That is no benefit to anyone but the union itself.

Bill Detwiler wrote:

"I believe that ultimately, unions?IT or otherwise?are like every other safety measure: They offer security in exchange for freedom. A union can protect workers from unfair labor policies and guarantee a regulated pay scale, but these measures come at the cost of the individual's ability to control their own career.

The future of IT unions will depend on the industry's overall working conditions. Because unions are born out of necessity, if conditions in the IT industry degenerate to an unbearable state, workers could be willing to trade a little freedom for security. I don't believe we're there yet, but...we may be soon"

I was waiting for a statement such as this to appear. I agree that there is, at present, LESS of a clear case for IT unions - however, that can change. Right now, IT employees are in high demand. If that changes, so will the employees' range of opportunities, and the respect that management routinely affords them.

So - while IT unionsmay not be a necessity now, we ahould support them wherever there does seem to be a need (large operations like Amazon.com may be an example - also, any shops where management is clearly abusing its IT staff). There may come a time when we'll all need them.

I'd like to thank Bill for a well-reasoned and informative article.

For the record, I'm a member of DC47 of AFSCME. - Al Airone

I would never say yes to the formation of or the existence of an IT Union. It is the ultimate form of communism which would deter my growth.

In the IT industry the mantra is not equal pay for equal work. Instead it is survival of the fittest.Let the best man win.

I believe unionization in the IT industry would be one of the worst things that could happen to the IT industry. It has been my experience that an individual is responsible for his or her own merit or performance. Unions would hamper growth and innovation by promoting employees to relax and not to always push yourself to learn more. I was in a union and would carry the weight for other employees that had seniority and refused to work, I would ask how would this benefit the IT industry as a whole? Some people would say unions give security, I would answer by saying the only security that exists in the IT field is the knowledge, experience and motivation that you bring to the table. The IT industry is a high pace field and you need to be flexible and ready for change, not locked into a pay scale like a drone. If you want security without working for it get into politics.

I know many people in unions, ther range from coal miners to CWA (communications workers of america). All of the people that I know are limited in pay to the levels dictated by their contract. They have no incentive to learn and improve in their jobs, it makes no impact on their pay.

Can you imagine working in our field and there being no pay difference between the folks that study, learn and enhance their worth to the department and the folks that come in, put in 8, and go home? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

I know a couple of people that are in favor of unions for IT. Both of them are lazy and complacent. They are the people that say "I don't know, It's not my job."

Be careful what you wish for!

Unions are the sum of it's ACTIVE members. "UNION" is not a 4 letter word. There is a place for it, even today. Not only to protect the workers rights but also to provide a trained, competent labor pool for industry to draw from. My union not only protects me in the workplace but also gives me a voice, if I'm an active participating member. It also offers me up to date training free or at a minimal cost. Unfortunatley, today, most people don't have time to "Get Involved" It has been my experience that the people that complain the most are the ones that do the least.
So GET INVOLVED! Don't be a spectator!

There are many different levels of IT professionalism. Not to mention many jobs available in the Computer Industry. If your not happy or are treated unfairly in your present position leave. Unions have done nothing but screw this country up, and having an IT Union won't help anyone. I personally know many people that are totally book smart and can't apply any of it. Who decides what each position is worth. I'm a Sys. Admin. and my brother is a Web Master, who deserves better pay? We makeare own deals in this industry and it should stay that way! I wouldn't want to go on strike and have some Hack Scab working on the network I configured and slaved over.

I am not in favor of an IT union, guild, or any other controlling body in the industry, and would leave the industry were one to become mandatory. Unions preserve the weak and level everyone at mediocre in the name of benefits for all, which promotes sloppy work and an "I'm entitled" attitude regardless of performance or ability. Unions once served a purpose in combating the evils of an oppressive economic system prior to laws and regulations, but as with any bureaucracy over time became corrupt and self-serving themselves.

Guilds are simply unions with tighter controls over who gets what. While they do promote expert craftsmanship, a producer-side guarantee of quality, the rigid structure of apprentice / journeyman / craftsman / mastertraps its members in a lengthy learning process with certification at the whim of those with whom you'll be competing for jobs. It is in the interest of a guild to keep you at lower craft levels to preserve the scarcity of Master craftsmen (thus preserving higher rates of pay, and maintaining the supply of new apprentices dreaming of getting that pay). Demand for the craft can moderate the ability of a guild to control its output of Masters, but if there's that much demand for your craft then why do you need a guild to get a good job?

I have to agree, for the IT worker, unions would amount to a waste of money. In addition, corporate money would be wasted in the legal rangling associated with battling union demands instead of being used on internal resources. With corporate IT budgets as tight as they currently are, the situation would only worsen as corporations spent less on the IT "budget line". Resultant infrastructures would be older and costlier to maintain. Without growth in the IT field (lack of money) a corporation's ability to hold onto IT staff would be further hindered.

Unions increase expense overhead for both the employees and the organization. In the IT world, this expense is the straw that would break the proverbial camel's back.

I worked for 31 years as a union member in a "closed shop". The union (and the company) enforced mediocrity. Unions are not all bad, but individual initiative is crushed in union environments. I could never go back to a union shop.

Bill

Are unionization efforts at Amazon actually an effort at an IT union? A union that would include warehouse staff and customer service reps (where the products are books and CDs) would be very different than a union including developers or technical helpdesk staff.

Just one thing to say pertaining to this union stuff. Forget about it!!!!!

Unions have served their purposes fo the 19th Century.The break-up of the "Air Controllers strike" by Ronald Reagan and Organized Labor's failure to help a fellow Union, showed the corrupt nature of Organized Labor Unions. Too many fat-cat bosses, big cars, pent houses, etc.Thanks but no thanks.

A volunteer staffed guild could work if properly crafted, especially with the web as one of the tools for such an organization. It would function as an Info Center for networking, training and establishing professional credentials based on experience, training and abilities.

At the same time, such a guild could easily become an 'exclusive' organization whose purpose in life is to promote the agenda of guild members to the detriment of employers and non-guild members. If that happens, the guild is part of a greater problem.

And when you get down to it, the organization doesn't necessarily have to be a guild. It could be a professional organization with functions that benefit both members and employers.

Of course, the main problem is to keep these organizations focused on their primary goal and avoiding the stagnation that often happens. That might require some deep thought. And it WILL require constant monitoring.

You know Tech Republic could serve as that professional guild so to speak. They are kind of neutral...lots of members...web based...so like that idea? An independant company...this website...having no relationship with employers or employees except on a professional level, no fees have to be paid on either part, and other things I can't think of yet.

See what I hate to see happen is that...unions in IT get a foothold. I don't want to see this professional organization or a guild turn into a Union. You have heard of what can happen once you have the means to do something. Its like having the IRS...the government uses the IRS to do what it does. Take the IRS away and all of a sudden they don't have any means...What if unions use this guild or professional organization to do what unions do. I don't know if you can see my point of view...I wish I could explain it better than this, but I can't.

About the cliffsnotes...pick em up and read it, especially for Atlas Shrugged. Excellent viewpoints it presented, to me anyway. I understood the book, more complex parts of the book better after I read Cliffsnotes. They also provided a fresh, new prespective.

In a lot of the posts in this thread one thing is clear.
A lot of people think that IT workers, the internet, Tech Republic Members and everything to do with them are all American. Sorry to say this but there is a world putside your shores. I have had feed back from my TEechrepublic articles from every coner of the globe, yet to read this thread you would think that the USA is the only wired country in existance. What is good for USA may not be so good for Australia, England or Europe. TheFar East and Asia have many other problems that make some of the whinges posted here look like the petulant stampings of a spoiled child.
Because the World Series only takes place in one country people are inclined to think that there only is one country.
God bless you all
Rule Brittania!

Thanks for the reminder dude. There is only one country like US. When was the last time something good, something revolutionary (i.e. the new economy) came out of Britan?...sheesh! Until we the people of this great country (U.S. that is) say otherwise...US is the only country thats wired, lol. I don't see or hear people running to Britan, to get a piece of Britan...I see people running to America. And our women are much better too...and they shave on top of that...lol.

God bless you toosir and all you brits...!
Oh yeah...you misspelled a couple of wrds...----. Keep up the posts dude. I am tired of picking on my own country folk. Lol.

Hmmm, I thought that the World Series included Canada? (But excluded at least three of the most baseball happy countries of the world.)

Anyway, I have traveled some and seen conditions in the Far East and Asia. The differences are huge and theymake me appreciate the United States a lot.

I suspect that one of the reasons this discussion has such an American bias is because it touches on some pretty volatile topics. There are lots of extremely pro-union people and lots of violently anti-union people in the US. I personally can see benefits to both sides IF CONDITIONS SUPPORT THEM. Those conditions include cultural bias, globalization and management styles.

I can also see that conditions in other countries support different views of unions.

One example would be the increasing strength of countries like India in the IT world. From what I've seen in various postings, Indian programmers can be paid something near the U.S. minimum wage and be quite well off relative to many of their fellow countrymen. Their take on unions would be interesting to hear. It would also be interesting to hear about their working conditions. (That might show a lot of US people that we have things easy in many areas.)

Maybe this discussion needs to have more non-Americans explaining their economic environment and how professional associations, unions and/or guilds fit in. The cross cultural viewpoint would be useful in many ways.

You keep saying that this Union question applies to more than one nation, but you do not give any strength to why the union issue might be different for someone outside America. What makes this idea more desireable to someone in Britain, say, than America? Are unions somehow a different entity outside the US? If so, how? I have relatives who argue the value of unions and then tell me stories of this bloke who was caught sleeping on the job and the union saved his job. In fact, the union threatened to strike putting all members out of work to prevent this one lazy person from being fired. Is this different outside of America? I remember my husband coming home from a strike line where union members had been arrested for throwing rocks and firing guns at trucks crossing the picket lines. Violence seems to always be a part of the history of unions. Is this a justifiable means to an end? Is this only in America? Are you implying that there are computer IT sweatshops that work people ungodly hours for little or no pay and inhuman conditions that need a union to protect them? If so, state facts, don't imply that we who do not approve of unions in general and the abuse of thier power, sometimes run by gangsters, are just whining. I have witnessed the advantages and disadvantages of unions in many different occupations. I have seen people lose their homes because the strike outlasted peoples ability to endure. I have seen companies close unionized portions of their business because they could no longer afford the liability of being put out of business every strike. American companies often move their production plants to non-unionized states and/or countries to avoid the problems involved with unions. Unless you have more to say than "There is a world outside our shores", you will not sway the opinion of this person who sees unions as a very bad thing.

In my work experience I have gone from a union grocery chain to a non-union retail position to the IT industry. The only thing I got from my union affiliation was less money in my paycheck--both because of union dues and because each contract gave employees LESS money per hour. I heartily agree with the opinion that IT's should get paid what they MERIT and be willing to put up a stink if Supervisors/Management try to use them as doormats.

I just started a job with a Mental Health/DDM Service Center as a Business Analyst. The clinical staff wants everyone to join a union. I have never worked for a union and I am trying to find IT professionals that work for a union and get their opinions. I have always work in a non IT union job and my pay and security were never in question. I recieved my pay increases based on my performance and expertise and I like it that way. With a union will they be able to limit my salary and increases? If anyone has any thoughts on this please share them with me.

Thank you.

I work for a company that was ranked under 100 as best companies to work for in an industry magazine. When you are require to take a survey and must either use your login id or last4 of your SSN, and are told the survey is confidential and the company cannot see what your inputs are and are counseled on your anonymous inputs there is a problem. The company I work for does this and after 15 years of working for them I have seen managers, Directors and CIO's really abuse there power unfortunately jobs are scarce and they know that, so we need to take the abuse and either put up shut up or get fired that's why unionizing IT is important I have friends in many other companies that feel the same but are reluctant to say anything. I'm not for unions but if it gives us an edge then I'm in