"Would U.S. tech workers join a union?" survey average: 67% likely
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25996640
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-how-american-tech-workers-feel-about-joining-a-union/
If you want to read about this on a website that isn’t full of ads and doesn’t just present as an ad for their own news app, here is the source material by Blind.com.
Unfortunately I couldn’t find a link to the raw survey data and I generally don’t trust surveys that aren’t accompanied by raw data.
I went looking for the data because 1901 respondents across 32 of the largest companies globally doesn’t seem like it would be statistically representative of any one company. If you assume the same sample size per company, which it probably isn’t but again that’s unverifiable because I couldn’t find the raw data, you’re looking at, what, 60 employees for a company the size of Google?
Look, I’m a recovering tech worker who left the industry because of the toxic work culture, having spent a quarter of my life at one of the good ones. Even there I saw the value of unions. No matter the industry, workers deserve the right to collective bargaining and fair treatment. But I don’t think surveys with unverifiable data help move that conversation forward.
Now, if I’m mistaken and someone finds a source link to the data that we can all verify, I’ll happily take another look and reconsider my opinion on it’s validity.
Look, I’m a recovering tech worker who left the industry because of the toxic work culture, having spent a quarter of my life at one of the good ones.
What are you up to these days? Which unicorn was that?
I spend most of my days working on healing myself with time in nature, and I'm developing a personal photography project connected to my natural surroundings. I also spend time working on my garden when weather permits and am learning to paint and draw when the weather is gloomy. All in all that keeps my days pretty packed and active, not even thinking about tech most days whereas before it was all consuming.
The majority of my career in tech was at Mozilla, followed by a relatively brief stint at Element. I'm lucky that I was able to spend my entire career working for companies whose missions and products I still champion. But even as good and well intentioned as they are, they cannot escape so-called "Silicon Valley" as they're very much a part of it.
I think blind itself drives some interesting bias. The public posts are pretty incel. You need a critical mass of folks at your company to have a company private board so it attracts folks from bigger companies. It doesn't seem to represent average folks well. Unless I have no idea what average is.
I'm not sure what to do with that instinct. The overall results say a thing I wanted to hear. It all feels weird.
My thoughts exactly, I would not trust Blind members to be a statistically representative sample of workers at these tech companies. Blind tends to draw people who aren't super happy with their job, and may-or-may not be more likely to be interested in unionization.
Holy shit Intuit and GM better shape the fuck up or the workers should just hurry up and fucking do it.
GM also has tons of union employees which has some impact on the non-union portion (i.e. better benefits etc), so seeing first-hand what unions can do for you might make them more likely to support one even if their current working conditions are great.
When I think of a tech worker union my thoughts first go to standardizing everyone's pay and limiting what I can earn myself. I've probably fallen to anti-union propaganda.
A tech worker union that says nothing about pay could still do so much.
A union could ensure that the company's incentives are aligned with worker's incentives around things like on-call.
I'd love a union that forced a company to give all on-call workers compensation. Something like:
Basically, if a company is having lots of on-call alerts, or the company is preventing employees from using their comp time, you want this to be directly painful to the company. Incentives should be aligned, what is painful for the worker should be painful for the company.
Or, regarding "unlimited PTO". I'd love to see a union force companies to:
Tech workers have it good compared to a lot of workers, but there are still plenty of abuses a union could help with, even if the union never even mentions pay.
Unless unions work differently where you live, they are a democracy that will pursue whatever issues its members vote on. If members don't think pay is a problem, why would they try to change it?
Had to explain this to my dad when he told me about the carpenters unions not allowing his brother to work after he retired.
1: Unions are the democratization of workplaces; for better or for worse.
2: Should you really be working when you’re claiming retirement checks from your union?
3: People are often falsely confident on their views about things. People love to complain about the government while hardly understanding anything about it. The same happens everywhere, including unions. Just because some dude is miffed doesn’t mean they have any right to be. They can be misinformed.
A union lets you have leverage when negotiating for anything with the corpo. Individually you have a little if you're top talent, and none otherwise. Very few people are irreplaceable, some are somewhat painful to replace, the rest are less so. We've been mistaking the tight labor market in this industry for our own self worth but hopefully the last couple of years have helped most of us snap out of it.
Speaking of pay, the structures I've seen at a union university for example have pay scales based on the job and defined pay increases in every job. You know what you're gonna get paid for a position you're applying, and you know what you're gonna get paid years ahead in that job. With that said, a union can negotiate any sort of pay scheme. Perhaps most importantly a union can negotiate to get a much larger portion of the profits for the engineers. You think some folks in tech are paid very well, but if you look at the value they generate, they might not be paid nearly enough. If you think a union might take your 500K salary to 300K while raising some other people's salaries you should consider that a union can take it to 800K or more. Assuming this is happening at one of the wildly profitable companies where this money exists.
And of course a union gives you the leverage to negotiate any other conditions like the ones that you mentioned. On-call, PTO, remote, etc.
Yeah the tech labor market has really proven that the idea of employment contracts being negotiated between equal parties isn't true even in the best of circumstances.
Even when companies are desperate for talent, and willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on salaries and perks, they are not willing to negotiate on anything outside of that. They still have terrifying contracts with non-compete and damages clauses they could use to wreck your life, no workplace democracy, unpaid overtime and whatever other shit is legal.
But hey! You get free snacks and enough money to buy the dinners you don't time to cook and save up to survive your inevitable burn out!
Another concern I have - which might also be anti-union propaganda - is that I won't be allowed to do certain things because that job is supposed to be done by someone else according to the contract.
I hate doing that sort of thing because it makes me wait and by the time they get back to me another fire has started that I have to put out and it takes me a while to get back to the first thing.
I'd be happy to hear this isn't a legitimate concern.
You're unlikely to be told that you aren't allowed to do this or that, unless it's a safety violation of some sort. The idea that you can describe jobs to the letter and everyone is aware of what's written there and only does that is absurd. What's in the job descriptions protects you against abuse if someone makes you do things aren't paid for trained for, capable of, etc. It's a backstop. It doesn't prevent you from doing other things. In fact doing extra is a basis for promotion, just like it works in non-union shops. That's what how I've seen things working in a unionised university I have access to.
In any case, if a union card comes to my desk, I'd get the power first and worry about these details later. At least someone would ask me how I want these things to work, instead of telling me with the only alternative being to leave the company or be fired.
Those compensation requirements would basically make it financially impossible to have someone on-call or they'd just have to hire people for those hours and say they are normal working hours.
How would you force someone to take time off?
How would you force someone to take time off?
If I was their boss I would say something like "you're job is to stay home and do anything besides work for the next week, you will still be paid for this time". Easy.
As for the on-call stuff. Yes, that's the point. It should be unsustainable for a company to continually rely on their daytime programmers for frequent on-call alert handling.
If off-hours issues happen often, the company can hire an additional team to handle off-hours issues. If off-hours issues are rare, then you can depend on your daytime programmers to handle the rare off-hours issue, and know that they will be fairly compensated for being woken up in the middle of the night.
I've been at too many companies where an off-hours alert wakes up a developer in the middle of the night and the next day the consensus is "that's not good, but we'll have to fix the underlying issue after we finish implementing the new UI the design team is excited about". It's not right for a developer to get woken up in the middle of the night, and then the company puts fixing that on the backburner.
I'll say it again. It's about aligning incentives. When things that are painful for the worker are also painful for the company, that is alignment. Unfortunately, most companies have the opposite of alignment, if a developer gets woken in the middle of the night the end result for the company is that they got some additional free labor, that's pain for the worker, reward for the company; that's wrong.
Those compensation requirements would basically make it financially impossible to have someone on-call or they’d just have to hire people for those hours and say they are normal working hours
These are not the only options. Here are some others:
Something's telling me most orgs where 2 is an option would go with that. Related to that - increases in labor compensation is what forces companies to spend money on capital investment that increases productivity - read new equipment, automation, fixing broken shit, etc. If there are cheap enough slaves to wake up during the night, doing this investment is "low priority" (more expensive) and isn't done.
Not bad, I thought our heads were still further up our asses.
Anything using Blind as a "verified industry source" is going to be skewed to the type of person who uses Blind. Beyond that, it's low sample size, and there are suspiciously round fractions for some of the larger companies. Worse, because Blind is blind - this doesn't represent current employees, but merely people who worked at some point in the past at those companies.
Not saying it's not good - just saying not to get overly excited over a badly done survey
Doesn't blind require you to validate via corporate email yearly or something?
Only on signup
How afraid are you of retribution if you tried to unionize?
That's why you get as many people to sign up first, organize BEFORE the vote, not after.
I guess not much if I were an Intuit employee and significantly if I were at Apple. 😄
How afraid of retribution is my manager/ hr because they're all too fat to walk home when they get 4 flat tires.
Wow that's crazy that such a thing could happen. What are the chances.
The US labor laws need to be updated too. They suck compared to the 1st World EU members. I fully support unions too.
Would a union be able to repeal this lame IT overtime pay expectation? This dumb rule was the $27.63 over ten years ago too. I once worked at a place and a co-worker was told by his staffing agency that they didn't have to pay overtime.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-computer#:~:text=However%2C%20Section%2013(a)(,duties%20and%20who%20are%20paid
A collective agreement can't include less than the law but can provide more than the law, so they could add paid overtime in the collective agreement and the employer would have to follow that even though the law doesn't make it mandatory.
A collective agreement is a work contract, the only difference is that the employees negotiate it as a group instead of one by one.
Unions generally don't write or repeal laws, but a union contract can negotiate overtime pay where there isn't any.
Now how do we do it? Especially with remote work, not sure how to organize.
Especially with remote work, not sure how to organize.
Remote work didn't stop you working, did it? Why would it stop unions from working? There's on the ground work for sure, but it's mostly desk stuff, especially in IT.
The same way you organize anything. Start by talking to a couple trusted coworkers to form an organizing committee. All the members of the OC need to talk to coworkers, handle workplace drama, agitate for better conditions, educate people about unions, maintain systematic campaign tracking, and fight against the boss during their union busting campaign. When I worked remotely, it was as simple as sending a dm like this:
Hey, would you be able to talk over break? Some coworkers and I were discussing some issues and I wanted to hear your thoughts.
Form out of band relationships with coworkers you trust to get a base going then send an email to everyone from your department from an anonymous email address to solicit feedback and organize a vote.
Get ready for corporate announcing the layoff of 67% of the workforce
They're doing that in any case when they can get away with it. Not forming a union isn't going stop them.
If that happens, they are going to see a lot of things seemingly from the past connected to union activity though.
Not just strike breakers being hired (some of tech work is not that demanding in expertise, think typical Hindu web devs), but also actual spies, saboteurs, hitmen being involved, propaganda attacks, possibly legal attempts to bust unions and use of force. And, of course, crucial positions in union bureaucracy becoming attractive for organized crime (which likely has very few of people associated with it ever convicted, as in mostly invisible until it's too late).
Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Just the more adult level of the game. Considering that the tech industry is at the core of our civilization now, and considering its profits, this can get as historic as battle of the Blair mountain.
What is the legality of unions across the US?
Unions are legal in all occupations. There may be restrictions on some form of collective action (i.e. the government can force strikers back to work) but organizing is never illegal.
Unions are legal in all occupations.
One caveat: the legal protections of the right to unionize apply to non-supervisors. If you have people who report to you, your power to unionize is pretty limited.
There are also some specialized jobs that aren't allowed to unionize by either federal or state law: actual soldiers in the Army, certain political jobs, etc.
But for the most part, if you are employed, you're probably allowed to unionize (and protected against retaliation even in an unsuccessful union drive).
Unions are legal in the US. The labor movement is currently seeing a huge swell in new bargaining units across most unions
Legal but some States have weird laws in place like being able to not be part of the Union if you don't want to
Absolutely. I've been laid off twice in my IT career. It would be nice to have someone on my side for a change.
Apple, tesla, and Google suspiciously at the bottom three there
Me too. I work for none of the above, but yes I would.
My company is on there. I wish we had a union
Make an alt-alt over VPN and tells us more. 😁
If more would join a union it would likely cause the other companies employees to find more interest or courage to join. Please join a union if you are not already. Support yourself and fellow workers, solidarity is key.
These numbers seem grossly inflated. How was the study conducted?
Edit:
However, on average 67% of those polled in the Blind survey said they were likely to join a union and 73% said that unions “mostly helped.”
Eh that's reasonable. Blind (the app) is pretty good, alibet toxic
Apple workers is anti union? WTF, i thought apple was one of the most liberal leaning corporations
There are two reasons to avoid a union:
If you are well looked after by your company and are treated fairly, there is no need to create a union.
Apple may be in this category?
Liberals don't have the interests of the working class at heart
That's... Exactly why they would be anti union?
Because companies like Apple, Google, etc. treat their engineers extremely well in order to attract the best talent. Why unionize if you're payed a ton of money, have unlimited PTO and work in a very casual office environment (or from home)?
Apple employees lack class consciousness. They don’t understand that they too are working class, because they too have to sell their labor to survive. You can be pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+, pro-DEI, etc. while still being oblivious to the class war.
No. I don't want some other party dictating my career and pay for me.
I really don't want an environment where you have people saying "Oh I can't work on that, union rules. Wait a week until Bob comes back from vacation."
Defeat the fuckingcapitalists
Unions can affect productivity of a cooperation which might cause you to lose your job.
They can also prevent you from losing your job unfairly, and fight for wage increases and benefits that you otherwise wouldn't get.
Productivity isn't affected much by individuals beyond some marginal differences. An accountant from 1920 can never be as productive as an accountant today no matter how hard they try. When productivity is discussed by economists, it means investment in equipment and training that makes people produce more for the same hours. When productivity is discussed by business leaders in relation to unions, you're being lied to or they're incompetent.
Or give psychological safety that it is demonstrated to increase productivity 🤷♂️
What makes you think union decrease productivity instead?
Damn, wtf are intuit and GM doing to their engineers?
Maybe they just forgot to brainwash them with anti-union propaganda
This is likely the case with GM given that their manufacturing is unionised. Engineers just got a demo what that can do for them last year. They aren't getting the raise assembly workers got.
Silicon valley is full of H1B visa holders who can't speak up politically or risk deportation.
Edit: cause some jackass is implying I'm a bot - I should have joined a union and a union would've protected me from the mass layoff in '23 but that doesn't change that while there I never thought about needing a union because it was such a nice place otherwise.
As someone who previously worked at Google - they didn't have any antiunion propaganda.
They just, like, paid well, had top tier benefits, great perks, and had a good work life balance.
Idk about intuit but GM is probably a result of their union coworkers getting awesome Bennie’s.
The union autoworkers get good benefits like overtime pay for work over 8 hours. Union working come in at 6, then take a fixed breakfast and lunch break and then leave at 2:30. Anything over that will need approval and overtime pay. I’m surprised Ford and Stellantis isn’t alongside with GM.
Funny, seeing them at the top gave me a favorable impression of them, but seems to have caused the opposite for you. My impression was probably due to, like someone else said, feeling like maybe they're not being drilled with as much anti-union propaganda.
But I'm from a place where you have to go out of your way not to be part of a union.
10% of people are insane so they even got significant chunks of the crazy vote for GM and Intuit