Aussie Techs Threaten Chaos 267
tintinaujapon writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that NCR staff with key responsibility (among other things) for fast food & supermarket chains, banking ATMs, schools and baggage handling at Sydney airport are preparing to walk off the job next week, in industrial action aimed at resolving a pay dispute. NCR's general manager thinks few people in the general community will care about the plight of the palest workforce, but the union claims potential disruption and financial losses could be huge. The strike could last up to a week and is the most significant action yet taken in Australia by the techie workforce."
We should do that in the US (Score:0, Insightful)
This will demonstrate that H1-B's and other scabs don't have the skills to keep corporate networks working. And maybe, will help get us the pay rates we had 8 years ago - you remember, whatever you make now, times two.
Biased headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Complicating this is that a lot of geeks are libertarians, and a lot of self-styled libertarians think unions have the smell of socialism. Which is stupid, of course; unions are in fact an admirably free-market solution to the problem of employer-employee conflicts. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that asking someone who calls himself a libertarian about his opinion of organized labor is a good way to distinguish between true libertarians on the one hand, and right-wingers who call themselves libertarians because it's fashionable in certain circles on the other.
Re:Biased headline (Score:1, Insightful)
Labor unions were necessary in the past. Your points are both correct regarding the 40 hour week and child labor - but in the modern day, unions seem to exist more to shaft companies in the name of helping employees.
Re:We should do that in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you need to retake history. The 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford, prior to any unions being formed in his company (in fact he was very much against unions). Child labor laws weren't fully implemented enofrced until the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act in the US. Again, this had nothing to do with unions, instead coming from the more "socially concious" individuals.
What unions HAVE been good for is improving workplace safety, working conditions and a few other things. While there are unions out there that actually work for the members, there are also a lot of them that are fully corupt as well.
Further labor unions are way for workers to gain rights without government interference
Half true, half false. It is not a way for them to gain rights, it is a way for them to gain more pay, privlidges and better working conditions without government interference, which I fully support over the government having a hand in it.
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
And again to Libertarians tell me exactly what is wrong with a non governmental organization representing workers in negotiating job contracts? How else are we going to see a minarchist society that provides a living wage for families? For I assure you if the globalists get their way their goal is to pay you as close to the prevailing wage in India and China as possible, don't let them get away with it.
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
There are too many regulations that give positive rights to the employees in such situations to call unions in America a market solution.
I, too would find them admirable (much like I find voluntary collective consumer action to be admirable), if the playing-field were __actually__ level (instead of ostensibly so for the benefit of bureaucrats).
Unions without government-intervention would work. Instead of the unions we see now, we would find unions organizing as independent for-profit bargaining/insurance companies.
At the same time, the union company's risk and reward would come from providing some degree of insurance (out of union dues) to newly organized employees.
a thought.
Paul
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider myself to be something of a libertarian, but I have mixed feelings about unions. On the one hand, collective bargaining can be truly necessary in those situations where the disparity in power between the employer and employee is such that the employer looks upon their workers as faceless, replaceable biological machines that perform a given task and refuses to treat them as human beings. On the other hand, I've seen firsthand the productivity hit and general attitude of entitlement that can result from a strong union, and many unions appear to embody an "us vs. them" mentality that makes it difficult to come to a compromise when the employer's needs/wants need to be taken into consideration, even when they're entirely reasonable.
Having said all of that, one thing that a lot of self-styled libertarians seem to gloss over is the inherent advantage that government confers upon corporations, specifically corporate personhood and all of the stuff that falls out from that, and the fact that corporations exist without fear of any kind of real punishment for criminal acts. I fail to see why some people don't see that for the government intrusion that it is, and then turn around and complain about other government involvement in free markets such as tariffs on imported goods.
geeks of the world - UNITE! (Score:2, Insightful)
Tech workers can work in just about any industry and can work just about anywhere.
Here's a clue - IF YOUR JOBS SUCKS, QUIT! Or at least post up on Monster fer-cry-eye
Tech workers are not like a bunch of UAW factory workers who really have no options other than strike when the company they work for pisses them off.
UAW workers can't post up on Dice or Monster and expect any offers
I don't get it, WTF?
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? All the geeks I know work 70+ hour work weeks... then again I think a lot of that is self-imposed...
More on-topic, though, I've seen many examples of unions just going way too far. They were a good idea, and have wrought many benefits. However the only 2 things they are responsible for are:
(a) Provide for their own survival.
(b) Increase benefits to their members.
Point being, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to act reasonably. Members only making $160,000/year? Strike and get more (see longshoremen). Company on the brink of bankruptcy? Screw 'em. Demand more wages and benefits (See big 3 automatkers).
Clearly when the little people are getting screwed unions can serve the greater good. But there needs to be some point at which they can say "we've done our job, things are reasonable, goodbye" and stop the drain on the companies they have become parasites to.
At some point, the companies are the "little people" being screwed by the unions, which is not really any better.
Re:Biased headline (Score:1, Insightful)
1) helping to prevent excessive workdays as mentioned
2) preventing discrimination against minorites\women\disabled\other workers
3) ensuring safe working conditions
However, unions currently are invloved in the setting of wages and benefits, which goes againsts free markets. The market determines what the wage of an employee is, not the unions. Allowing them to do so has caused serious harm to companies. Consider the U.S. Steel industry as an example. The U.S. Steel industry went out of business in part because their labor was 30% overpriced when compared to the market price. When asked for concessions during the tough times of the 1970s and 1980s, the unions refused and U.S. steel makers closed a large amount of plants.
Another thing I hate about unions is the seniority thing. It has the potential to hurt employees and companies alike. From the employee side, the seniority structure of the unions can favor those who just want to be average or below and hurt those who want to be above average. Thats because performance matters a lot less than experience in an union structure. As a result, there is not much incentive to perform above average because it doesnt get you much of anywhere. As a young professional who wants to get to the top quick and spends a lot of time on professional development and continuing education, I would NOT want to be in a scenario like this. Which is why I think unions have so much trouble recruting IT people and other professionals. From the companies standpoint, having a large amount of employees that do not strive for self-improvement is not very productive.
So unions have their place, but their powers in the West are far to great. But with the advent of globalization, that is in the process of changing. Many more unions that pratice wage\benefit inflation and exploit seniority will find their companies going out of business soon unless they change their ways.
And many more protectionist governments in the West will find their economies collasping under the weight of these policies combined with aging populations: Western Europe, this means you!
Re:Biased headline (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah, but someone's gotta collect that money from all these employees, someone's gotta make sure everyone's paid up, someone's gotta convince everyone that the union is good for them, and of course someone's gotta convince other companies' employees that unions are good for them too... now you've got a middle man, or make that a middle army. These people have to be paid, of course. Greed and corruption have set in, and the "bargaining" turns against the employees... it's one thing to demand that employers don't force employees to work 20 hour shifts, another to prevent employees from doing so. Then you've gone from arguing for the employees to arguing against them. So the company has to hire more people. Sure, this might help with the local unemployment problem, but really, these new hires will be paying union dues right? Somebody's gotta pay for all the political campaigns and lobster dinners.
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
When workers want as much money for as little work as possible, they're spoiled and greedy. When companies want long hours for low pay they're "lean and efficient." How some people can hold both these views simultaneously and fail to see the hypocrisy is beyond me.
Finally on a related note, allowing companies to slash pensions for those who already earned them is legalized theft.
Re:You would have traded with Hitler (Score:1, Insightful)
I would have traded with Nazi Germany, while the measures you're advocating would turn us into Nazi Germany. Again: if free trade is good externally, it's good internally, too. There's no cosmic mandate that entitles you to live better than five hundred million equally-qualified Indians. If you can sustain your current position only at the point of a gun, that's a problem for all of us.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but if the market decides that all programming is worth is $8 an hour, no government or labor union is going to be able to change this, at least over a long term.
"The market" makes these "decisions" because of bargaining between potential employer and potential employee. If no potential employee will accept $8.00/hr, the potential employer will have to offer $9.00.
The problem of offshoring is one of differing economies. For now, workers in India can work for a fraction of the U.S. wage because their cost of living is a fraction of that for U.S. workers.
Of course, even if nothing is done to alter the natural cause and effect, eventually things will equalize, but not before a great deal of suffering happens, and quite possibly not before the U.S. is made a shadow of it's former self.
There are, of course counterbalancing forces that will come into play as well. I predict that if the trend continues, it won't be long before some Indian outsourcing provider realizes that they have all of the expertise they need in-house, so there's no reason they shouldn't just 'in-source' the management and crush their former client (that no longer has anything but a building, a bunch of managers, and a worthless unenforcable contract). That will trigger a big rush of on-shore in-sourcing.
Re:You would have traded with Hitler (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny, we used to hear that a lot back when all those Native Americans were being exterminated, too. (I don't know about "millions of Africans," though. They've arguably been the beneficiaries, not the victims, of American imperialism.)
News flash: America has a God-given right to do two things: jack and shit. Again, you need to read a history book or three. Even with the questionable wisdom of using nukes to repel "invaders," you might as well be trying to steer your ship of state by nudging the Moon around in its orbit.
Expect change, friend. Nukes or no nukes, Nazis or no Nazis. Our country is not the unique and beautiful snowflake that you think it is... except in the literal, evanescent sense. Look to your own family; mine is the world of humanity at large.
Re:well, in my case... (Score:4, Insightful)
The union you describe in your post certainly sounds bad, I'd agree.
However, I'm not sure its true to say that "at least one union is bad, hence all unions are bad". That seems as incorrect as saying "at least one company is bad, hence all companies are bad".
Michael
Re:You would have traded with Hitler (Score:1, Insightful)
how many trillions are we in debt? what about the bank's switching from petro-dollars to petro-euros soon?
Re:well, in my case... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your post would be 100% true if the majority of the populace cared about value and efficiency versus style and ease. Ford and GM put nicer interiors, sound systems, and gizmos into their cars than the Asian companies do. It's the same reason Linux will never take a significant chunk of the home computing market unless something drastic changes; end users like that flashy, bloated, and ultimately useless crap that sits in the system tray of Windows letting them know it's 58 degrees outside and their friend just sent them a nudge.
I actually converted a friend to Linux, installed Ubuntu on his computer, and all was going well until he wanted to install his instant messengers. I ended up having to install Windows XP on his machine because he simply HAD to use the MSN Messenger 7; GAIM wasn't pretty enough, and didn't have the "cool features." That kind of thinking is why GM can sell H2s, Windows controls 95% of the market, and why a company that sells food that appears to be designed to kill is worth over $40 billion [yahoo.com].
Re:The way to solve the H1-B "problem" (Score:1, Insightful)
Voila. Problem solved.
Before you criticize, think about why this would be a terrific for everybody except companies who lie about why they want to import workers.
Close, but no cigar. Once the H1-B gets a permanent visa, then that will open up an H1-B slot. The market will still be flooded with cheap labor, which is exactly what the companies who lie about why they want to import workers really want. Yes, allowing the green card in 90 days will reduce the companies' ability to treat H1-Bs like slave labor, but they'd still love your plan, because it would open the floodgates.
Far, far better would be to allow H1-Bs to switch employers after 90 days, while holding the quota steady. Skilled workers would be wooed by companies in need of talent, and the overal wage depressing effect of the H1-B program would be greatly reduced. It will, of course, never happen.
Really, the best solution is to end the H1-B program altogether. If companies want to export jobs, let them go right ahead and try. They know damn well it doesn't always work, which is why they are pushing so hard for visas. Think about it for a moment. Any labor that can successfully be offshored for a cost savings has already been offshored, and then some. But the companies continue with their hollow threat of "either allow H1-Bs or we will offshore more jobs!" They know it's a lie, but they want to frighten the weak-minding into accepting the bargain.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, that's why executive pay has remained mostly stagnant for the last 20 years while the pay, bonuses and pensions given to the working class have exploded. And good, hard working American CEO's have been fired and replaced with cheap MBA's from India. Oh wait, I think I have something backwards here.....
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that would be stupid for both parties. The workers want a job, the company wants workers. Actually quitting en mass wouldn't do either any good. This is what strikes are for - employees refuse to work, giving managment the option of negotiating or firing the strikers and hiring a new workforce.
They block enterances and refuse to leave. They harass customers and resort to violence.
Okay, how many times has this actually happened in the last 50 years. Besides, this is one of those boilerplate anti-union arguments out of a bad Jimmy Hoffa movie. Union X did bad deed Y in 19XX, so therefore...we shouldn't have unions! If we applied the same logic to business, we wouldn't allow any companies because they would all cheat on their taxes, dumb toxic chemicals into the river and fondle their secretaries.
First of all, wage growth was much faster in late 19th century America vs. Europe, while the former was virtually devoid of unions, while the latter was heavily unionized.
Of course you have economic facts to back this up, such as ratio of worker to executive pay, adjusting for different currencies and industries, right?
Would you really want to invest somewhere where your employees will randomly decide to just shut down at a critical moment?
And you seriously asked why you got modded down?
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe if you just stepped out of the 50's. But if ALL unions are bad because of a few tomato salesmen, then ALL businesses are bad because of Enron and Wal-Mart.
Geeks in Unions? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember once sitting in an all-hands meeting listening to our CEO, saying that our wages would be frozen for yet another year, and our benefits further cut, even though the company was seeing record profits, and the company was located in an area where living costs were zooming. His explanation: the stockholders won't let me. I wanted to stand up and say, "No, damnit, what you mean is that you're listening to the stockholder complaints about costs and not our complaints about wages and benefits. They're pushing us to earn less; tell me why we shouldn't push back?" But then I looked at my co-workers and tryed to imagine organizing them into a union — and kept my mouth shut.
Obviously things are different in Oz.
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well, in my case... (Score:1, Insightful)
http://gregcumberford.com/pics/2002/flint/ [gregcumberford.com]
(Please mod this up, so that the folks who don't want to read a long post, will still get the point)
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
It is rather hard to avoid this attitude when companies routinely sack their employers just to hedge their stock up a few pennies. You cannot demand loyaly from employees if you are unwilling to show them any. You cannot value your profits more than your employees and expect them to value you more than their benefits. If companies refuse to accept this, then they deserve to get screwed; they are only reaping what they have seeded.