Should IT form a union? | InfoWorld | Analysis | 2008-09-04 | By Dan Tynan
Posted by Graham on September 5th, 2008
–I know that there is this conception that IT workers are “go-it-alone” types, but the reality is that the same economics that apply to other workers also apply to IT workers. If you work for a company, have a boss, and are not part owner of that company, you should unionize. It is simple: unionized employees get more, have more say over their working conditions, and have more job security. It is a complete myth that the IT worker is somehow different from any other production worker. I think that the misconceptions around what unions are is more responsible for the lack of unionization in this sector than anything else. One discussion on Slashdot is around seniority and other provisions in a collective agreement, but there is no understanding about how these provisions make it into a collective agreement or about how diverse the union movement is with regards to the make-up of unions themselves. Most unions are democratic which means that if the majority do not want things like seniority (which is just the idea that you should not be fired because the company has found a younger person that can do the job for less money) then it won’t be found in the collective agreement. Unions do not have to be bureaucratic — just take a look at the UE’s structure. There are as many ways to establish a union as there are ideas within the membership. You can make it what you want, which, by-the-way, is one more reason that IT workers should unionize. Start getting what you deserve at work, join a union!
September 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Excellent points, except I think your last sentence is a little troubling. I don’t think “Stop getting what you deserve at work, join a union!” would be a very good slogan.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Too funny. I think it was early when I wrote it. I have updated the text to what I meant.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Graham ..we need to talk .. We realy need some seriouse union organisation inteh IT sector in the Maritmes.
The IT companies here are getting away with so much abuse.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Some thoughts from someone who thinks too much and reads too little…
I think Unionizing a corporation whose existence is based on Intellectual Property creates too many contradictions to ever be feasible. What power can IT workers truly have if they do not have ownership over the products of there own creativity? Isn’t there a conflict of interest between maintaining good jobs at an IP based IT company, while actually trying to help workers seize the means of production? (Unless, of course, we’ve given up on seizing the means of production.)
Further, how can a Union provide job security in an industry where the companies themselves have such brief lifetimes? IP based IT companies are either dead withen a few years, or swallowed whole by larger conglomerates.
Very few IT companies with that live long enough to go through the lengthy process of getting a Union started in them. Of course there are the big ones, Googles, Microsoft, SAP, EA, etc… The difficulties in Unionizing those companies is well documented.
I think the better strategy is to focus on Unionizing/Organizing workers in companies that are not dependent on IP: consulting companies; web service companies (that use FLOSS); free software support companies; and the many community based coops that are popping up in cities around the world.
The IT sector has a huge role to play in reorganizing the economy. But I think we are wasting our time if we try to unionize local IP based IT companies. By focusing on non-IP based IT, we can lay the groundwork for a new kinds worker and community friendly economic development.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
If a group of workers want to unionize, I don’t think that anyone should be able to tell them they cannot. The right to unionize is everyone’s right — including those workers in the IT sector.
IT workers do produce, just like industrial sector workers. IT workers produce a commodity that is sold on the market, traded, and profit is made — just like industrial workers. The fact that the employment is structured in such a way as to exploit the workers more means that they are in even more need of collective action to protect their interests.
Just because it is difficult, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done. In fact, I know of more than a couple unionization drives being carried out by the Public Service Alliance of Canada right now in this sector.
To answer the broad, theoretical reasons to unionize the IT sector along socialist/Marxist analysis:
Seizing/democratically controlling/planning the means of production in an advanced capitalist framework will require unionization of the IT sector. Having a say over production and equipment doesn’t mean much if you cannot produce, test, and distribute the software that makes the machines run. To exclude a sector from democratic control that is so integral to the process of production as it exists today would be disastrous. In such a case, the software that is produced could be under FOSS licenses and employees could be paid to produce, test, and redistribute improvement or innovations to that code brought both from the workplace and the larger volunteer FOSS community. However, their control over the means and environment which they produce in would still be under their control. The only way to ensure that this is democratic is to have a collective framework like a union.
However, in the mean-time, there are plenty bread and butter things to be gained for IT sector workers if they choose to unionize:
Job security, pay increase, health benefits, ergonomic/safety training and requirements from the company (which is extremely important in this industry), and personal coding time (ie weekends) are all important to IT workers. Also, having a collective voice means that you can interact with other workers across the country in an organized way outside of the online world. This kind of organizing could compliment (and teach the industrial sector about) the innovations that occur in the IT sector.
All workers, who choose to be, should be in a union. It is the only way to have your collective interests established in the workplace and would help to raise the standards in the sector around employment rights.
Collective agreements are established by the membership. The IT sector definitely has unique characteristics which would have to be expressed in the type of collective agreement you would ask for, but this is the case for many areas.
Short-term employment resulting from companies that come-and-go can be combated. When workers have a good workplace and a democratic process to affect the running of that workplace then there can be ways that can actually increase the ability of that company to grow, get more contracts, and survive in the market. Also, if the company were to try to leave the area those workers would have a framework to bring-in contracts themselves and establish a worker-run corporation (like a co-op or a company under worker-control). The establishment of the union, the collective agreement, and the de-mystifying of the running of the corporation would provide this alternative. Never underestimate the effectiveness of IT sector workers to find new solutions to problems — they innovate for someone else all day long, innovating for themselves should be an obvious thing to do.
Workers in all sectors of the economy benefit from unionization (even if they, themselves, are not in a union). The IT sector may be new and may bring challenges to collectivism, but these workers are smart and extremely effective at using collective resources (just look at what is accomplished in FOSS) I am sure that they can overcome whatever the economy and businesses throw their way.
If you are interested in organizing, please contact me and I can put you in-touch with organizers in the area.
gcox[at]leftnews.org
September 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
(As usual I agree with Graham but have something to add…)
Presently there has been little progress in organizing within the “high tech” sector. There are two major problems that I have found, based on my own research, which will have to dealt with before any real change should be expected.
First, “high tech” workers with a technical background, i.e. computer science, business etc, tend to have little understanding of labour history or workplace politics. (This is no accident either.) Since these workers are in effect, “tabula rasa” the intense conditioning by high tech managers, such as the invocation of professionalism as a justification for unpaid overtime, tends to work. Thus, creating a highly divisive workplace culture, one that internalizes the legitimacy of managerial power, is fairly easy.
The second point can be illustrated by an event in maritime labour history. During the Aliant strike a few years back the company bussed in Innovatia workers to scab until the strike was over. (They were paid really high wages for their efforts - $25/h or something like that.) This is fairly straight forward example of how better paid workers tend to identify with management and happily kick other workers in the face in order to secure their relative privilege.
In sum, because “high tech” workers tend to do better than the median wage, and have little understanding of the issues at hand, they are as difficult to organize as fast food workers.
However, if the lowest rungs on the “high tech” ladder, i.e. call centers, were to organize effectively, those on the higher rungs may look down and second guess some of their core assumptions about workplace politics.