this may be controversial but I don’t think unions are a coherent way for software engineers to organize. unions depend on the delineation of task-defining labor and task-executing labor, and aren’t really compatible with the existing control these folks have over their work.
-
-
Replying to @ctbeiser
Screenwriters and cinematographers have (powerful) unions; I know we software people are extra-special-snowflakes but there is plenty of precedent for unionization of skilled, largely self-directed creators.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @mtraven
I think the key is the nature of the work and who judges. Under dissatisfied conditions, software engineers will spontaneously work to rule, with absolute deniability.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I’m currently digging into the Julian Orr / Xerox Eureka story, which Mike at least will remember. Just came across this paragraph, which seems somewhat relevant to your exchange here. (Ten Years of Talking About Machines, Julian E. Orr, Organization Studies 2006)pic.twitter.com/OiB3hb48ua
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
apropos of nothing anyone cares about, the details of this stuff are super interesting 20 years later. I’m having to restrain myself from ranting extensively about it on twitter, but nobody cares, it’s ancient history.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
no, wait, it’s THIRTY years later, I am older than I remembered! Anyway, it’s mind-boggling that we all put up with office machinery with an MTBF of a few days, with a technician from Xerox having to drive out to the customer site to fix it each time might as well be steam
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
actually that’s totally unfair to steam, I bet even James Watt’s engine had a better MTBFpic.twitter.com/UC2r10v365
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.