upvote
I don't know that unions would necessarily negotiate for no use of AI. The SAG-AFRA deals don't preclude all use of AI; they just requre consent and negotiation in certain cases.

A union doesn't give you unilateral power; it just gives you a better seat at the bargaining table. Capital pools its resources to negotiate better as a single bloc; why shouldn't labor as well?

reply
Has it occurred to you that it isn't only self-interest but concern for others that drives collective bargaining? It's essentialy a way for the little guys to stand up to the 1% to fight against the unending series of abuses and diminishment of the average person's ability to earn a livable wage and work under fair conditions.
reply
Yes. But there's a clear difference between, say, stealing someone's voice, identity or intellectual property, and preventing someone from using automation to do labor.

The former is obviously unfair to the person whose identity is stolen. The latter is sour grapes from people who want to control the future.

I also can't bring myself to get incensed over someone using a robot to write code. It's literally the modern equivalent of smashing knitting looms.

reply
This is the first time I've heard someone argue that unionizing is a self-interested pursuit. It's called "collective bargaining" for a reason; workers who cooperate in negotiations with their employers have more leverage than those who negotiate individually. The entire point is to work together for the betterment of the group!
reply
See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor.

Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)

reply
> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor

If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.

> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon

As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc

reply
I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think their point was that they're against the self-interested nature of unionizing.

I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening.

And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me.

Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.

reply
Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?
reply
Maybe if employers offered better working conditions and salaries people wouldn’t feel the need to go on strike?
reply
People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike.

Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to.

But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services.

We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.

reply
You realize his examples are public sector unions. Which mean the “employer” you are referring to is the citizens? Not some evil corporation, government mandated monopolies which then get taken over to serve their union members.

I don’t have any objection to voluntary unions. Meaning people can join them for support or collective bargaining, but that citizens can just opt to not employ anyone in the union. Unions could be support structures for workers, instead they are mafia bosses.

reply
Well… yeah. But I didn’t blame the employees, I blamed the employer who must have seen the writing on the wall for a long time and yet let it come to this.
reply
Why do you assume unions are always reasonable? Unions in the US have a long history of over reaching and crippling industries and governments.
reply
Those self-interested unions better stay away from my interests!
reply
[flagged]
reply
Where do I say that nurses shouldn’t have good working conditions or good pay? Most of us have figured this out already: you can take a job at another company that’s better to work for. Most nurses do have pretty good working conditions and get paid well. Competition among employers is the solution here. Walking out and putting customers (or patients in this case) in a precarious position is not.
reply
So she doesn't enjoy her job and only works there because you can't make up the $15 hour difference between her working in a book store for minimum wage vs her working for $30 an hour? Why don't you take a part time job on the weekend to lighten her load? There are many people who become a nurse because its a calling.
reply
their point is while the 'group' wins, the rest of the world loses.

localized gains, distributed loss.

reply
as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss.

a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.

thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.

reply
There is no moral imperative to help the world reach an optimum. Rather, the world is full of competing interests.
reply
>Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested

Caring about your ability to pay your bills, and support your family is "self-interested" in the same way that choosing to not drive into oncoming traffic is "self-interested".

reply
[dead]
reply
> Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested.

Yes, exactly. Do not advocate for yourself and your colleagues by joining them in a united front. Your voice does not matter. You will continue to adapt to widening wage disparities.

You will accept a pay cut and increased productivity goals and be happy to continue adapting as your cost of living keeps on climbing.

reply
You may be surprised to know that residential areas in San Francisco are height limited, sometimes as short as 4 stories. They're not exactly anti-progress.
reply
Height limiting is anti-progress, which was his point.
reply
Ok SF needs somewhat higher-density housing. But wanting something good for yourself and your peers isn't anti-progress. If the benefits accrue to only a few people, it's not progress.
reply
> But wanting something good for yourself and your peers isn't anti-progress.

It is if it makes it worse for everyone else.

reply
deleted
reply
Thats great, although understand that unionizing protects the more vulnerable of also the software engineered. You not advocating for your rights also means weakening others. Is it still self interested to unionized from that perspective?
reply