What would happen if a large scale union was formed by technology professionals?

pwd

Hope I don't sound silly posting this:

Would it be possible for such an organization to be formed, and what would the result of it being formed be, do you think?

Certainly there is justification for one, since our whole sector is currently undervalued.

seamus

I believe those that already charge too much would just charge more or go on strike.

Kernel32

I would much prefer to see it become a licensed profession first. One of the big issues with unionising as I see it is that there is a huge disparity between productivity of individuals that represent themselves as IT professionals. First cull the herd so to speak by requiring licensing as other professions have along with possibly a regulated appenticeship. Then organize. Otherwise all you have is a group of people pi$$ing and moaning about being undervalued when many of them are actually over valued.

pwd

How would you decide who gets a licence I wonder.
Certainly a lot of people have good degrees and sfa technical skills...And some people have no degrees or mediocre ones, but good skills.
-It certainly could do with licensing being introduced for this very reason.

jank

Would be a great idea imo. Almost every other profession is represented by its own lobby group, why not IT workers. The americans wouldnt be happy though!

Kernel32

pwd wrote:

How would you decide who gets a licence I wonder.

I think you would first have to look at other professions to see how it works there. It would have to come from a licensing board of some type. As an example an architect has to be licensed for each area(country, state etc) they work in. Not only that but they must attend continuing education seminars to maintain their license so they are fully aware of the new rules and regulations regarding things like safety within the geographic area they work in. If they don't attend they lose their license. I could see something similar for IT professionals. It wouldn't be seminars on in-dept technical issues but more around wider topics such as security.

RicardoSmith

Whats the difference between licensed and certified?

WhiteWashMan

RicardoSmith wrote:

Whats the difference between licensed and certified?

something to do with an affiliation, and a standard practised exam and methodolgy, rather than just having sat some random tests...

personally, i hate unions, but if you want to be part of one, i believe SIPTU stands for Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union.

i think that should cover it.
i used to be a shop steward for SIPTU. like star wars, it was a long time ago a glaxy far away

seedot

If you were active in SIPTU this may have had something to do with a subsequent hatred of unions wwm, I've heard so many horror stories.

Unions generally come in two forms: craft and industrial and I think this discussion seems to be focussed on craft union organising (e.g. just programmers, wherever they work).

http://www.allianceibm.org/ is an interesting example of an industrial union - the CWA, organising within a particular company.

Borzoi

pwd wrote:

Certainly there is justification for one, since our whole sector is currently undervalued.

Yeah I'd like to see that backed up with any sort of resonable data comparing you to similar professionals.

Or is it that you want dot-com lunacy levels guaranteed for life

Kernel32

RicardoSmith wrote:

Whats the difference between licensed and certified?

Certifications are about what you know how to do.
Licensing is about ethics and accountability. When you are licensed you generally have a code of ethics to abide by and your are accountable for everything you do. If you are a software developer and you play a key role in a project that ends in complete failure costing millions, possibly leading to job losses you are not held accountable beyond the organization you work for. If you're an engineer and a building you work on falls down causing huge losses of money and life then you will be held accountable at multiple levels, the least of which being your employer.

RicardoSmith

Are most software developers, support staff etc. in a position to dictate best practise and adherence to approved practises? Of all the places I've worked few if any worked to best practise, and its usually a case just get it done. Only place that I worked that really came close worked under FDA validation regulations for Software Validation and FDA's 21 CFR Part 11
Electronic Records & Electronic Signatures. However that only covers some very specific things.

What would happen if you are asked to do something that best practise? Refuse to do it? Don't see that as workable for most people.

nesf

Unions....

No.

RicardoSmith

Borzoi wrote:

Yeah I'd like to see that backed up with any sort of resonable data comparing you to similar professionals.

Or is it that you want dot-com lunacy levels guaranteed for life

Do you think "dot-com lunacy" is even an issue anymore?

pwd

Borzoi wrote:

Yeah I'd like to see that backed up with any sort of resonable data comparing you to similar professionals.

Or is it that you want dot-com lunacy levels guaranteed for life

Well there's a great deal of posts in this forum by recruitment and technology professionals saying the same thing: The market for mid-level and entry-level IT staff is flooded, and therefore the jobs that are available generally offer low remuneration for the skills they require.
Seen jobs requiring good degrees and decent skills for minimum wage or less. One chap expected me to work for his company for free and be grateful for the oppurtunity to accrue experience alongside their talented staff hehehehe.

Eoin

There certainly are many people in the IT industry without any formal qualifications, but several years of hands on experience - myself included. Should this prevent me from being certified?

WRT to best practise etc - this is what management and senior IT staff are for. There are many people out there in Junior roles who wouldn't and shouldn't be responsible for determining best practise / policy. Their supervisors are responsible for ensuring that the junior staff adhere to same.

I was not a fan of unions at all until I joined my current company. The union there (which I joined) is constantly involved in discussions with the company, but there are never any strikes etc - it basically does what a union should do: represents its members but without interfering with the work of either the members or the company itself.

RicardoSmith

In terms of a licenced professional, that would mean that licencing would not of be value to junior staff. Since they don't determine best policy.

As for unions. I have seen them being toothless in the past. However for the first time in 10yrs I working in a place with a strong union presence, most of the IT staff are members of various unions and it definately a much nicer place to work.

WhiteWashMan

seedot wrote:

If you were active in SIPTU this may have had something to do with a subsequent hatred of unions wwm, I've heard so many horror stories.

tbh, my dislike of unions does stem a lot from what i saw going on within the higher echelons of union politics.

but to put it straight, i believe unions play an importnat role in keeping the status quo in many work places, and i see then being useful only when they are strong, and they have the best interests of the people at heart.

from my time in the union, all i saw was an attitude of hatred, mistrust and dislike towards the companies, a level of contempt for the people they represented that i have never seen before or since, and an arrogance that was not deserved.

unions are useful in a limited way, but i would much rather work somewhere where a union is not needed, where i dont need representation because working conditions are that bad etc.
i would never let myself be put into such a situation.

i see unions as useful for blue collar work and low level professional work. once you get over that, once you get into a position that you can negotiate for yourself, then there is no need.

but thats only my opinion, and im sure there are many people out there who have many reasons to thank unions. me, i ws just shocked at the level of purposeful disruption that unions caused inside companies to create a need for themselves.

Eoin

i see unions as useful for blue collar work and low level professional work. once you get over that, once you get into a position that you can negotiate for yourself, then there is no need.

WWM, I pretty much agree with you on all points, but there are some rare circumstances where IT staff (not only junior level) are in a civil service type environment (An Post for example - not where I work btw) and group negotiation is required to secure a fair deal for the members - that's where being a member of a union is useful even if you are not a low level professional.

I detest the typical union mentality that any change is bad, even if that change is for the better good of the company and the customers with little impact to the employees - and as per my previous post, I am lucky that my union does not share that mentality, and that even if there are issues that need to be addressed with the company, they are done in parallel with day-to-day operations without disruption.

WhiteWashMan

they you are in a good union. its a shame that most unions from my experience are all about the internal politics and self serving attitudes.
a union that can work with a company is a rare and welcome thing imho.

Borzoi

pwd wrote:

Well there's a great deal of posts in this forum by recruitment and technology professionals saying the same thing: The market for mid-level and entry-level IT staff is flooded, and therefore the jobs that are available generally offer low remuneration for the skills they require..

So, you're at the wrong end of a supply and demand market? You have my sympathy - but I suspect that many people went into IT courses expecting to waltz into high paying jobs at the end of four years wcollege. That situation is gone now. But are you any better or worse than any other profession, ie engineers, accountants etc? I suspect not. Your gripe seems to be that the gravy train dried up.

As I said refernce your 'poor' wages to another sector similarly skilled.

Eoin

Borzoi wrote:

But are you any better or worse than any other profession, ie engineers, accountants etc? I suspect not. Your gripe seems to be that the gravy train dried up.

The accountant reference is interesting - once you get qualified you are basically guaranteed a massive hike in wages, and in the bigger accountancy firms you tend to automatically move up the food chain as you gain experience.

Having said that, the part before you qualify is pretty sh1te

<edit>
Of course - this goes back to the whole certification / qualification debate.
</edit>

RicardoSmith

Borzoi wrote:

....But are you any better or worse than any other profession, ie engineers, accountants etc?...

Do you have hundreds of fully qualified accountants with 4-10yrs exp competing for every role that appears? or whole companies of accountants moving to the far east because its cheaper there?

HelterSkelter

pwd wrote:

Hope I don't sound silly posting this:

Would it be possible for such an organization to be formed, and what would the result of it being formed be, do you think?

Certainly there is justification for one, since our whole sector is currently undervalued.

Maybe I wouldn't be working late on a Friday if there was one!!

Borzoi

RicardoSmith wrote:

Do you have hundreds of fully qualified accountants with 4-10yrs exp competing for every role that appears? or whole companies of accountants moving to the far east because its cheaper there?

Hmm, a debate for another thread, as it's certainly a differnent topic to the OP and the supposed 'undervalued' career