Programmer's Guild - how to take them today?

[The Gorn]

I wandered into an older Yahoo Groups account last night and found that I still belong to the Programmer's Guild Yahoo group.

It makes me kind of sad to see the traffic on that list. Probably 30,000 messages from 2004 to present. Fomenting rage at corporate America, H-1B, offshoring and various and blatant forms of job discrimination against average Americans.

It's clear to me that most of the causes that PG fights for are just or at least worth hearing out. It really is atrocious how this country has determined that certain classes of occupations are less available to normal citizens than others.

It's also clear to me from reading those posts that virtually none of the people who appear to be active in that cause (or at least the ones who spend the most time on that list) are: 1) really making a difference or are 2) protecting their own family's financial futures. They are, instead, expressing blind rage at trends that so far, after 9 years of the Programmer's Guild's existence, have absolutely not yielded to their efforts whatsoever.

If offshoring or H-1B are declining or are less in repute than they were 10 years ago, it is largely (IMO) because it was a fad that ran its course based on hype, and any decline has nothing to do with PG's efforts. Maybe a "bust" of some H-1B lackey sweat shop happens now, but in general the overwhelming war has been lost even though a few tiny skirmishes may turn out favorably once in a while.

I scanned hundreds of messages in the archive there and I saw one guy (1!) recommend in a posting that ex-programmers get into shareware (the early form of mISV.) So probably less than 1% of the traffic there is positive in terms of recommending actionable things for individuals to do.

A while back I tried to join the Yahoo PG group from a different account and I never got a response. I suppose that to join now you must be a paid-up member, but frankly, neither the cause nor the traffic are worth $35/yr to me. What would I get out of it, anyway? Collaboration with bitter people who have not tried to move on in their lives?

Or am I a f*cking weak willed hypocrite just interested in feathering my own nest, and these people are today's courageous freedom fighters? All I know is that it is VERY hard to do things for my own business that are effective and which have payback. I can't even imagine how my actions in the context of a body of disgruntled and angry people would have even comparable payoff.

Does it take genuine courage to ally yourself with the Programmer's Guild? Or are you just wasting time by giving in to outrage?

I guess I can appreciate that they now protect their member's identities and postings against drive by trolling and by surveillance from employers. That may explain why it is such a pain in the ass to join the Yahoo group. But it also makes the group very difficult to find anything out about.

The last media person I ever saw give time and attention to PG was Lou Dobbs, who had the founder, John Miano, on his program several times. And we all know what happened to Lou Dobbs. He was pressured off the air due to his stance against job squatting by illegally or improperly admitted aliens in all its forms.

What can you say about a perfectly valid cause that should receive support and attention but basically appears to be a black hole of futile railing and which appears to do its members absolutely no good? Or am I taking a limited and selfish view.

The bottom line: I'd support them if their cause was leading anywhere. It does not appear to be so. And I think it's actually bad for its members. It fosters a sense of being able to control events that really cannot be controlled.

[The Gorn]

Here is where I am coming from.

If I pay attention to what PG is saying - or rather, what its members are saying in the forum messages - if I think about PG as if it is a thing that I ought to actively participate in - and I felt this way once  when I first heard about it - I find that then my creative instincts and my thinking about being in business shrivels.

In other words, the mental state that I need to be in to work on my business - is almost diametrically opposed to the mental state that I would need to be in, in order to participate in PG and to collaborate with its members.

Reading the PG's screeds and paying attention to them makes me feel weak, puny, and buffeted by random and mostly hostile forces of nature. The feeling I have when I read their board is "why try"?

The feeling I have of working on my business - thinking what I can do - makes me feel more positive... like I can probably accomplish something tangible on a small scale.

Does anyone else think this way?

I really want to help with something like this, but I'll be damned if I join in order to have my mental state clouded to my own detriment.

Here is a contention that I would like to put to the PG: what proportion of your members are actively and somewhat successfully moving on with their lives and/or are working in a field that you consider desirable?

If it's above some low amount like 1/3, then I would say that PG is benefitting or at least is not holding back its supporters. If not, then it sounds like an extended 10 year pity party. I would say most members there are stuck where they were laid off.

Too severe a standard? Well, I ask this. Is a member of a movement supposed to self destruct in order to support that movement? If so, then it sounds like something that no healthy person should join.

Or maybe I have that group all wrong and it's a rancorous group of mostly employed activists who choose to do what is right.

I'd be interested in knowing which it is.

[The Original Henry]

Don't bother with them.

1) Programmers are terrible at this sort of effort, and a group of programmers is nothing more than a group of individuals who can't agree on a common direction.

2) To change the way the industry works would require a balls-busting union type of arrangement with extremely heavy lobbying efforts to close the rear flank. Refer to 1) above.

I long ago just accepted that the industry is what it is. Now that I've tired of it I'm looking to move on to something else and all the little middle managers and corporate fiefdom lords with Napoleon syndrome will have one less skilled person to choose from when they need help. It's not worth any effort on my part to even attempt to reform any of it.

[The Gorn]

Don't bother with them.

1) Programmers are terrible at this sort of effort, and a group of programmers is nothing more than a group of individuals who can't agree on a common direction.

2) To change the way the industry works would require a balls-busting union type of arrangement with extremely heavy lobbying efforts to close the rear flank. Refer to 1) above.

I long ago just accepted that the industry is what it is. Now that I've tired of it I'm looking to move on to something else and all the little middle managers and corporate fiefdom lords with Napoleon syndrome will have one less skilled person to choose from when they need help. It's not worth any effort on my part to even attempt to reform any of it.

I completely agree.

I do consider offshoring as it has been practiced a social wrong.

But OTOH, US programmers have been getting from offshoring what manufacturing people in the US have been receiving in terms of offshore competition for the last 25+ years. It's interesting that none of the labor unions in the US have been successful in any significant way in changing the direction of capital and the preference for cheap crappy out of country services.

I looked around that list last night and it was "I see dead people". These people think about this stuff all the time, apparently. What a sad life.

[I D Shukhov]

I exchanged one or two emails with Miano 10 or so years ago.  My position was, and still is, that more effort should be put into development programs for programmers who want to form small, employee-owned businesses.

Miano thought that political action to stop H-1B was what was needed, not small business development.  I saw at the time that programmers wouldn't have the political power to stop H-1B and companies would pursue offshoring no matter what.   The *only* thing that slowed down H-1B is saturation and the post dot-com boom downturn in the industry. 

[David Randolph]

Fugettabout 'em.

Look at how discriminated groups became acceptable: They stuck together economically. By building their own economy, they won respect from others. Groups that have not stuck together economically have stayed in poverty and discrimination. That is the whole basis for a true "Guild" and the original basis for "union" power.

Case in point: An Italian guy on the west coast started a bank for ethnic Italians there. The "Bank of Italy" wound up becoming the "Bank of America".

If it were a "Programmer's Bank" instead of a "programmer's guild", it would have more power and would have made more of a difference.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5878707_start-credit-union.html

[Carrie Cobol]

I exchanged one or two emails with Miano 10 or so years ago.  My position was, and still is, that more effort should be put into development programs for programmers who want to form small, employee-owned businesses.  The politically incorrect, communist-sounding name is "worker cooperative".   Aside from the additional income-limited stress of H-1B, programmers have always had the problem of organizing themselves to work together so we can escape the girls and boys in the backroom mindset  and domination by enterprising-managerial types.

I like this idea.  I've been job hunting for 9 months now with no success... in the D.C. area which shouldn't be as hard as the middle of the country for example.  I've often thought it's a shame that some of the mIsv's or independent consultants didn't hire teams.  (Although I do understand that would change them from an IT professional to a business manager, which is probably the last thing they want.)  But it sure does suck when my current employer wants me to keep doing what I've been doing for 20 years and won't give me opportunities to work on newer tech, and other companies don't want me because I don't have experience with newer tech.  It's a total catch-22.  And although some companies will hire you for web programming if you can show them your portfolio, there are lots of IT project that are IP, confidential or classified that you just can't do show and tell with.  American business no longer has any interest in the care and feeding of it's workforce, it's all up to us individually to struggle to have the right experience at the right time.  I think it's almost impossible.

[The Gorn]

I like this idea.  I've been job hunting for 9 months now with no success... in the D.C. area which shouldn't be as hard as the middle of the country for example.  I've often thought it's a shame that some of the mIsv's or independent consultants didn't hire teams.  ...it's all up to us individually to struggle to have the right experience at the right time.  I think it's almost impossible.

Employment today (especially in high tech) seems to be a DIY thing.

I like where I D Shukhov and David Randolph are both headed and that insight is excellent. It's a lot more straightforward to build something and earn a living than it is to change the thinking of a large segment of the US economy that does not want to hear you.

The PG seems to be absolutely blind to this way of thinking.

[TechTalk]

Well, I have to give organizations such as The Programmer's Guild credit for at least trying to do something to address the many problems that this industry has. That said, the offshoring of services and the inshoring of labor (e.g. H-1B and L-1 visas) are part of a much bigger problem.  The biggest problem as I see it is that the people who do the actual grunt work in this industry have absolutely no say in shaping/influencing the way business is actually being done today in this industry.

The fact is that without standards you cannot call what we do a profession.

Before any type of grass roots organization can get some traction and be effective it has to first understand what the "big picture" or reality is.  Second such an organization will need a vision that lots of people can buy into.  There is no doubt in my mind that it will have to sell or inspire lots of various IT workers to join the cause. This organizations motto could be something like "we need to change the way the IT industry is being run so that it benefits everyone". 

What is the "big picture" or reality?
Well, here is my 100,000 foot view of things.

There are 3 entities that make all of the rules:
1) The business people who have their hands full simply trying to run and grow a business or a bunch of businesses.
2) Various government agencies.
3) Staffing firms which are essentially temp placement firms/pure sales organizations.

IT workers haven't become commoditized.  We as a group have always been a commodity (at least we have been to staffing firms).  Colleges don't train students to work in this industry.  Just like law schools don't train students to become lawyers (they train students on how to be a law professor) a computer science degree doesn't train students to become software developers (they train students to become computer scientists).

Only governments are capable of telling businesses how to run their business.  What does that mean?  If a grass roots movement ever does take hold in this country (and perhaps in other countries as well) there will be limits on its power and its ability to make industry wide changes. 

A vision that lots of people can buy into?
If somebody wanted to start a new organization tomorrow and call it something like the IT Workers Association that person or group will need to focus its energies on areas where it can actually do some good and be effective.  Here are two possibilities:

* Push for industry standards with the hope that lots of companies embrace/accept them.  I am
   talking about standards not just for IT workers but for recruiters as well. 
* Provide education to the following groups. That is, dispel the myths and talk about the realities of
   the IT industry:
   > IT workers.
   > The general public
   > Business owners and executives
   > The media
   > Federal, state, and local governments

I can't speak for anyone else; however, I am sick and tired of playing resume buzzword bingo and taking arbitrary tests.  I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't believe most IT workers are willing to pay money to become a member of some organization unless they feel that the organization is actually capable of making their working life better.  Yeah, I know this means most people are not willing to get involved until someone has done all the hard work already. 

[The Gorn]

I spent some time reading through their mailing list - my application was approved.

The PG mailing list is basically a wasteland of copied news articles about business outrages. I don't know why I bothered.

There is no "community" in any sense that I see there. There seems to be little conversation beyond "this sucks! These people are evil! Someone, sometime should do something!"

I am into individual empowerment these days. PG is a gossip mill filled with seemingly bitter people.

I think David Randolph, I D Shukov, and The Original Henry said it best, and to synthesize their views in one place:

A class of individuals that is marginalized can only command power and respect by creating economic value. The mISVs and individual consultants and contractors who do well are at the forefront of showing the way out and creating a positive impression of programmers and techies. The people exchanging stories of outrage on the PG list are the exact opposite.

Programming and IT have always been dysfunctional - as Henry said, the industry is what it is. Before H-1B, employers were treating programmers like shit. I experienced it first hand. You "fix" offshoring, and employers and business will just find another way to marginalize us.

I'll add this. Programmers have always been quislings about organizing and even standing up for their own rights. Peers in the workplace have never joined me in pushing back. Usually they do the opposite, they show conspicuously that they are "not me" so they won't be targeted. 

What possible chance does a person who won't stand up for themselves have in joining a cause with others who are just like him? Mailing $35/hr to PG is just an excuse for not moving forward personally and for not taking personal responsibility for your career.

I also like this:

That said, the offshoring of services and the inshoring of labor (e.g. H-1B and L-1 visas) are part of a much bigger problem.  The biggest problem as I see it is that the people who do the actual grunt work in this industry have absolutely no say in shaping/influencing the way business is actually being done today in this industry.

The fact is that without standards you cannot call what we do a profession.
...
IT workers haven't become commoditized.  We as a group have always been a commodity
...
* Push for industry standards with the hope that lots of companies embrace/accept them.  I am
   talking about standards not just for IT workers but for recruiters as well. 
* Provide education to the following groups. That is, dispel the myths and talk about the realities of
   the IT industry:
   > IT workers.
   > The general public
   > Business owners and executives
   > The media
   > Federal, state, and local governments
...
Yeah, I know this means most people are not willing to get involved until someone has done all the hard work already. 

This is a worthwhile thought. Make the industry more professional and raise perceptions. But an organization in PG's role is supposed to be doing this!

As always, I say it's every man and woman for him/her self.

[Carrie Cobol]

Well it's already every man for himself.  You  yourself said that coworkers would never stand up with you because they didn't want to be targeted.  So I don't think that's the answer either.  There are too many IT professionals out there, not everybody can start their own ISV.  Lots of us, like myself, would prefer to work for a team.  There are too many IT projects out there that are simply too big for one man to develop all by himself.  And pretty often they are fun and exciting projects to be a part of.

Something I've pondered is the apparent failure of the new CIO/CTO executives that were created in the last decade.  When companies started creating those positions, I thought it would be a good thing for us.  Finally we would have a voice in the board room, somebody to advocate for us and to translate between business and IT.  Someone to explain the value of IT to the executives.  That seems to have not happened as far as I can tell.  I don't see that any CIO/CTO's are doing anything at all.  Sometimes they advocate for particular technologies in their companies, but they seem to share the rest of management's scorn for the IT staff.  Very sad.

[Dennis Nedry]

You already know all of your answers.

You'll never find answers to anything meaningful to you on the internet. 

Now, I visit several boards regularly, including this one, and enjoy it.  It's entertaining.  And I do get some good
advice here and there about specific technical things or websites, or services, etc.

However, anything above that level, the sad old truth is that we're all on our own, because we're all
different, and we all have to figure it out for ourselves in our own unique way.

[The Gorn]

Well it's already every man for himself.  You  yourself said that coworkers would never stand up with you because they didn't want to be targeted.  So I don't think that's the answer either. 

I was indicating that my experience is that a typical programmer does what he's told, even when it's the equivalent of eating a plate of poo, and would never think of associating with a "resistance"... until it's his head that is on the chopping block. What I wonder is what all of the bleating voices on the PG and TechsUnite group sites were doing right up until they were laid off.

There are too many IT professionals out there, not everybody can start their own ISV.  Lots of us, like myself, would prefer to work for a team.  There are too many IT projects out there that are simply too big for one man to develop all by himself.  And pretty often they are fun and exciting projects to be a part of.

And there are too many IT professionals to staff the remaining corporate jobs for them.

I agree with you about the desirability. On the other hand, everything in our society has been downsized. We don't even look to the government or large business entities to fund new space flight ventures... the action there is coming from private entrepreneurs. mISVs have been a source of interest among developers because there are relatively few solid opportunities for experienced developers in the corporate world.

Small business formation is often a response to need, not just a desire to profit. I have known lots of small business people who went into business (and even did OK) because  they needed a job, not because their life's mission was to go into business. "Survival" is supposed to be the wrong reason to start a business but I honestly never got the memo.

There just don't seem to be many true "systems engineers" positions around. I think that abusive management practices are a way of saying "there are 100 just like you lined up if you don't toe the line."

So, yeah, it's fun to work in a team rather than be a solo act. But at what cost? I think I implied in this thread that I was abused pretty flagrantly in a few jobs, well before cheap Indians were a factor. H-1B is just a new instrument for keeping the locals in line.

That's what the PG seems to be lacking the clarity to see: are there quality jobs to be salvaged, or without H-1Bs, would it even matter?

And we need a growing economy in order to create high level jobs dealing with abstractions. In a faltering economy, immediate personal and business needs come first.

Something I've pondered is the apparent failure of the new CIO/CTO executives that were created in the last decade.  When companies started creating those positions, I thought it would be a good thing for us.  Finally we would have a voice in the board room, somebody to advocate for us and to translate between business and IT.  Someone to explain the value of IT to the executives.  That seems to have not happened as far as I can tell.  I don't see that any CIO/CTO's are doing anything at all.  Sometimes they advocate for particular technologies in their companies, but they seem to share the rest of management's scorn for the IT staff.  Very sad.

I am thinking that this is because of the quisling quotient among programmers. We don't stick up for each other publicly. So when one of us gets promoted, he goes with all haste to the dark side where he can vocally disavow his roots. I've seen this happen repeatedly in real life and it seems to be a pattern.

I like individuals and I find common ground with individuals. But on the whole, we programmers are a gutless, feckless lot.

[The Gorn]

You'll never find answers to anything meaningful to you on the internet. 
...
However, anything above that level, the sad old truth is that we're all on our own, because we're all  different, and we all have to figure it out for ourselves in our own unique way.

Quoted for truth.

[I D Shukhov]

You'll never find answers to anything meaningful to you on the internet. 
...
However, anything above that level, the sad old truth is that we're all on our own, because we're all  different, and we all have to figure it out for ourselves in our own unique way.

Quoted for truth.

I'm not completely sure about this.  I wonder if a person needs objective, external observations.  We all know that we can delude ourselves. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases   How many are there here, a hundred??

Of course, now you have the problem of the external commentators' biases when they offer "objective criticism".   I suppose that's what a trained psychotherapist is supposed to do -- get rid of all their biases.