Skip to main content

Unionized IT and SOA


Labor unions are rarely found in IT organizations.  It’s not unheard of, but generally high pay rates and frequent job mobility have made labor or trade unions appear to be of limited benefit to the employee – and therefore rejected.

In general labor unions impose rules on the management that require employees with the greatest seniority (most time at the company) be promoted to more senior positions as they open up.  And they require new employees to be brought in at the most junior level.

IT, with frequently changing technologies, requires bringing in subject matter experts and promoting those demonstrating top technical skills to technical leadership positions.

Recently I’ve been doing some consulting on a large scale IT project, which involves quite a bit of Service Oriented Architecture and involves a unionized IT department.  They’re struggling both with the technical aspects of a major technology and architectural approach change and with the union job impacts of such.

In particular, like the classical unionized worker, much of IT is certain that it’s doing it’s job function in “the right way”.  It knows this because it’s the documented union approved procedure, and therefore the “right” one.

Similarly because of this the existing environment has been extremely slow to adopt new technology or new methods, as each such change requires negotiations with the union.  This has led to much of the IT operations literally remaining as green screen mainframe applications written in a standard 2nd generation programming language.

As an interesting aside, I heard that one of the union contract terms for pay includes a multiplier based on the CPU (mips) capacity of the mainframe.  (I guess the assumption would be if the “computer” is doing more then either the workers are doing more or their work is more valuable.)  This has literally led to increased computing power being delayed due to the impact on labor costs (and therefore maintaining slower application response time across the whole work force).

It’s hard to see how one can operate within union work rules and have an agile and integrated IT environment.  Perhaps there are agile unions that could make such a thing possible, but traditional union patterns do not seem compatible with agile IT.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disaster – both in terms of th

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider