Infoworld has a story up by Dan Tynan asking, “Should IT form a union?”

Because so many of the problems that IT faces today are similar to problems in manufacturing back in the turn of the century, the idea of unionizing IT workers in an attempt to curb outsourcing, bring more reasonable hours to the IT workplace, and be able to collectively bargain for wages.

There is nothing wrong with this idea, but any decision to unionize IT – or to not unionize IT – is going to have an impact on the performance of the network.

IT workers are in a difficult situation. Outside of IT, it’s hard to differentiate yourself from your peers because you’re only noticed when things go wrong. Inside IT, it’s clear that there are some IT workers who possess a honed skill and natural talent.

One of the problems, however, is that ultimately, business IT needs to be responsible to the bottom line. An exceptional IT worker simply might not be challenged by the tasks they are given. One of the reasons we harp on network performance is because fault is binary – either it’s working or it’s not – while performance is variable and there is no upper ceiling on the amount of improvement that can be accomplished. (Okay, well, there’s the speed of light. But other than that, no upper ceiling.) Still, performance is measured in enterprise technology as being beneficial to the bottom line. Being able to prove IT’s cost savings to the company is important – but we’re geeks. Showing the company where IT adds value is a challenge, but not the type of challenge IT pros are really looking for.

Besides, when work fails to challenge both mediocre and exceptional IT personnel, it can be hard to differentiate work between the two. We all want to be the best in our fields but one of the frustrating things about business IT is that sometimes the business doesn’t need the best – they just need, and are only prepared to pay for – adequate. (The Sistine Chapel Problem: Every ceiling needs to be painted, but not every ceiling needs a mural.) These are the jobs that get outsourced.

It is especially discomforting for the exceptional IT tech (and you’re reading this, so you’re obviously one of them) to know that your job is outsourced to someone who can do the job, but who probably isn’t as good as you at the intricacies and overall strategy of networking.

So unionization is tempting.

But unionization – in the sense of a electrician’s union – would protect the mediocre as well as the excellent. It is possible to fire incompetent unionized workers, but it takes more work and documentation – documentation that IT workers will be required to maintain. Additionally, union workers can place more emphasis on seniority than on qualification.

Indeed, management of IT workers is a crapshoot – and

Perhaps there is a middle ground in enforcing both workplace standards and professional standards – something like a professional IT organization structured like the American Bar Association, where IT workers have to maintain certain qualifications to remain in good standing, but those in good standing can be expected to command a 40 hour work week and a competitive wage.

There are certifications, of course, but certifications are things – measures of past achievements, not a commentary on present practices. And of course, the IT industry changes all the time.

The problem with going the “professional association” route is that it discourages talented mavericks. Sure, everyone’s worried about being laid off because they can hire a kid fresh out of high school for less. But requiring professional qualifications would be unfair to the kid if the kid happens to be more qualified.

At the same time, who hasn’t had to deal with someone making a really dumb mistake that wouldn’t have happened if they had adhered to some sort of industry standard? The Daily WTF is chock full of examples.

But professional standards can discourage professional innovation. New ways of doing things may be better, but they can get you in trouble with the standards-making organization simply because the innovation is not the standard. The principal of technology and evolution is that is at odds with organizations that slow it down. That’s why well adopted standards are so hard to find. New, cooler stuff comes out that blows away the value of the standard.

Ultimately, a standards-enforcing professional organization can hamper both the really stupid and the really smart. Which brings us right back to the differentiation problem. (With apologies to Doug Gwyn, any system that prevents you from doing stupid things also prevents you from doing clever things.)

At the same time, there is a very real problem. Wages are declining, and the Teamsters have secure retirements while the IT workers at Enron don’t. The 60 hour work week with no overtime pay is an extreme case, but a plausible one.

The worst part about this is that this is problem that can be solved without unions – not that it will be, but that it can be.

Management of IT workers is a crap shoot and often full of great coders with no business in management, or good business folks with no grasp of technology. Unions won’t fix that. Lou Gerstner at IBM realized this and started promoting great technologists as individual contributors. He extended the corporate ladder to the brilliant geek with no requirement to manage people.

Should IT unionize? The only rational choice is to figure out whether the problems IT workers will have under unionization are less dire than the problems we have now without it.