3 ms·

Good luck with that. This industry has too many people with egos far bigger than their accomplishments justify, in my opinion. There is a tendency in this field

by sidlls 10y ago

Good luck with that. This industry has too many people with egos far bigger than their accomplishments justify, in my opinion. There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back.

twblalock 10y ago
> There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back. You don't have to be arrogant about your own abilities to realize that promotion based on seniority would privilege longer-tenured workers over better, lesser-tenured workers. That doesn't just hurt the best workers -- it hurts anyone who is above the average. Promotion based on seniority is a common feature of union contracts, so it's a valid concern. Some people like seniority-based promotion because it can reduce discrimination in promotion decisions. For example, a woman could be promoted based on seniority even though her sexist boss might prefer a less-qualified, less-tenured male candidate. That would certainly be unfair, and seniority-based promotion could prevent that. However, the tech industry is currently mostly men, which means that any female employee who joins a large company will have at least a few decades' worth of men ahead of her in line for a promotion, no matter how good she is at her job. Seniority-based promotion would actually entrench gender diversity problems for at least 20 years, rather than solve them. The only way it would have positive effects vis a vis diversity would be to impose it on a workforce that is already diverse but has discriminatory managers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sidlls 10y ago
  Do you have evidence that seniority based promotion hurts above average workers? Do you have good reason to suspect that seniority based promotion is a likely enough feature of a union in this industry to warrant concern?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Average is the break-even point. If you are average: Given that most people are average (because that's what average means), you aren't an outlier, so you wouldn't expect a faster or slower promotion timeline in a meritocratic system than in a seniority based system. After all, the majority of people more senior than you at any company are likely to be average too (because that's what average means), unless the company has an unusual distribution of employee skill across the tenure spectrum. In a meritocratic system, you are still average, and you would still have an average promotion timeline. If you are average, it doesn't much matter what system you have. If you are above average: Your talent will be recognized, and you will be promoted faster than most of your peers in a meritocratic system. In a seniority-based system, people who are not as good as you will be promoted before you because they have worked at the company longer. This hurts you, and it hurts the company, because both could do better under a meritocracy. You should prefer a meritocratic system over a seniority-based system. If you are below average: In a meritocratic system, you would be promoted as a last resort, when better people are not available. In a seniority-based system, you will be promoted just because you stuck around, even if you suck. You should prefer a seniority-based system over a meritocratic system. If you are a worker at any level, and you improve your job skills and your value to the company, that will increase your promotion prospects in a meritocratic system, but not change them in any way in a seniority-based system. So why would anyone try to improve or work hard in a seniority-based system?
    - sidlls 10y ago
      I have to object: you've provided a description of how you think seniority based systems work, but no evidence to support your contention that it is, in fact, the way they do.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        No evidence is needed. It's a self-defining term. It's very simple: when a group of people are considered for a promotion, the person who has the most seniority, i.e. has been at the company for the longest time, will automatically be given the promotion. That doesn't mean the guy in charge of the mail room is going to be promoted to head of engineering because he's been there longer than any of the engineers. Promotions happen within departments. But you can damn well bet that the guy in charge of the mail room is the mail room employee who has been at the company the longest, no matter how good he is at his job. Any system that doesn't work like this is not a "seniority-based" system, and is outside of the scope of the discussion.
- losteric 10y ago
  A tech labor union should not make the mistakes of past unions... In fact, we should strive to be disruptive and experiment with brand new ideas. For example, we could push for industry-wide standardized job level requirements that are demographic-blind. This would reduce agism, sexism, and other blind (or not-so-blind) biases. This would also benefit businesses by normalizing job requirements across businesses (for example: reducing interview costs and avoiding spending internal resources on defining requirements).
chrismealy 10y ago
True, but if professional athletes and Hollywood actors can be in unions so can hot shot web devs. Plenty of meritocracy (ugh I hate that word) in those fields.

by sidlls 10y ago

twblalock 10y ago

> There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back. You don't have to be arrogant about your own abilities to realize that promotion based on seniority would privilege longer-tenured workers over better, lesser-tenured workers. That doesn't just hurt the best workers -- it hurts anyone who is above the average. Promotion based on seniority is a common feature of union contracts, so it's a valid concern. Some people like seniority-based promotion because it can reduce discrimination in promotion decisions. For example, a woman could be promoted based on seniority even though her sexist boss might prefer a less-qualified, less-tenured male candidate. That would certainly be unfair, and seniority-based promotion could prevent that. However, the tech industry is currently mostly men, which means that any female employee who joins a large company will have at least a few decades' worth of men ahead of her in line for a promotion, no matter how good she is at her job. Seniority-based promotion would actually entrench gender diversity problems for at least 20 years, rather than solve them. The only way it would have positive effects vis a vis diversity would be to impose it on a workforce that is already diverse but has discriminatory managers.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sidlls 10y ago
Do you have evidence that seniority based promotion hurts above average workers? Do you have good reason to suspect that seniority based promotion is a likely enough feature of a union in this industry to warrant concern?
- twblalock 10y ago
  Average is the break-even point. If you are average: Given that most people are average (because that's what average means), you aren't an outlier, so you wouldn't expect a faster or slower promotion timeline in a meritocratic system than in a seniority based system. After all, the majority of people more senior than you at any company are likely to be average too (because that's what average means), unless the company has an unusual distribution of employee skill across the tenure spectrum. In a meritocratic system, you are still average, and you would still have an average promotion timeline. If you are average, it doesn't much matter what system you have. If you are above average: Your talent will be recognized, and you will be promoted faster than most of your peers in a meritocratic system. In a seniority-based system, people who are not as good as you will be promoted before you because they have worked at the company longer. This hurts you, and it hurts the company, because both could do better under a meritocracy. You should prefer a meritocratic system over a seniority-based system. If you are below average: In a meritocratic system, you would be promoted as a last resort, when better people are not available. In a seniority-based system, you will be promoted just because you stuck around, even if you suck. You should prefer a seniority-based system over a meritocratic system. If you are a worker at any level, and you improve your job skills and your value to the company, that will increase your promotion prospects in a meritocratic system, but not change them in any way in a seniority-based system. So why would anyone try to improve or work hard in a seniority-based system?
  - sidlls 10y ago
    I have to object: you've provided a description of how you think seniority based systems work, but no evidence to support your contention that it is, in fact, the way they do.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      No evidence is needed. It's a self-defining term. It's very simple: when a group of people are considered for a promotion, the person who has the most seniority, i.e. has been at the company for the longest time, will automatically be given the promotion. That doesn't mean the guy in charge of the mail room is going to be promoted to head of engineering because he's been there longer than any of the engineers. Promotions happen within departments. But you can damn well bet that the guy in charge of the mail room is the mail room employee who has been at the company the longest, no matter how good he is at his job. Any system that doesn't work like this is not a "seniority-based" system, and is outside of the scope of the discussion.
losteric 10y ago
A tech labor union should not make the mistakes of past unions... In fact, we should strive to be disruptive and experiment with brand new ideas. For example, we could push for industry-wide standardized job level requirements that are demographic-blind. This would reduce agism, sexism, and other blind (or not-so-blind) biases. This would also benefit businesses by normalizing job requirements across businesses (for example: reducing interview costs and avoiding spending internal resources on defining requirements).

chrismealy 10y ago

True, but if professional athletes and Hollywood actors can be in unions so can hot shot web devs. Plenty of meritocracy (ugh I hate that word) in those fields.