3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoAverage 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 agoI 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 agoNo 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.
- sidlls 10y agoWell, when your argument is "I say so" then of course there is no discussion to be had. How absurd.
- twblalock 10y agoThis is the same as asking for evidence that circles don't have corners ("do they really work that way?"). Seniority-based systems are based on seniority. Systems that are not based on seniority are not seniority-based systems, just as shapes with corners are not circles.
- sidlls 10y agoNo, it's not the same as asking for evidence that circles don't have corners, because the latter is a strictly mathematical concept and the topic of promotion schemes is not. Can you provide empirical evidence with actual seniority based systems that match the very strict description you've supplied? Because if not what you have is an unsupported hypothesis, not a description of reality.
- petertheil 10y ago"No evidence is needed." Great argument, bravo.