3 ms·
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, t
by 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 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.
- twblalock 10y agoThis is the same as asking for evidence that circles don't have corners. 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.
- cagey 10y agotwblalock's description seems quite rational to me. Can you provide a citation describing an actual seniority-based system that operates in a materially different manner than twblalock described (i.e. one not prioritized on (department-scoped) seniority)?
- twblalock 10y agoEven if they could describe such a system, it would not actually be a seniority based-system, not matter what words people use to describe it. That's my point.