17 ms·

One non-American anecdote: Finnish software engineers are "heavily" unionized. However, the minimum wages the union has negotiated are really low, $52643 per ye

One non-American anecdote: Finnish software engineers are "heavily" unionized. However, the minimum wages the union has negotiated are really low, $52643 per year for the most senior roles (less senior roles have even lower minimum wages). Of course, unions work differently in different countries, and Finland is one of the most unionized countries in the world. I personally hate the fact that I'm subjected to the agreement negotiated by the union even when I'm not a member of a union. They negotiate for things that I don't need/agree with, yet don't negotiate for things that I would like. In effect, I'm "paying" for benefits that I don't need, yet this agreement makes it more difficult to argue for benefits that I actually want in my contract.

coldtea 9y ago
>They negotiate for things that I don't need/agree with, yet don't negotiate for things that I would like. It's about what the majority wants, not each individual.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Yes - that's the major problem with group negotiation, and the complaint here. I'm unclear on whether this is meant as a defense or a criticism of a union system?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    A defense. It's not like a system like a union that represents many people could cater to any particular person's whims. At the same time, if it didn't represent many people, it wouldn't have any negotiating power. At the more limited case -- representing only one person and its desires -- a union would just have that individual's own negotiating power. But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      > But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union. This is why I wasn't sure it was a defense. We're talking about software here, and the US experience is that without a union you can have not only a good job, but enormous control over your outcomes. You can trade between money, stock, benefits, and time off by changing employers, or even within a single employer. I agree with your initial breakdown: unions cannot offer every configuration an individual might want, but they can't be effective without representing lots of people. But that implies they're only worthwhile when the alternative is that without a union, most people end up unhappy. Adding collective bargaining to a field where individual bargaining works well seems harmful.
- friedman23 9y ago
  > It's about what the majority wants You are going to have to show some evidence for that. Really the only guarantee is that the union will negotiate for what the most influential union member wants, not even necessarily the majority.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    That's still up to the majority -- that is, up to the members to ensure that it doesn't happen. If they're not diligent and vigilant then that can happen. But not if they are actually on the watch. Democracy (in a country or a union or whatever) is a participatory sport, it's not about voting every 4 years and watching from the sidelines for the rest and/or voting scoundrels again and again.
- rukittenme 9y ago
  Maybe for one particular issue. But on the whole it does not represent the majority. It represents the average. Its a subtle distinction but one that I think has significant consequences.
xapata 9y ago
Do you think you'd have more of what you want if bargaining with your employer as an individual?
- nawitus 9y ago
  Yes. There is of course still a negotiation of benefits on top of the standard contract, I'm not paid minimum wage. If I could remove some benefits I don't need from my own, personal contract this would give me leverage to get something else in return. A slightly higher wage if nothing else.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Possibly although in my experience in the US the flexibility to change benefits is limited. I have choice in things like health plans but that's mostly about how much I want to pay on top of an employer contribution. Most of the disability, life insurance, etc. benefits aren't negotiable afaik (and are probably much better deals from the company anyway).
    - gricardo99 9y ago
      It depends on the employer. If you're under 35, and in decent health, you're likely better off getting disability and life insurance on your own. Your premiums will be lower than from a group plan, which usually takes some average demographics to determine the group premiums. If your employer is paying the premiums, you're better off if you can decline the benefit, get yourself a lower premium plan, and pocket the difference. Conversely, if you're older, or have health issues, those group plans can be a steal of a deal.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        That may be true although, to the broader point, I've never seen those sorts of benefits be optional (albeit across a fairly small sample size). Employers get a good deal precisely because there's going to be a lot of adverse selection with these sorts of things. Healthy single 20-somethings get a pretty good deal on their own but most of them won't even bother.
kiliantics 9y ago
Why not become a member and organise for negotiations on those things that you would like?
- nawitus 9y ago
  I don't think it's worthwhile.. the union governs over 42 000 employees, they will hardly take my own preferences into account.
  - twinkletwinkle 9y ago
    They'll take them into account more than if you're not a member.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      That's... not necessarily true? A large union represents more people than the number of benefit configurations it can offer. So some number of people won't get access to the arrangement they want - if what you want is particularly uncommon, joining the union won't necessarily produce any change at all in your direction. This feels a little like "you can't complain about the government because you got to help elect it". It's still possible to give your input to a system and get no progress at all.
sireat 9y ago
One person's really low wages are another person's dream wages. Senior programmers in my neck of woods make about 1/3 of that really low Finnish wage while cost of living is about 2/3 to that of Helsinki. Not saying that unions are some perfect solution, just that grass is always greener elsewhere.
s73ver 9y ago
So get involved. A union works for it's members.
airza 9y ago
SE wages are just really low in europe in general, it's not just a union thing (maybe excepting switzerland)
- skgoa 9y ago
  Though we shouldn't compare wages in the SF bay area and NYC to anywhere else. SE wages in the bigger european countries aren't significantly worse than in the non-hype areas of the US. In fact a SE in Germany will on average have more purchasing power left over after taxes and basic cost of living expenditures than on in the US. (again, looking outside SF bay and NYC) Though one thing we see in Europe is that highly qualified young people aren't nearly as ready to move to the economically strong areas, where their skills are in high demand. Instead they remain unemployed or underemployed in their home country. Which also has the added bad effect of depressing wages for their peers.
pavlov 9y ago
I'm Finnish too. $52.6k USD / year translates to 4k EUR / month, which is not a low wage in Finland by any definition. (Remember that the employer pays about 25% on top of that in mandatory pensions and social security, so if you're going to compare to other countries, the true cost to the employer is about $65k USD.) Also, nothing stops you from negotiating a higher wage. If you think you're worth more, ask for it. I don't really understand what you're complaining about.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Which is about 4x less than what you could get working remotely for a US-based firm. It's less than my starting salary out of college, for a senior position.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Maybe I am not up to date with the latest salary trends but 200k for a remote job seems pretty hard to achieve. If you can pull that off, I'd say "Go for it!".
    - kobeya 9y ago
      As an all-in, benefits included number? Yes that's fully achievable.
      - rukittenme 9y ago
        Which employers pay that much for remote work?
        muninn_ 9y ago
        A lot of them? In the US as a rule of thumb you take whatever salary you're paid and 1.7/8-2.x it and that's what you're actually being paid when you take into account benefits in addition to salary. Even in the Great Lakes region you're looking st like $60-$70,000 starting salary + a great healthcare plan, 401k, bonuses, and in some instances even a pension still. Hell, even public institutions pay well in this regard.
cryoshon 9y ago
the difference: finns don't WANT to pay their employees nothing and have them work infinite hours per week
markatkinson 9y ago
Sounds horrendous. I know nothing about unions but can't you do anything about it? Create an anti-union group? Or is that just another union...
- pgl 9y ago
  > anti-union group That sounds a lot like just another union to me.

coldtea 9y ago

>They negotiate for things that I don't need/agree with, yet don't negotiate for things that I would like. It's about what the majority wants, not each individual.

Bartweiss 9y ago
Yes - that's the major problem with group negotiation, and the complaint here. I'm unclear on whether this is meant as a defense or a criticism of a union system?
- coldtea 9y ago
  A defense. It's not like a system like a union that represents many people could cater to any particular person's whims. At the same time, if it didn't represent many people, it wouldn't have any negotiating power. At the more limited case -- representing only one person and its desires -- a union would just have that individual's own negotiating power. But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    > But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union. This is why I wasn't sure it was a defense. We're talking about software here, and the US experience is that without a union you can have not only a good job, but enormous control over your outcomes. You can trade between money, stock, benefits, and time off by changing employers, or even within a single employer. I agree with your initial breakdown: unions cannot offer every configuration an individual might want, but they can't be effective without representing lots of people. But that implies they're only worthwhile when the alternative is that without a union, most people end up unhappy. Adding collective bargaining to a field where individual bargaining works well seems harmful.
friedman23 9y ago
> It's about what the majority wants You are going to have to show some evidence for that. Really the only guarantee is that the union will negotiate for what the most influential union member wants, not even necessarily the majority.
- coldtea 9y ago
  That's still up to the majority -- that is, up to the members to ensure that it doesn't happen. If they're not diligent and vigilant then that can happen. But not if they are actually on the watch. Democracy (in a country or a union or whatever) is a participatory sport, it's not about voting every 4 years and watching from the sidelines for the rest and/or voting scoundrels again and again.
rukittenme 9y ago
Maybe for one particular issue. But on the whole it does not represent the majority. It represents the average. Its a subtle distinction but one that I think has significant consequences.

xapata 9y ago

Do you think you'd have more of what you want if bargaining with your employer as an individual?

nawitus 9y ago
Yes. There is of course still a negotiation of benefits on top of the standard contract, I'm not paid minimum wage. If I could remove some benefits I don't need from my own, personal contract this would give me leverage to get something else in return. A slightly higher wage if nothing else.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Possibly although in my experience in the US the flexibility to change benefits is limited. I have choice in things like health plans but that's mostly about how much I want to pay on top of an employer contribution. Most of the disability, life insurance, etc. benefits aren't negotiable afaik (and are probably much better deals from the company anyway).
  - gricardo99 9y ago
    It depends on the employer. If you're under 35, and in decent health, you're likely better off getting disability and life insurance on your own. Your premiums will be lower than from a group plan, which usually takes some average demographics to determine the group premiums. If your employer is paying the premiums, you're better off if you can decline the benefit, get yourself a lower premium plan, and pocket the difference. Conversely, if you're older, or have health issues, those group plans can be a steal of a deal.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      That may be true although, to the broader point, I've never seen those sorts of benefits be optional (albeit across a fairly small sample size). Employers get a good deal precisely because there's going to be a lot of adverse selection with these sorts of things. Healthy single 20-somethings get a pretty good deal on their own but most of them won't even bother.

kiliantics 9y ago

Why not become a member and organise for negotiations on those things that you would like?

nawitus 9y ago
I don't think it's worthwhile.. the union governs over 42 000 employees, they will hardly take my own preferences into account.
- twinkletwinkle 9y ago
  They'll take them into account more than if you're not a member.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    That's... not necessarily true? A large union represents more people than the number of benefit configurations it can offer. So some number of people won't get access to the arrangement they want - if what you want is particularly uncommon, joining the union won't necessarily produce any change at all in your direction. This feels a little like "you can't complain about the government because you got to help elect it". It's still possible to give your input to a system and get no progress at all.

sireat 9y ago

One person's really low wages are another person's dream wages. Senior programmers in my neck of woods make about 1/3 of that really low Finnish wage while cost of living is about 2/3 to that of Helsinki. Not saying that unions are some perfect solution, just that grass is always greener elsewhere.

s73ver 9y ago

So get involved. A union works for it's members.

airza 9y ago

SE wages are just really low in europe in general, it's not just a union thing (maybe excepting switzerland)

skgoa 9y ago
Though we shouldn't compare wages in the SF bay area and NYC to anywhere else. SE wages in the bigger european countries aren't significantly worse than in the non-hype areas of the US. In fact a SE in Germany will on average have more purchasing power left over after taxes and basic cost of living expenditures than on in the US. (again, looking outside SF bay and NYC) Though one thing we see in Europe is that highly qualified young people aren't nearly as ready to move to the economically strong areas, where their skills are in high demand. Instead they remain unemployed or underemployed in their home country. Which also has the added bad effect of depressing wages for their peers.

pavlov 9y ago

I'm Finnish too. $52.6k USD / year translates to 4k EUR / month, which is not a low wage in Finland by any definition. (Remember that the employer pays about 25% on top of that in mandatory pensions and social security, so if you're going to compare to other countries, the true cost to the employer is about $65k USD.) Also, nothing stops you from negotiating a higher wage. If you think you're worth more, ask for it. I don't really understand what you're complaining about.

kobeya 9y ago
Which is about 4x less than what you could get working remotely for a US-based firm. It's less than my starting salary out of college, for a senior position.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Maybe I am not up to date with the latest salary trends but 200k for a remote job seems pretty hard to achieve. If you can pull that off, I'd say "Go for it!".
  - kobeya 9y ago
    As an all-in, benefits included number? Yes that's fully achievable.
    - rukittenme 9y ago
      Which employers pay that much for remote work?
      - muninn_ 9y ago
        A lot of them? In the US as a rule of thumb you take whatever salary you're paid and 1.7/8-2.x it and that's what you're actually being paid when you take into account benefits in addition to salary. Even in the Great Lakes region you're looking st like $60-$70,000 starting salary + a great healthcare plan, 401k, bonuses, and in some instances even a pension still. Hell, even public institutions pay well in this regard.

cryoshon 9y ago

the difference: finns don't WANT to pay their employees nothing and have them work infinite hours per week

markatkinson 9y ago

Sounds horrendous. I know nothing about unions but can't you do anything about it? Create an anti-union group? Or is that just another union...

pgl 9y ago
> anti-union group That sounds a lot like just another union to me.