3 ms·

> Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. Couldn't this be because you raise the wages of all the underperformers and lower the wages of the t

by umvi 8y ago

> Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. Couldn't this be because you raise the wages of all the underperformers and lower the wages of the top performers? If you have a team where a few rockstars make $100K and the average and underperformers make $60K, the average pay could be said to increase if you simply make everyone's wage $72K. But that sucks for the top performers and really is only a good deal if you are at or below average.

zaksoup 8y ago
It could also be because everybody got an 18% raise across the board. This is an under-researched topic in employment statistics and I would love to see a better understanding of cause and effect behind wage discrepancies in union and non-union positions. > a few rockstars make $100k My problem with this narrative is that I have never worked somewhere where the "10x rockstar" was actually that, or wasn't also toxic in some other way. All we have here are competing versions of anecdata about high-vs-low performers. I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. That seems to assume that companies are good at actually identifying performance and compensating fairly for it.
- umvi 8y ago
  > I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. I never implied that. The only information I gave you were the respective salaries of the high and low performers. I as a developer know who the average and low performers are but I can only guess at their salaries. I don't want a union boosting their pay while reducing mine in order to raise the "average" pay.
  - zaksoup 8y ago
    Except my point is exactly this - if you can only guess at the salaries of average and low performers than you have nothing to suggest that they aren't, in fact, paid more than you, and a union coming in would boost your salary and not theirs.

by umvi 8y ago

zaksoup 8y ago

It could also be because everybody got an 18% raise across the board. This is an under-researched topic in employment statistics and I would love to see a better understanding of cause and effect behind wage discrepancies in union and non-union positions. > a few rockstars make $100k My problem with this narrative is that I have never worked somewhere where the "10x rockstar" was actually that, or wasn't also toxic in some other way. All we have here are competing versions of anecdata about high-vs-low performers. I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. That seems to assume that companies are good at actually identifying performance and compensating fairly for it.

umvi 8y ago
> I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. I never implied that. The only information I gave you were the respective salaries of the high and low performers. I as a developer know who the average and low performers are but I can only guess at their salaries. I don't want a union boosting their pay while reducing mine in order to raise the "average" pay.
- zaksoup 8y ago
  Except my point is exactly this - if you can only guess at the salaries of average and low performers than you have nothing to suggest that they aren't, in fact, paid more than you, and a union coming in would boost your salary and not theirs.