4 ms·

I believe people are different and there needs to be differentiation between those that are more skilled than those that are less skilled. I support that more s

I believe people are different and there needs to be differentiation between those that are more skilled than those that are less skilled. I support that more skilled people getting paid more than those that are less skilled. I think it's fundamentally fair. In Silicon Valley, most tech jobs are not nooses around anyone's neck. And that's a great environment to live in that would have been ruined by unions. In fact, things like progress would have been thwarted by greedy unions that slow everyone down. I don't believe that seniority deserves more rewards than younger people. I believe the best person should win. If I can't compete anymore, I'm okay with being out of a job. As I hit 50, I'm aware that my skills are getting out of date but it's fair. I would rather live in a fair environment where I'm out of a job because I'm not as skilled than others rather live in a blunted, slow, environment where union execs make money off my back for decades and decades.

moate 7y ago
>>I think it's fundamentally fair. That's the crux of the disagreement here. You assume that something fair is happening, and others don't. A meritocracy sounds great, but I've yet to see one actually implemented at any scale. Or rather, the skills that get rewarded don't feel like the skills that are actually important to the job (networking and personal skills often times up your earning ability more than your coding abilities). >>I would rather live in a fair environment where I'm out of a job... Sure you would, because you believe that you'd be able to find another job. And as long as that thought exists, you can rationalize that management is "fair" and a meritocracy is in place. Some of us think the system is broken and benefits the few at the expense of the many, and that doesn't seem "fair" to us.
- docker_up 7y ago
  There isn't a true meritocracy but it's "good enough" in Silicon Valley. Nothing will be perfect but what we have right now is better than any union. Unions will select for those workers with more seniority which is objectively worse than selecting for those with more skill. >>Sure you would, because you believe that you'd be able to find another job. No, I don't. I honestly believe that if I can't keep up I don't deserve a job. Period, end of story. >> Some of us think the system is broken and benefits the few at the expense of the many, and that doesn't seem "fair" to us. I don't see this in Silicon Valley at all. I think underperforming tech workers deserve to not reap the same benefits as the performing engineers. The bar keeps rising every year, I know this because I've been here 25 years, but it's fairly applied, or at least as fair as can possibly be applied.
  - moate 7y ago
    But that's just like, your opinion man. You speak in absolutes "Unions will..." "...better than any Union" as if these things are known quantities. There are many ways a union could function. It could set salary ranges based on all sorts of things (seniority, certifications, etc) or it could just act as a collective voice in negotiating the availability of remote work or hourly limits or other perks. A tech union doesn't have to operate the ways you're describing at all. Think about the sports leagues. They're unionized, and it's the best players who get the biggest contracts, not the one's who've been in the league the longest. There's no reason you couldn't do something similar in a tech union. Right now things are great because this is a relatively new space with more demand than supply. That's great NOW. Long term nobody knows what could happen. Kodak thought film would always be important. Cooper isn't a profession. The idea of having a collective labor voice established during the period where labor is at its strongest could be seen as hedging your bets. >> I think under performing tech workers deserve to not reap the same benefits as the performing engineers. Who determines what "under performing" is? It makes more sense to me that labor's peers determine that definition, but currently it's management. This is again a place where a union can help. You admit your system isn't perfect. I admit Unionization has flaws. I'm just of the opinion that it could help improve working conditions across the board.
rexpop 7y ago
> There needs to be differentiation between those that are more skilled than those that are less skilled. Where does skill come from?

moate 7y ago

>>I think it's fundamentally fair. That's the crux of the disagreement here. You assume that something fair is happening, and others don't. A meritocracy sounds great, but I've yet to see one actually implemented at any scale. Or rather, the skills that get rewarded don't feel like the skills that are actually important to the job (networking and personal skills often times up your earning ability more than your coding abilities). >>I would rather live in a fair environment where I'm out of a job... Sure you would, because you believe that you'd be able to find another job. And as long as that thought exists, you can rationalize that management is "fair" and a meritocracy is in place. Some of us think the system is broken and benefits the few at the expense of the many, and that doesn't seem "fair" to us.

docker_up 7y ago
There isn't a true meritocracy but it's "good enough" in Silicon Valley. Nothing will be perfect but what we have right now is better than any union. Unions will select for those workers with more seniority which is objectively worse than selecting for those with more skill. >>Sure you would, because you believe that you'd be able to find another job. No, I don't. I honestly believe that if I can't keep up I don't deserve a job. Period, end of story. >> Some of us think the system is broken and benefits the few at the expense of the many, and that doesn't seem "fair" to us. I don't see this in Silicon Valley at all. I think underperforming tech workers deserve to not reap the same benefits as the performing engineers. The bar keeps rising every year, I know this because I've been here 25 years, but it's fairly applied, or at least as fair as can possibly be applied.
- moate 7y ago
  But that's just like, your opinion man. You speak in absolutes "Unions will..." "...better than any Union" as if these things are known quantities. There are many ways a union could function. It could set salary ranges based on all sorts of things (seniority, certifications, etc) or it could just act as a collective voice in negotiating the availability of remote work or hourly limits or other perks. A tech union doesn't have to operate the ways you're describing at all. Think about the sports leagues. They're unionized, and it's the best players who get the biggest contracts, not the one's who've been in the league the longest. There's no reason you couldn't do something similar in a tech union. Right now things are great because this is a relatively new space with more demand than supply. That's great NOW. Long term nobody knows what could happen. Kodak thought film would always be important. Cooper isn't a profession. The idea of having a collective labor voice established during the period where labor is at its strongest could be seen as hedging your bets. >> I think under performing tech workers deserve to not reap the same benefits as the performing engineers. Who determines what "under performing" is? It makes more sense to me that labor's peers determine that definition, but currently it's management. This is again a place where a union can help. You admit your system isn't perfect. I admit Unionization has flaws. I'm just of the opinion that it could help improve working conditions across the board.

rexpop 7y ago

> There needs to be differentiation between those that are more skilled than those that are less skilled. Where does skill come from?