4 ms·
> Skill levels are widely varied at the higher levels. Collective bargaining means, valuing them about the same (a common agreement means the same outcome for a
by maximente 7y ago
> Skill levels are widely varied at the higher levels. Collective bargaining means, valuing them about the same (a common agreement means the same outcome for all?)
you seem to be inferring that skill level should influence compensation, and since unions are primarily in the business of bargaining on wages, the downside is that they introduce some ceiling or whatever
but, that's not how all unions operate. many are focused on working conditions/presence of work/benefits alongside. your average SWE doesn't care about these things because their job is physically and mentally easy, plus they are wooed with free food/working conditions/intellectual challenges etc. so average software guy is sated and doesn't have much incentive to rock the boat.
but, let's run with your example. suppose there is probably a large amount of variance in ML engineers. suppose some have a skill set 1x (average ML engineer) and a few have a skill set 5x average
the 5xers like yourself (maybe) probably feel great, they have tons of disposable income and don't feel any particular pressure because their work is intellectually fulfilling etc. so no need for collective bargaining. don't hold me back! you say as you cash check after check
but, in the case of ML engineers, one thing they are creating is self driving trucks which is a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars! management throwing them $500k, $1mil etc. a year is absolute pennies relatively despite being a large absolute salary
were you to pipe up about this as a contractor, you'd just get run out of town. but unions may be able to take the collective and say "we are an insanely talented group of specialists worth 10x what you're paying us, so pay us... or we quit"
there are unions like screen actors guild that mandate membership but function as a sort of "loose" union insofar as they have extremely talented people alongside entry level people (high skill variance) vis-a-vis more manual labor (e.g. nurses, coal miners) whose variance in "output" is way more narrow
- Mirioron 7y ago>were you to pipe up about this as a contractor, you'd just get run out of town. but unions may be able to take the collective and say "we are an insanely talented group of specialists worth 10x what you're paying us, so pay us... or we quit" And if these ML experts fail to create an automated trucking system then will they be the ones to pick up the tab? Of course they won't. This means that the money spent on them still matters, because you're not guaranteed success.
- moate 7y agoWhat does this point have to do with anything? Like what are you trying to say, that collective bargaining is somehow bad because...management could lose more money on a project? If you can't handle the risk, don't start the company. If your business depends on you convincing people to take less pay, might not be a great company.
- Mirioron 7y agoI'm saying that somebody being talented doesn't mean they automatically get paid more. They actually have to do something that creates more value for the company. That is why those ML guys aren't being paid obscene sums of money even though they're trying to solve one of the biggest industries.
- moate 7y agoI don't understand how this pertains to unions. The conversation was originally about how a union could allow for engineers to be paid consummate to the value they provide due to collective bargaining and therefor a greater control on the supply side of labor. If you're saying "talented but lazy people who don't use their talent to provide value shouldn't be paid more" yes, we all agree on that. Nobody is trying to argue that point.