2 ms·
>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 talen
by 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.