3 ms·

> Just in terms of salary isn’t an union somewhat contradictory to the engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we’d like to think that the good ideas win and i

by Seenso 7y ago

> Just in terms of salary isn’t an union somewhat contradictory to the engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we’d like to think that the good ideas win and impact and outcome matters. We hold up the 10x engineers and those that make an outsized contribution to the industry / company / product right? Not necessarily. I'd imagine that a union could negotiate its pay-scales any way it likes, which could take into account "meritocracy" in many different ways. That could include ideas that are totally foreign to existing for-profit company practices, such as a peer-controlled meritocratic bonus implemented via the union itself. > Shouldn’t they get higher compensation compared to the rest of the work force? How do we square that with collective bargaining that has set salaries and annual increases? Here's a hypothetical: In a non-union shop, regular engineers get paid $100k, while 10x engineers get paid 120k. In a union shop all engineers get paid $150k. Should the engineers reject a union so the 10x engineers can get paid more than regular engineers, even though that means everyone makes less? Also: Are the 10x engineers the people management chooses to pay more? Is management good at recognizing merit? When they recognize it, do they choose to compensate it accordingly? Or do they make the good business decision, and pay the meritorious employees the minimum amount of money they'll be happy with. For some 10x engineers, that could be 2x salary. For other 10x engineers, that could be 1.05x salary. For some 10x engineers, that could be 0.75x salary.

Bedon292 7y ago
While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150? I think people will have a hard time with that. I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this. Is there some desire that most people have to be that stellar performer and get that extra compensation, which might make them not want to Unionize so they can try? Would also be curious as to how the breakdown in these votes go. Are the people already better off (well above mean compensation) less likely to vote for Unionization?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Actor’s guilds don’t specify a ceiling to wages, only floors. We could do the same here.
  - Bedon292 7y ago
    True, is that how people are attempting to form these sorts of unions as well? I honestly don't know what one would look like here. Are there documents from existing Software Engineer unions out there that can be used as a good model? Does the Kickstarter Union already have some form of docs in place, or is that what starts now?
- Seenso 7y ago
  > While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150? I think that one key aspect of your comment is that you're taking about a 10x. Which can be generalized into a question: should a solution be rejected if it leaves a well-off minority less well-off than they are now, regardless of how much good it may do otherwise? I, personally, think the answer to that general question is no. That answer may be hard to swallow if you're part of that well-off minority, but I don't think that changes the truth of the matter. However, that doesn't mean that a union would or should force that guy to take a pay cut. > I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this. I feel that people will always want more money regardless. I also feel that compensation is actually a poor motivator for performance. I think the real motivators for performance are internal factors (such as a desire to improve oneself, to avoid annoyance with badly made things, or to be challenged rather than bored). Personally, I think once you make enough money, the extra compensation is more a form of recognition than anything else. Recognition doesn't have to be in the form of money, it's just that a souless corporation only cares about money, so money is the only way you can extract recognition from it.
  - Bedon292 7y ago
scarface74 7y ago
Why should a person take a pay cut to help someone else who is less skilled or chose different priorities above their jobs? I expect a person who is willing to devote 60 hours a week to get paid more than me when I go home after 8 hours.
- slumdev 7y ago
  That person devoting 60 hours a week is almost certainly committing trash that someone else will have to refactor or discard entirely at a later date. Real 10x programmers spend most of their time levitating, anyway.
- chimprich 7y ago
  > I expect a person who is willing to devote 60 hours a week to get paid more than me when I go home after 8 hours. Apart from the fact you get diminishing returns on work quality for those sort of hours... That person is neglecting their family and/or partner, or at the very least their own health if they're working those sort of hours. Where do they find time to work on personal relationships or do exercise? It also skews job expectations by creating an atmosphere where other employees are pressured into working those sort of hours, with the same resulting problems. If someone has no attachments, no outside interests, no interest in maintaining their health, and genuinely has that sort of energy and desire for work, let them pick up a part-time gig separate to their main job.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Why? If I had a choice to make more money working one job and make the same amount of money doing two jobs. Of course I’m going to choose one job. I wouldn’t do that now, but people have a right to prioritize their work life balance as they choose. How many startup founders have worked 60+ hours a week to get their business off the ground? Law is famous for getting ahead by having more billable hours.
yibg 7y ago
Of course if everyone gets higher pay (if we just look at pay) then that's a good thing. In your hypothetical of course I'd want 150k for everyone. Do we have data to show that this is the effect of unions in white collar jobs?
internet_user 7y ago
It's amusing in some ways. We already have an informal FAANG guild: 1) their salaries are higher 2) FAANG on the resume = already vetted 3) mastered the interview rigmarole So it seems that efforts by employers to collude in the job market led to something that resembles a professional guild.

by Seenso 7y ago

Bedon292 7y ago

While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150? I think people will have a hard time with that. I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this. Is there some desire that most people have to be that stellar performer and get that extra compensation, which might make them not want to Unionize so they can try? Would also be curious as to how the breakdown in these votes go. Are the people already better off (well above mean compensation) less likely to vote for Unionization?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Actor’s guilds don’t specify a ceiling to wages, only floors. We could do the same here.
- Bedon292 7y ago
  True, is that how people are attempting to form these sorts of unions as well? I honestly don't know what one would look like here. Are there documents from existing Software Engineer unions out there that can be used as a good model? Does the Kickstarter Union already have some form of docs in place, or is that what starts now?
Seenso 7y ago
> While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150? I think that one key aspect of your comment is that you're taking about a 10x. Which can be generalized into a question: should a solution be rejected if it leaves a well-off minority less well-off than they are now, regardless of how much good it may do otherwise? I, personally, think the answer to that general question is no. That answer may be hard to swallow if you're part of that well-off minority, but I don't think that changes the truth of the matter. However, that doesn't mean that a union would or should force that guy to take a pay cut. > I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this. I feel that people will always want more money regardless. I also feel that compensation is actually a poor motivator for performance. I think the real motivators for performance are internal factors (such as a desire to improve oneself, to avoid annoyance with badly made things, or to be challenged rather than bored). Personally, I think once you make enough money, the extra compensation is more a form of recognition than anything else. Recognition doesn't have to be in the form of money, it's just that a souless corporation only cares about money, so money is the only way you can extract recognition from it.
- Bedon292 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

Why should a person take a pay cut to help someone else who is less skilled or chose different priorities above their jobs? I expect a person who is willing to devote 60 hours a week to get paid more than me when I go home after 8 hours.

slumdev 7y ago
That person devoting 60 hours a week is almost certainly committing trash that someone else will have to refactor or discard entirely at a later date. Real 10x programmers spend most of their time levitating, anyway.
chimprich 7y ago
> I expect a person who is willing to devote 60 hours a week to get paid more than me when I go home after 8 hours. Apart from the fact you get diminishing returns on work quality for those sort of hours... That person is neglecting their family and/or partner, or at the very least their own health if they're working those sort of hours. Where do they find time to work on personal relationships or do exercise? It also skews job expectations by creating an atmosphere where other employees are pressured into working those sort of hours, with the same resulting problems. If someone has no attachments, no outside interests, no interest in maintaining their health, and genuinely has that sort of energy and desire for work, let them pick up a part-time gig separate to their main job.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Why? If I had a choice to make more money working one job and make the same amount of money doing two jobs. Of course I’m going to choose one job. I wouldn’t do that now, but people have a right to prioritize their work life balance as they choose. How many startup founders have worked 60+ hours a week to get their business off the ground? Law is famous for getting ahead by having more billable hours.

yibg 7y ago

Of course if everyone gets higher pay (if we just look at pay) then that's a good thing. In your hypothetical of course I'd want 150k for everyone. Do we have data to show that this is the effect of unions in white collar jobs?

internet_user 7y ago

It's amusing in some ways. We already have an informal FAANG guild: 1) their salaries are higher 2) FAANG on the resume = already vetted 3) mastered the interview rigmarole So it seems that efforts by employers to collude in the job market led to something that resembles a professional guild.