3 ms·

I don't support unions because unions drag everyone's wages to an average (I'd rather be a top performer and be paid accordingly). Also, I've seen first hand th

by 0xy 6y ago

I don't support unions because unions drag everyone's wages to an average (I'd rather be a top performer and be paid accordingly). Also, I've seen first hand the amount of incompetent teachers, police and government employees who are unfireable because of unions. So the concept of a union for me personally means I'll be paid less, be surrounded by unfireable underperformers and have zero incentive to improve my craft. I also truly don't understand how you can allow politics to be so deeply embedded in your work.

bawolff 6y ago
This viewpoint always seemed silly to me. Actors have a union, yet the variation between highest paid actors and low paid actors is in the hundreds of millions.
- 0xy 6y ago
  The highest performing teachers in a state with teacher unionization is paid the same as the lowest performing teacher who is totally incompetent. This rewards ineptitude, punishes high performance and punishes children. The worst thing about unions is protecting low performers, though.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    So? Don't have that type of union. Unions fight for what their members want them to fight for. Some unions fight for things i wouldn't want. Some unions fight for things that i would want in some jobs but not in the tech industry. It doesn't follow that just because one union did X all unions would do X.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
waon 6y ago
> I also truly don't understand how you can allow politics to be so deeply embedded in your work. The president of the United States is threatening military violence against its own citizens and you criticize people for being "political"? Seriously?
- 0xy 6y ago
  Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. He threatened military violence against rioting and looting, driven by terrorism. Some of these rioters set fire to occupied buildings with children inside and prevented emergency services from accessing the location. In other words, property destruction and attempted murder. Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence?
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > met with praise and not violence? Yes. Do you have ANY examples in history where protests were met with violence didn't end poorly? Hell, America celebrates the Boston Tea Party in school. Civil disobedience is an American obligation.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot.
    - gnaritas 6y ago
      > Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot. Um, no. I value my property more than I value your life, the law happens to agree with me, deadly force can be used to defend my property. Property destruction should be, and is, met with deadly violence; your right to life does not outrank my right to my property.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      That's a weird stance. Law enforcement is always based on the credible threat of violence. You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy. "No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".
    - 6y ago
jakelazaroff 6y ago
> I don't support unions because unions drag everyone's wages to an average (I'd rather be a top performer and be paid accordingly). I see so many more people with this viewpoint than can statistically all be “top performers”. Given the low likelihood that any given person is a top performer, isn’t it better to organize in such a way that we all benefit?
- 0xy 6y ago
  Not when there's so much public information on wages. Compare your wage to the average among others in your location with your title. In my case, I earn about 110% more than the average salary for my title in my location. If I earned the average salary, I wouldn't be so high performing. I wouldn't care about my work beyond the minimum required to not be fired.
  - danaris 6y ago
    Why do you assume that a union would drag everyone's wages down to the pre-union average? Even assuming (which is an incredible leap of logic) that a union for people who are famously a highly-paid and highly-competitive sector would want to "pay everyone the same" (which, frankly, no union on the planet actually does; the absolute worst in that vein is pay based purely on seniority), it would be vastly more likely that the union would be able to bargain with employers to increase that average salary—perhaps not to match the very top, but well above what it was before the union was formed.

by 0xy 6y ago

bawolff 6y ago

This viewpoint always seemed silly to me. Actors have a union, yet the variation between highest paid actors and low paid actors is in the hundreds of millions.

0xy 6y ago
The highest performing teachers in a state with teacher unionization is paid the same as the lowest performing teacher who is totally incompetent. This rewards ineptitude, punishes high performance and punishes children. The worst thing about unions is protecting low performers, though.
- bawolff 6y ago
  So? Don't have that type of union. Unions fight for what their members want them to fight for. Some unions fight for things i wouldn't want. Some unions fight for things that i would want in some jobs but not in the tech industry. It doesn't follow that just because one union did X all unions would do X.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

waon 6y ago

> I also truly don't understand how you can allow politics to be so deeply embedded in your work. The president of the United States is threatening military violence against its own citizens and you criticize people for being "political"? Seriously?

0xy 6y ago
Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. He threatened military violence against rioting and looting, driven by terrorism. Some of these rioters set fire to occupied buildings with children inside and prevented emergency services from accessing the location. In other words, property destruction and attempted murder. Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence?
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > met with praise and not violence? Yes. Do you have ANY examples in history where protests were met with violence didn't end poorly? Hell, America celebrates the Boston Tea Party in school. Civil disobedience is an American obligation.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot.
  - gnaritas 6y ago
    > Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot. Um, no. I value my property more than I value your life, the law happens to agree with me, deadly force can be used to defend my property. Property destruction should be, and is, met with deadly violence; your right to life does not outrank my right to my property.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's a weird stance. Law enforcement is always based on the credible threat of violence. You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy. "No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".
  - 6y ago

jakelazaroff 6y ago

> I don't support unions because unions drag everyone's wages to an average (I'd rather be a top performer and be paid accordingly). I see so many more people with this viewpoint than can statistically all be “top performers”. Given the low likelihood that any given person is a top performer, isn’t it better to organize in such a way that we all benefit?

0xy 6y ago
Not when there's so much public information on wages. Compare your wage to the average among others in your location with your title. In my case, I earn about 110% more than the average salary for my title in my location. If I earned the average salary, I wouldn't be so high performing. I wouldn't care about my work beyond the minimum required to not be fired.
- danaris 6y ago
  Why do you assume that a union would drag everyone's wages down to the pre-union average? Even assuming (which is an incredible leap of logic) that a union for people who are famously a highly-paid and highly-competitive sector would want to "pay everyone the same" (which, frankly, no union on the planet actually does; the absolute worst in that vein is pay based purely on seniority), it would be vastly more likely that the union would be able to bargain with employers to increase that average salary—perhaps not to match the very top, but well above what it was before the union was formed.