5 ms·

This is going to be controversial and slightly classist, but... There is work that is utility work and there is work that isn't. I don't mean skilled or unski

This is going to be controversial and slightly classist, but... There is work that is utility work and there is work that isn't. I don't mean skilled or unskilled. A common dunk on the distinction between the two is something like "I'd love to see the CEO of <so and so> try a day on the line of <so and so> and see if they still want to call it unskilled labour." No, where I differentiate is jobs where ANYONE can learn the skills, and others where NOT anyone can. These are by the way not purely academic skills, they are some where the differences are physical, though these days there is fewer and fewer of those as humanity got super good at making tools. Basically I'm saying there are jobs where maybe the CEO wouldn't be able to figure it out on day 1, but with standard training, they would be able to do the job. And with EXPERIENCE they would be able to get better and better. These are the jobs where salaries should be set by a union, and where your salaries rise directly correlated with experience. Now let's get to the classist and controversial part. I don't believe software engineering is like that. Yes, many more people COULD if given the opportunity, and education, and investment. But not EVERYONE can. And not everyone learns at the same pace. I've been in the industry for 15 years since I graduated with my undergrad, and I've been junior, and I've been senior, and I've seen new grads come in and grow, and thrive, and become promoted to senior. And I've seen juniors come in, and struggle, and tread water, and be managed out. For the exact same job. I want to be able to promote quickly people who succeed and show an aptitude, and maturity. I want to encourage and incentivize those people to keep reaching for the stars. I am 100% against unions for software development.

badlucklottery 6y ago
>I want to be able to promote quickly people who succeed and show an aptitude, and maturity. I want to encourage and incentivize those people to keep reaching for the stars. Ehhh, you can have this and have a union at the same time. And unproductive slacker orgs without unions definitely exist. Pay/promo by seniority isn't some innate property of unions, it's a response to a lack of pay increases by management. If management keeps union members happy with their pay, the members have no reason to vote in leadership that asks for pay by seniority and have a lot of reasons to avoid it.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  > Ehhh, you can have this and have a union at the same time. And unproductive slacker orgs without unions definitely exist. Yes, just look at Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I want to be able to promote quickly people who succeed and show an aptitude, and maturity. I want to encourage and incentivize those people to keep reaching for the stars. > I am 100% against unions for software development I'm not sure what you think the first has to do with the second. Outside of public sector unions (where the actual limiting factor is civil service law more often than union preferences), union arrangements for non-blue-collar jobs often support exactly what you describe. I mean, you don't seen any cap to the capacity for differential and sometimes meteoric progression in film/tv acting despite the dominance of SAG-AFTRA, an AFL-CIO-affiliated union, in that space, do you?
newbie789 6y ago
I've seen this discussion play out multiple times on this site and it's always informative! Full disclosure: I've said on here before that I don't particularly have any issue with the ability to unionize, and I'm not in a position to tell anyone what's right or wrong one way or another. If people unionize and it has a positive outcome, great! If not, that sucks! It, like many professional moves, boils down to choice and I'm not here to give career advice, especially not to an industry as a whole. If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what parts of your statement are explicitly classist in your estimation? I genuinely don't understand your point. Which jobs would you suggest every person could eventually excel at equally because of the tools that have been invented? What about those jobs is so universally accomplishable that all humans are made truly equal less experience? I agree that businesses should have the ability to promote based on seniority or skill! Limiting that wouldn't be efficient! Do all unions preclude that flexibility by the very concept of their existence? I could imagine that in some cases it could be possible to create an agreement that serves all parties as best as possible. >Yes, many more people COULD if given the opportunity, and education, and investment. But not EVERYONE can. And not everyone learns at the same pace. Sorry. I genuinely do not understand this statement. It's a statistical fact that not every person can develop the same skillset and inhabit the same role at the same time, yes. I'm not really clear about what that has to do with anything, considering that most large and valuable projects require multiple people with multiple skillsets to realize their potential. Sorry, I'm a bit baffled by this. Could you elaborate a bit on your "classist" idea for software development a little further as far as how the entire profession should not take part in unionizing "100%" which I take to mean across all businesses and projects?
- deanCommie 6y ago
  The classist aspect of my own opinion is the implication that there are inherently classes of people: Those that can be good at software engineering and those that can't. There is a more egalitarian school of thought is that people are people, and if given the same opportunities, advantages, educational, financial, etc, the distinction between them is much MUCH MUCH smaller than what our current wealth gap in society seems to suggest. And that if we DID achieve such a society, then unions would be a net good because otherwise all work becomes essentially commodotized, and without the protection of Unions "high skilled" workers will not be paid well anymore.

badlucklottery 6y ago

>I want to be able to promote quickly people who succeed and show an aptitude, and maturity. I want to encourage and incentivize those people to keep reaching for the stars. Ehhh, you can have this and have a union at the same time. And unproductive slacker orgs without unions definitely exist. Pay/promo by seniority isn't some innate property of unions, it's a response to a lack of pay increases by management. If management keeps union members happy with their pay, the members have no reason to vote in leadership that asks for pay by seniority and have a lot of reasons to avoid it.

Fnoord 6y ago
> Ehhh, you can have this and have a union at the same time. And unproductive slacker orgs without unions definitely exist. Yes, just look at Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I want to be able to promote quickly people who succeed and show an aptitude, and maturity. I want to encourage and incentivize those people to keep reaching for the stars. > I am 100% against unions for software development I'm not sure what you think the first has to do with the second. Outside of public sector unions (where the actual limiting factor is civil service law more often than union preferences), union arrangements for non-blue-collar jobs often support exactly what you describe. I mean, you don't seen any cap to the capacity for differential and sometimes meteoric progression in film/tv acting despite the dominance of SAG-AFTRA, an AFL-CIO-affiliated union, in that space, do you?

newbie789 6y ago

I've seen this discussion play out multiple times on this site and it's always informative! Full disclosure: I've said on here before that I don't particularly have any issue with the ability to unionize, and I'm not in a position to tell anyone what's right or wrong one way or another. If people unionize and it has a positive outcome, great! If not, that sucks! It, like many professional moves, boils down to choice and I'm not here to give career advice, especially not to an industry as a whole. If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what parts of your statement are explicitly classist in your estimation? I genuinely don't understand your point. Which jobs would you suggest every person could eventually excel at equally because of the tools that have been invented? What about those jobs is so universally accomplishable that all humans are made truly equal less experience? I agree that businesses should have the ability to promote based on seniority or skill! Limiting that wouldn't be efficient! Do all unions preclude that flexibility by the very concept of their existence? I could imagine that in some cases it could be possible to create an agreement that serves all parties as best as possible. >Yes, many more people COULD if given the opportunity, and education, and investment. But not EVERYONE can. And not everyone learns at the same pace. Sorry. I genuinely do not understand this statement. It's a statistical fact that not every person can develop the same skillset and inhabit the same role at the same time, yes. I'm not really clear about what that has to do with anything, considering that most large and valuable projects require multiple people with multiple skillsets to realize their potential. Sorry, I'm a bit baffled by this. Could you elaborate a bit on your "classist" idea for software development a little further as far as how the entire profession should not take part in unionizing "100%" which I take to mean across all businesses and projects?

deanCommie 6y ago
The classist aspect of my own opinion is the implication that there are inherently classes of people: Those that can be good at software engineering and those that can't. There is a more egalitarian school of thought is that people are people, and if given the same opportunities, advantages, educational, financial, etc, the distinction between them is much MUCH MUCH smaller than what our current wealth gap in society seems to suggest. And that if we DID achieve such a society, then unions would be a net good because otherwise all work becomes essentially commodotized, and without the protection of Unions "high skilled" workers will not be paid well anymore.