3 ms·

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

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.
- newbie789 6y ago
  I readily agree that there are often skill gaps in many professions or endeavors. I am an absolutely terrible when it comes to skateboarding and ice skating, and they're also not big aspirations of mine. I've opted to pursue other things that I enjoy, like problem solving, system administration and cost analysis! That being said, when I was a kid I didn't have a skateboard. I had an old DOS box to play on. Then Windows 95, then 98, ME/2000, XP etc. I'm fully aware of how good I am at what I do, but I genuinely have no objective/provable reason to believe that I'm of a "class" of person that's good with computer touching. I'd assume that I would need a machine that displays alternate realities in order to establish what "class" of person I should be assigned to, objectively. The idea of "classism" inherently (to most) relies heavily on stratification. There are (for a made-up example) The Indispensable, The Useful and The Expendable. In your definition of classism as applied to software engineering, are people born into these classes? If not, what process creates objective classification? How is it standardized and applied? And further, how does a group of software engineers, that doesn't include you, choosing to unionize hurt your prospects or experience?

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.

newbie789 6y ago
I readily agree that there are often skill gaps in many professions or endeavors. I am an absolutely terrible when it comes to skateboarding and ice skating, and they're also not big aspirations of mine. I've opted to pursue other things that I enjoy, like problem solving, system administration and cost analysis! That being said, when I was a kid I didn't have a skateboard. I had an old DOS box to play on. Then Windows 95, then 98, ME/2000, XP etc. I'm fully aware of how good I am at what I do, but I genuinely have no objective/provable reason to believe that I'm of a "class" of person that's good with computer touching. I'd assume that I would need a machine that displays alternate realities in order to establish what "class" of person I should be assigned to, objectively. The idea of "classism" inherently (to most) relies heavily on stratification. There are (for a made-up example) The Indispensable, The Useful and The Expendable. In your definition of classism as applied to software engineering, are people born into these classes? If not, what process creates objective classification? How is it standardized and applied? And further, how does a group of software engineers, that doesn't include you, choosing to unionize hurt your prospects or experience?