6 ms·

A related topic would be collective bargaining - which is often (but not always) associated with a unionized workplace. If you're a sub-standard employee, you w

A related topic would be collective bargaining - which is often (but not always) associated with a unionized workplace. If you're a sub-standard employee, you win big through collective bargaining because pay bands will move toward the mean. If however, you are a high-performer, you will likely be under-compensated in a collective bargaining environment because your excess effort will be used to compensate those who contribute less. In a non-collective workplace, you will be evaluated and compensated on your personal contribution and negotiation skills.

ranuzz 5y ago
This line of thought might be something that makes employees think that “union sucks”. At a place like Google I assume that everybody thinks they are high-performers and in most cases they are since they got into google. So the majority will always think that they will be “under compensated” and never attempt to unionize. What I want to know is, is it really just another way to convince employees against unions ?
- helios_invictus 5y ago
  "Everyone is a high performer or thinks they are at....", but not everyone can be with in a given cohort. But who really knows? The employer might know based on their internal metrics, but is that info worth sharing accurately to the employee? Wouldn't you want your high-performers to think they just might be just good enough to keep "performing up" and costs down?
  - ranuzz 5y ago
    I agree, there is an incentive for employers to create an environment where employees are being gaslighted by the employer but that might turn into a toxic work culture (IMO). I think creating an uncertain environment where the majority lives in a myth of being a high performer and salary discussion is frowned upon benefits companies the most.
dundarious 5y ago
Individuals, even stellar performing ones, also have significantly less bargaining power than the collective bargaining power of either a union or the employer. There are plenty of companies that know this, and it is the primary source of their antagonism towards unions.
- notahacker 5y ago
  This depends heavily on the industry. If you're a stellar technician specialised in fixing stuff in the only employer in the only industry in town, sure, the company knows you need that job even more than they need you and so you're poorly paid just like all the other technicians. If you're a stellar software developer and your bosses know it, not so much. You can, individually, take your 10x-more-productive skillset to loads of other high paying companies, and that gives you a much better individual negotiating position than "everyone deserves a raise", especially since your colleagues won't go on strike to help you get a new top salary band at a large multiple of what they're earning even if you really deserve it.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    This is true whether not not the company you work at is unionized. Ultimately what you appear to be saying that the union is valuable since you'll get paid more until you leave.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      No, I'm saying that if you are an above average employee in $role an industry where there is already competitive pressure to offer good wages, a union fixing your wage at the level it is able to negotiate for the average employee in $role will mean you earn less. Until you leave, obviously.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        Companies, generally speaking, already have guidelines around what wages they will pay. So to get significantly better pay you need to leave anyway (how often do you get counteroffers that meet or exceed the competitors offer). Blaming a union for the thing the company already does seems odd.
Vinnl 5y ago
It's somewhat interesting that you're talking about low and high performers, and then and with "...and negotiation skills". Those don't seem to necessarily be related to job performance, and don't even seem to be purely a matter of skill: there's also a pretty big disparity in access to information between employee and employer.
lordnacho 5y ago
Mostly agree, but why should negotiating skills be compensated? Should we all be taught poker?
- 0xbadc0de5 5y ago
  I only mention that in acknowledgement that it is, fairly or not, a contributing factor in the equation.
boh 5y ago
Being a "high-performer" by definition suggests you are operating at a higher level than the average, suggesting you are a minority. The idea that labor policy should exclusively cater to a minority to get better compensated due to their superior contribution and negotiation skills is perplexing. Society requires a stable labor policy. The culture of the narcissistic self which powered the second half of the twentieth century isn't going to work in the low growth environment we're currently living in.
- the_printer 5y ago
  The idea that people who do more and create more value should be compensated more is perplexing? What?
  - boh 5y ago
    This sentence is perplexing, not sure what drew you to that conclusion. What's also perplexing is that all compensation should be based on an individuals capacity to negotiate.
    - the_printer 5y ago
- notahacker 5y ago
  I don't think that rhetoric is going to convince many people who think they deserve an above average pay rise to accept the average instead :) Personally I don't think "stable labour policy" is more important than allowing people to ask for higher wages and receive or leave, but if I did I'd be more hostile to wage bargaining via collective threats to withdraw labour than individual ones...
  - boh 5y ago
    If you work in a high margin, less capital intensive industry with more specialized labor categories, a union is likely less necessary. Unfortunately only a minority of American workers operate in such an environment. This minority of higher paid individuals aren't enough to power a massive economy centered on consumerism. Without a stable labor policy, you risk social instability, low growth rates and rising inequality.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
Yes, and the high achiever will be further blunted by seniority-based promotion practices. If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors, as the quality talent will leave $BIGCO for better opportunities in the smaller companies.
- discardedrefuse 5y ago
  > by seniority-based promotion practices Seniority-based promotion isn't the standard. I'm unionized and any job opening in my workplace must be advertised publicly. Anyone who wants it must apply, qualify, and interview for the position. > If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors Accurate or not, this really sounds like a win all around!
tablespoon 5y ago
> If however, you are a high-performer, you will likely be under-compensated in a collective bargaining environment because your excess effort will be used to compensate those who contribute less. And of course, we all assume we're far above average high-performers.
discardedrefuse 5y ago
This is non-sense. There's no rule that says collectively bargained contracts can't include rewards or incentives for higher-performance. In fact, many do. Look at any professional sports contract. Players usually get bonuses for hitting predetermined stat goals on the field. Look at any teacher contract. Teachers get bonuses for attaining higher education and certifications, or simply taking on leadership roles.
- Tinyyy 5y ago
  How much do you think Lebron James would be paid in a free market without collective bargaining?
  - discardedrefuse 5y ago
    Probably the same, maybe less. Professional sports players get paid on merit. What they do on the court directly translates into what a team is will to pay them.
    - tqi 5y ago
      Actually he would get paid much more. The NBA CBA has a "max contract" capped at 25% of the salary cap[1]. There are numerous players playing on essentially the same deal, even though there is clearly a big gap in talent. If you look at the list of salaries for the 21-22 season[2], Steph Curry is the highest paid player at $45.6M, which is only about 15% higher than the 10th highest paid player despite being significantly better. [1] there are some other contract terms that allow for up to 35%, but those require a bunch of other non performance conditions to be met. [2] http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries
  - defen 5y ago
    In this hypothetical are you also removing the salary cap? If anything he'd probably get more because I suspect that replacement-level players would be willing to play for less than the mandated minimum salary of about 1 million dollars.
  - 5y ago
joshuamorton 5y ago
I'm an above average performer. I'm happy to be paid based on my contributions, but I don't really want my negotiation to come into it. They means people who aren't as competent as me get paid more. So I should support the union.
defen 5y ago
First of all, collective bargaining doesn't just have to be about monetary compensation. It could be about working conditions - e.g. regulations about being on "pager duty", ridiculous overtime during "death marches" (think game industry), employee training, etc. Remember that the vast majority of software developers actually do not work at extremely high-paying FAANG jobs. Furthermore, on the topic of compensation, Hollywood has unions and yet top actors still manage to make 10s of millions of dollars per movie.
HelloNurse 5y ago
Standard joke: "all our employees are above average". In the context of collective bargaining, it is not only possible but common: any halfway decent IT firm has highly qualified workers paid and ranked well above a "normal" worker sharing the same national contract. Everybody earns much more than minimum wage, and someone (hopefully the high performers, but don't count on it) even more than that. Pushing low compensations against minimum wage limits is simply not plausible, and paying high performers less than market value is a recipe for talent drain. Collective bargaining is important for working hours, safety, vacation, healthcare, and other important worker rights.

ranuzz 5y ago

This line of thought might be something that makes employees think that “union sucks”. At a place like Google I assume that everybody thinks they are high-performers and in most cases they are since they got into google. So the majority will always think that they will be “under compensated” and never attempt to unionize. What I want to know is, is it really just another way to convince employees against unions ?

helios_invictus 5y ago
"Everyone is a high performer or thinks they are at....", but not everyone can be with in a given cohort. But who really knows? The employer might know based on their internal metrics, but is that info worth sharing accurately to the employee? Wouldn't you want your high-performers to think they just might be just good enough to keep "performing up" and costs down?
- ranuzz 5y ago
  I agree, there is an incentive for employers to create an environment where employees are being gaslighted by the employer but that might turn into a toxic work culture (IMO). I think creating an uncertain environment where the majority lives in a myth of being a high performer and salary discussion is frowned upon benefits companies the most.

dundarious 5y ago

Individuals, even stellar performing ones, also have significantly less bargaining power than the collective bargaining power of either a union or the employer. There are plenty of companies that know this, and it is the primary source of their antagonism towards unions.

notahacker 5y ago
This depends heavily on the industry. If you're a stellar technician specialised in fixing stuff in the only employer in the only industry in town, sure, the company knows you need that job even more than they need you and so you're poorly paid just like all the other technicians. If you're a stellar software developer and your bosses know it, not so much. You can, individually, take your 10x-more-productive skillset to loads of other high paying companies, and that gives you a much better individual negotiating position than "everyone deserves a raise", especially since your colleagues won't go on strike to help you get a new top salary band at a large multiple of what they're earning even if you really deserve it.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  This is true whether not not the company you work at is unionized. Ultimately what you appear to be saying that the union is valuable since you'll get paid more until you leave.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    No, I'm saying that if you are an above average employee in $role an industry where there is already competitive pressure to offer good wages, a union fixing your wage at the level it is able to negotiate for the average employee in $role will mean you earn less. Until you leave, obviously.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Companies, generally speaking, already have guidelines around what wages they will pay. So to get significantly better pay you need to leave anyway (how often do you get counteroffers that meet or exceed the competitors offer). Blaming a union for the thing the company already does seems odd.

Vinnl 5y ago

It's somewhat interesting that you're talking about low and high performers, and then and with "...and negotiation skills". Those don't seem to necessarily be related to job performance, and don't even seem to be purely a matter of skill: there's also a pretty big disparity in access to information between employee and employer.

lordnacho 5y ago

Mostly agree, but why should negotiating skills be compensated? Should we all be taught poker?

0xbadc0de5 5y ago
I only mention that in acknowledgement that it is, fairly or not, a contributing factor in the equation.

boh 5y ago

Being a "high-performer" by definition suggests you are operating at a higher level than the average, suggesting you are a minority. The idea that labor policy should exclusively cater to a minority to get better compensated due to their superior contribution and negotiation skills is perplexing. Society requires a stable labor policy. The culture of the narcissistic self which powered the second half of the twentieth century isn't going to work in the low growth environment we're currently living in.

the_printer 5y ago
The idea that people who do more and create more value should be compensated more is perplexing? What?
- boh 5y ago
  This sentence is perplexing, not sure what drew you to that conclusion. What's also perplexing is that all compensation should be based on an individuals capacity to negotiate.
  - the_printer 5y ago
notahacker 5y ago
I don't think that rhetoric is going to convince many people who think they deserve an above average pay rise to accept the average instead :) Personally I don't think "stable labour policy" is more important than allowing people to ask for higher wages and receive or leave, but if I did I'd be more hostile to wage bargaining via collective threats to withdraw labour than individual ones...
- boh 5y ago
  If you work in a high margin, less capital intensive industry with more specialized labor categories, a union is likely less necessary. Unfortunately only a minority of American workers operate in such an environment. This minority of higher paid individuals aren't enough to power a massive economy centered on consumerism. Without a stable labor policy, you risk social instability, low growth rates and rising inequality.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

Yes, and the high achiever will be further blunted by seniority-based promotion practices. If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors, as the quality talent will leave $BIGCO for better opportunities in the smaller companies.

discardedrefuse 5y ago
> by seniority-based promotion practices Seniority-based promotion isn't the standard. I'm unionized and any job opening in my workplace must be advertised publicly. Anyone who wants it must apply, qualify, and interview for the position. > If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors Accurate or not, this really sounds like a win all around!

tablespoon 5y ago

> If however, you are a high-performer, you will likely be under-compensated in a collective bargaining environment because your excess effort will be used to compensate those who contribute less. And of course, we all assume we're far above average high-performers.

discardedrefuse 5y ago

This is non-sense. There's no rule that says collectively bargained contracts can't include rewards or incentives for higher-performance. In fact, many do. Look at any professional sports contract. Players usually get bonuses for hitting predetermined stat goals on the field. Look at any teacher contract. Teachers get bonuses for attaining higher education and certifications, or simply taking on leadership roles.

Tinyyy 5y ago
How much do you think Lebron James would be paid in a free market without collective bargaining?
- discardedrefuse 5y ago
  Probably the same, maybe less. Professional sports players get paid on merit. What they do on the court directly translates into what a team is will to pay them.
  - tqi 5y ago
    Actually he would get paid much more. The NBA CBA has a "max contract" capped at 25% of the salary cap[1]. There are numerous players playing on essentially the same deal, even though there is clearly a big gap in talent. If you look at the list of salaries for the 21-22 season[2], Steph Curry is the highest paid player at $45.6M, which is only about 15% higher than the 10th highest paid player despite being significantly better. [1] there are some other contract terms that allow for up to 35%, but those require a bunch of other non performance conditions to be met. [2] http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries
- defen 5y ago
  In this hypothetical are you also removing the salary cap? If anything he'd probably get more because I suspect that replacement-level players would be willing to play for less than the mandated minimum salary of about 1 million dollars.
- 5y ago

joshuamorton 5y ago

I'm an above average performer. I'm happy to be paid based on my contributions, but I don't really want my negotiation to come into it. They means people who aren't as competent as me get paid more. So I should support the union.

defen 5y ago

First of all, collective bargaining doesn't just have to be about monetary compensation. It could be about working conditions - e.g. regulations about being on "pager duty", ridiculous overtime during "death marches" (think game industry), employee training, etc. Remember that the vast majority of software developers actually do not work at extremely high-paying FAANG jobs. Furthermore, on the topic of compensation, Hollywood has unions and yet top actors still manage to make 10s of millions of dollars per movie.

HelloNurse 5y ago

Standard joke: "all our employees are above average". In the context of collective bargaining, it is not only possible but common: any halfway decent IT firm has highly qualified workers paid and ranked well above a "normal" worker sharing the same national contract. Everybody earns much more than minimum wage, and someone (hopefully the high performers, but don't count on it) even more than that. Pushing low compensations against minimum wage limits is simply not plausible, and paying high performers less than market value is a recipe for talent drain. Collective bargaining is important for working hours, safety, vacation, healthcare, and other important worker rights.