3 ms·

Unions are helpful when you have a homogeneous workforce all doing similar work with similar outputs. We have studies showing how different software engineerin

Unions are helpful when you have a homogeneous workforce all doing similar work with similar outputs. We have studies showing how different software engineering is, where some workers vastly outperform others, some workers are interchangeable, some are specialists, and some underperform. This is exactly the wrong type of work that benefits from collective bargaining and gatekeeping. Unions help subpar workers. They do not help anyone else (other than their power structure that they themselves carve out using other workers wages).

sgift 5y ago
> We have studies showing how different software engineering is, where some workers vastly outperform others, some workers are interchangeable, some are specialists, and some underperform. Do we? Please, show these studies. Obviously, we can only accept peer-reviewed replicated studies. Not some study which was never replicated (there are a few) or even worse some blog post by someone stating they personally know 10x engineers or whatever.
- VirusNewbie 5y ago
  >. Obviously, we can only accept peer-reviewed replicated studies That's your bar to prove that some engineers are better than others? Seriously? What are you claiming here? That some engineers aren't better than others?
discardedrefuse 5y ago
Here is my copy/paste response to another extremely similar comment: > 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.
- VirusNewbie 5y ago
  Teachers unions actively fight against performance metrics and instead focus on seniority as the main way to get pay increases. People who have worked and doing the same job for 30 years are payed more than twice as much as newcomers to the field. The existence of a teacher's union is actively harmful to new teachers.
  - discardedrefuse 5y ago
    > Teachers unions actively fight against performance metrics and instead focus on seniority as the main way to get pay increases. Unions may have fought against it, but many have not succeeded. Those teachers now get paid on performance metrics. Those metrics punish teachers at schools in low income neighborhoods; leaving those schools devoid of good teachers. Those metrics punish teachers working with at-risk kids. Leaving those kids without access to good teachers. But I digress, that's a different conversation. My actual point is, these teachers, even though they get paid on metrics, are still unionized because there are more benefits to unionization than salary. Ask any charter school teacher. > People who have worked and doing the same job for 30 years are payed more than twice as much as newcomers to the field. The existence of a teacher's union is actively harmful to new teachers. These were called "steps". And it was a way to encourage teachers to stay teachers. When new teachers signed on, they were given their step salary schedule and they knew exactly how much money they would be making at any point in their teaching career. To suggest this is punishing new teachers is ridiculous. If you don't like the salary schedule, you shouldn't have taken the job. Aside from that, many school districts have already moved away from stepped salary schedules to a flat salary with COLA increases negotiated by...you guessed it...the union. A unionized labor force can bargain for any kind of contract it wants. Paid by seniority? Do it. Everyone paid the same? Go for it. Merit based pay? Not a problem. But without a union, "Here's what I'll pay you. Don't discuss it with your co-workers. Or else."
    - VirusNewbie 5y ago
      >To suggest this is punishing new teachers is ridiculous. If you don't like the salary schedule, you shouldn't have taken the job Err, you have this backwards. If I don't like my company's stock vesting schedule, I can choose to go get a new job down the street with a completely different comp structure. If a young teacher in LA County is frustrated that their school is rewarding low performers with double their salary simply because of time, your suggestion is they "shouldn't have taken the job"? Despite the fact that the Union has negotiated with the entire school district, and they have no choice but to leave the county at the very least if they want something different? You see how the Union is actively harming the younger teachers by taking away their choices, right? >But without a union, "Here's what I'll pay you. That's why US tech salaries are so low these days right?

sgift 5y ago

> We have studies showing how different software engineering is, where some workers vastly outperform others, some workers are interchangeable, some are specialists, and some underperform. Do we? Please, show these studies. Obviously, we can only accept peer-reviewed replicated studies. Not some study which was never replicated (there are a few) or even worse some blog post by someone stating they personally know 10x engineers or whatever.

VirusNewbie 5y ago
>. Obviously, we can only accept peer-reviewed replicated studies That's your bar to prove that some engineers are better than others? Seriously? What are you claiming here? That some engineers aren't better than others?

discardedrefuse 5y ago

Here is my copy/paste response to another extremely similar comment: > 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.

VirusNewbie 5y ago
Teachers unions actively fight against performance metrics and instead focus on seniority as the main way to get pay increases. People who have worked and doing the same job for 30 years are payed more than twice as much as newcomers to the field. The existence of a teacher's union is actively harmful to new teachers.
- discardedrefuse 5y ago
  > Teachers unions actively fight against performance metrics and instead focus on seniority as the main way to get pay increases. Unions may have fought against it, but many have not succeeded. Those teachers now get paid on performance metrics. Those metrics punish teachers at schools in low income neighborhoods; leaving those schools devoid of good teachers. Those metrics punish teachers working with at-risk kids. Leaving those kids without access to good teachers. But I digress, that's a different conversation. My actual point is, these teachers, even though they get paid on metrics, are still unionized because there are more benefits to unionization than salary. Ask any charter school teacher. > People who have worked and doing the same job for 30 years are payed more than twice as much as newcomers to the field. The existence of a teacher's union is actively harmful to new teachers. These were called "steps". And it was a way to encourage teachers to stay teachers. When new teachers signed on, they were given their step salary schedule and they knew exactly how much money they would be making at any point in their teaching career. To suggest this is punishing new teachers is ridiculous. If you don't like the salary schedule, you shouldn't have taken the job. Aside from that, many school districts have already moved away from stepped salary schedules to a flat salary with COLA increases negotiated by...you guessed it...the union. A unionized labor force can bargain for any kind of contract it wants. Paid by seniority? Do it. Everyone paid the same? Go for it. Merit based pay? Not a problem. But without a union, "Here's what I'll pay you. Don't discuss it with your co-workers. Or else."
  - VirusNewbie 5y ago
    >To suggest this is punishing new teachers is ridiculous. If you don't like the salary schedule, you shouldn't have taken the job Err, you have this backwards. If I don't like my company's stock vesting schedule, I can choose to go get a new job down the street with a completely different comp structure. If a young teacher in LA County is frustrated that their school is rewarding low performers with double their salary simply because of time, your suggestion is they "shouldn't have taken the job"? Despite the fact that the Union has negotiated with the entire school district, and they have no choice but to leave the county at the very least if they want something different? You see how the Union is actively harming the younger teachers by taking away their choices, right? >But without a union, "Here's what I'll pay you. That's why US tech salaries are so low these days right?