3 ms·
> I personally think everyone should be required to spend a year Ok fine. You are free to say that you want barriers to entry and want to prevent people from
by stale2002 3y ago
> I personally think everyone should be required to spend a year
Ok fine. You are free to say that you want barriers to entry and want to prevent people from getting jobs, by making them do all this other stuff.
But other people like me do not want that. We do not want to be forced by a union to do all these things, and instead want to be able to negotiate on our own to get a job.
Unions should not get in this way of this.
And there are a whole lot of other people, just like me, who would never have been able to get into the industry if we were forced to jump through all these hoops and we will not support organizations that pull up the ladder behind us.
> You say barriers to entry, I say putting in the time to ensure you're someone I want to work with in the future.
Its funny how you are almost directly contradicting your previous statements here.
Previously, you tried to argue that degree requirements, or other barriers to entry are not a thing. And now you are giving reason why you actually support those requirements?
Do you not see the direct contradiction that you made in like 2 posts?
Instead of that, you should have started off by saying "Yes I want there to be requirements, enforced by a union. I want you to be required to get a degree or do an apprenticeship, or a number of other things/ insert random thing X".
But you didn't do that. Instead, you disagreed with my factual claim that there are requirements, which you have immediately now backed off from without admitting that your original statement was wrong.
- deprecative 3y ago> A union being an unrelated 3rd party should have no say in that kind of business arrangement. A union is, in fact, a related second party. It is comprised of employees of that employer. You seem to be under a grave misunderstanding of what a union is. I recommend learning about what they are and put the koolaid down.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- candiddevmike 3y agoThere is already a loose, undefined apprenticeship system in technology with the intern/junior roles. With a union, the pathway would be more defined, not required a college degree, and folks would get paid fairly and not have to job hop to get a raise. We'd also open access/be more inclusive by formally removing the need for college degrees and the HR "must have 15 years of rust experience" shenanigans. We might even get real engineer licensing programs and become an accountable part of society...!
- stale2002 3y ago> With a union, the pathway would be more defined By defined you mean requires as per the contract or even the law. Yeah, no. We do not want to be forced into your requirements. And we will fight and sabotage all of these efforts, because we know what it is that you are advocating for, and we will not pull up the ladder behind us. Fortunately, the anti union side is winning in the tech industry, and those who want enforced barriers to entry are losing so much that none of this is even a real conversation in the industry right now. > We might even get real engineer licensing programs So literal legal requirements. Yes this is what us anti union people want to prevent. This is why you will never has us on board. Because when your mask comes off, and people are actually honest about what they want implemented, it becomes clear that it was always exactly the stuff that we were trying to prevent.
- satvikpendem 3y agoEverything you say here, I agree with the sibling. I would not want to be in a field that has the requirements you're talking about. It is precisely why I joined a computer science major and job and not a computer engineering one.