5 ms·
It's not a better bargaining chip. It's just a more "believable" bargaining chip. A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losi
by corethree 3y ago
It's not a better bargaining chip. It's just a more "believable" bargaining chip.
A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire.
This is just one of the illogical things about life. Either the company is illogical, or employee behavior is illogical in that the threat of quitting with a better bargaining chip is just lower.
- buzzerbetrayed 3y ago> A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire. On an individual level maybe. But it doesn't benefit the company for news to spread that they'll bump your pay a significant amount if you threaten to quit. If the company has 100 employees working for a salary that is 80% of their fair market value, it's worth losing one of those employees to keep the discount on the other 99.
- djtango 3y agoin other words there's a spread between what employees will take as pay and what employers could pay but usually employers are arbing that spread because employees lack price transparency.
- corethree 3y agoThat's why swes need something union like. Not a union according to the legal definition, but some way to do collaborative negotiation so they get paid what they are worth.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoSwitching employers works well
- corethree 3y agoThat was my strategy for the last decade. The problem with it is it gets tiring. I'd like to switch because I want to switch, not because I want to get paid what I'm worth. Additionally in the current market for the past year, software engineers aren't getting hired as fast anymore. The crazy hiring has slowed down and many companies are actually offering lower salaries. It's much harder to land a job.
- redserk 3y agoThat's... a union. A union can limit their involvement to strictly salary negotiations if it's members choose to do so.
- corethree 3y agoThanks for not understanding. I mean there's other things associated with a union that people don't like about it. Why do I have to pay to have collaborative negotiation? I'm just saying I acknowledge those parts and I want to avoid it. I think in theory people can band together and collectively negotiate without actually forming a legal union.
- redserk 3y ago“I want to cook eggs on top of hot oil but I don’t want to say I’m frying them” is more words to get to “I want to fry eggs” The framework to band together and collectively negotiate is literally called forming a union. You don’t have to collect dues if you don’t want/need to, nor do you need a bureaucracy. Eventually groups of collective negotiators (unions) end up in situations requiring resources, which require money. I’m talking about simple lawyer consults or if you wanted to buy research on current market pay.
- corethree 3y agoThis is a blatant mischaracterization. There is a legal formation of a union according to US law which requires voting. That's not what I'm talking about. There can be collective negotiation where all employees can simply threaten to quit if demands aren't met. The government doesn't have to legally acknowledge your union hence why I used the term "legal definition of union" This isn't some cooking eggs and not calling it frying. This is more you not understanding. Failure to comprehend and being mean is what's going on with you. The term is ass hole. Because let's face it, there's no failure to comprehend here, just deliberate pedantism and mischaracterization. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-right-to-form-a-union https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... It is this legal definition of a union that has the ability to characterize your membership in the legal union as having paid union dues. This legal formation of a union which is required to even sue the company isn't required for employees to act collectively. But you know this. It's obvious. Stop being deliberately pedantic. Just move on man.
- otteromkram 3y agoNah. If employers don't want to pay, then just move to another company. Unions are for people without options.
- nerdponx 3y ago> Unions are for people without options. Unions exist so that the people with options can help the people without options.
- corethree 3y agoUnions exist so that employees can collectively negotiate with the company and balance negotiation because a company is essentially a collective of shareholders.
- KittenInABox 3y agoWe all eventually are caught in bad spots. Vulnerable to market downturns. Laid off during a health crisis. Visa problems. Long covid. Closing in on retirement and facing ageism.
- atq2119 3y agoWorld class actors are still part of a union. Unions are meant to be a tool to increase your power by solving a coordination problem between employees, and there are many examples of them working well for that purpose.
- charrondev 3y agoMy experience is that as a higher level IC your ability to get that raise from your current place requires you to shop around a bit and have the confidence that you can walk away and find land another job that pays more. It’s not a bad idea to do a couple interviews before your annual review comes up, even if you don’t have to say in quite so clear terms that you are ready to jump ship. Confidence helps a lot.