6 ms·

Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without

• chipdart 2y ago
  > Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile. Let's see if you still hold that opinion in a few years when you reach your 40s/50s, can't find a job because ageism, and you have to compete with people who work 16h/day surviving on cold pizza and Red Bull.
  • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Well, I'm 62, and I still hold that same opinion.
  • pc86 2y ago
    Already well into that age range and have no trouble finding jobs because I'm productive and continue to upgrade my skills. Those habits are rewarded, as opposed to rewarding you for simply existing longer/having gotten hired earlier.
    • red-iron-pine 2y ago
      > Already well into that age range and have no trouble finding jobs because I'm productive and continue to upgrade my skills > I "It's not happening to me, so it's not happening" says the programmer type, who isn't carrying 25kg loads up stairs 10+ times a day
      • pc86 2y ago
        I may be a "programmer type" but I do know 25kg isn't a lot of weight to carry around. The article is specifically about tech workers in Amazon, so I think it's pretty clear from that and the rest of the context that I was discussing unions in relation to tech workers. I was disputing the claim that you a) it's hard to get a job in your 40s or 50s, and b) if it is hard, it's because of ageism and not something you did (or didn't do). And as others have pointed out, there is certainly a class of employee who is going to be chugging energy drinks and working 16h a day but if you're 40+ you're not competing with them.
  • Jensson 2y ago
    > Let's see if you still hold that opinion in a few years when you reach your 40s/50s, can't find a job because ageism Unions forcing companies to pay him higher due to his age makes ageism worse, not better.
    • xhkkffbf 2y ago
      Yup. I watched a friend get fired because the union salary was double for people with 20 years of work. Yeah, they were more efficient and knowledgeable, but not 2x. So they replaced him with a younger new grad.
      • extra88 2y ago
        What union contract allows firing without cause?
        • xhkkffbf 2y ago
          Pretty much all of them, really. Business concerns are always important because the union doesn't want to kill the business. That would be really bad. In the case of this example, the manager was given a budget and that meant choosing staff. So she told my friend that he could go the easy way or the hard way. There are plenty of causes that the manager could dream up. It's not hard. If you want a cause, they can find one.
          • extra88 2y ago
            > So she told my friend that he could go the easy way or the hard way. There are plenty of causes that the manager could dream up. That's avoiding union contracted processes. Union representation can help a worker when management is concocting bullshit issues. The "hard way" might make things more difficult for a worker (closer supervision, tedious training) but it's definitely harder for the manager than if the worker quits.
  • pfannkuchen 2y ago
    I suspect much of the ageism in tech comes from talented/successful people filtering out of the mainstream workforce by 40s/50s. I think a lot of very skilled people end up with the means to focus on other parts of life, or to do whatever they want in tech and not be beholden to a corporate master. Which isn’t to say that everyone who doesn’t retire by then is bad, just that the ratio is different than 20s and 30s and this probably colors people’s view of the group. Especially with the crazy industry growth we’ve seen over the career of the average 50 year old in tech.
    • pc86 2y ago
      The idea that a lot or even a sizeable percentage of tech workers can "focus on other parts of life" or "do whatever they want" within 15-20 years of working is frankly kind of ridiculous. The median developer salary in the US is in the neighborhood of $110k/yr and includes $0 in bonuses and $0 in stock. Outside of the San Francisco bubble simply being able to type JavaScript into a computer does not put you on a trajectory to retire decades before your peers in other industries.
      • pfannkuchen 2y ago
        Is there significant ageism in other parts of the industry though? I thought it was typical for, say, a regional bank software department, to be staffed with a mix of ages up to retirement age, not mostly people in their 20s and early 30s. All of the ageism concern I’ve seen discussed has been about big tech and startups. Are 48 year olds being pushed out of working at mid sized insurance companies?
      • dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
        The median includes the massive number of people under 30 who joined in the last ten years. They likely outnumber everyone over 50 by 10x. It's not a meaningful reference point for this discussion.
        • pc86 2y ago
          Of course it's a meaningful reference point. It is the primary reference point when discussing how much someone can expect to earn in a given profession. Half the developers in the country are making less than that and it's not because they started programming in 2018, it's because 99% of developers do not get any bonus, do not get any stock, and are lucky to hit $200k total comp in their life without going into management. If you're going to say something like 90% of the workforce is under 30 you're going to need to cite something because I just absolutely do not believe that.
  • Aeolun 2y ago
    > have to compete with people who work 16h/day surviving on cold pizza and Red Bull Even at age 36 that’s no contest. If they’re producing crud twice as long that just means there’s more crud. I’ll admit that that might be harder to see for management than the fact they spend twice as long in office.
  • throwaway48540 2y ago
    If you had such long career and still compete with these guys, perhaps consider a different career. I'm in my 30s and have no reason at all to worry about this, as my job is no longer about crunching code as quickly as possible - my input is on a much more strategic higher abstraction level that these younger code crunchers don't have the necessary experience for. The VP that manages me would consider 16h workdays and Redbulls a fireable offense at my position.
  • itsoktocry 2y ago
    >Let's see if you still hold that opinion in a few years when you reach your 40s/50s Do you think none of us are working in our 40s and 50s?
• danaris 2y ago
  Unions reward what their membership wants them to reward. Are you active in your union? Have you voiced concerns over this policy of theirs?
  • Jensson 2y ago
    Democracy does what their people want, yet about half the population are really unhappy after each election. You as an individual can't change things in most cases, you get what the union gives.
• rwmj 2y ago
  I'm in a union and they don't "reward seniority over everything else". In my experience this is either made up or affects some narrow class of jobs but is used as an excuse to bash all unions. As another response says, unions do what their members want.
  • pc86 2y ago
    Pilots bid for jobs based on seniority and are laid off in reverse order of seniority. Same with police officers. Every union job there is has a concept of seniority number and there's no way to get around that unless you go into management in which case you're no longer in the union (such as smaller police departments where the lieutenant and/or chief are not under union purview).
    • dghlsakjg 2y ago
      The screen actors guild hires based on seniority? That’s why Clint Eastwood keeps playing 17 year olds… There are plenty of unions that aren’t seniority based.
      • pc86 2y ago
        I'll listen to arguments for a developers' union that includes no seniority-based provisions but one of the biggest reasons people cite is "ageism."
      • creer 2y ago
        They also don't hire anyone. They are not the ones who do the hiring. Airlines it seems - for a current example - have relinquished some hiring / firing authority to union rules.
    • creer 2y ago
      Seems to me (most) unions and old-style corporations reward seniority because they are captured. (Roughly speaking) the old-timers stick together because they can and because there are old-timers. And few people get promoted because there is only a very narrow path upward (say, 6-10 lower to a ground-floor supervisor, 6 of these to a higher rank). That necessarily creates a very thin path up. And there is space up only when the previous person is promoted or leaves. There is respect for the skill of a senior employee when it has been proven but respect will only buy you so much. Mostly that skill is put to good effect without massive salary change. There is nominal seniority-based salary increase because that's affordable and easy to manage - and is captured. That is, this salary scale was designed by the previous seniors. Same for promotion order and layoff order. Seniority then becomes a way to "force" loyalty: If you jump, you may not be one of the top dogs who think they have captured the system. No need for (much) higher salaries if the staff themselves support seniority.
• kamaal 2y ago
  >>Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile. You are arguing against the very idea of a Union. The whole point of a union is people sticking together for long to tend to each other's interests. Why should a union reward someone known to be a grifter?
  • pc86 2y ago
    Who is a grifter in this scenario? I have no interest in rewarding Adam just because he happened to be born 3 years before Bob.
    • kamaal 2y ago
      If Adam was there with the Union for 3 more years, then union obviously rewards Adam more than Bob. The word 'Union' itself means a association of people with a purpose of taking care of each other. You are free to not be a part of such an arrangement. But that doesn't mean that the association is wrong, or its members shouldn't look after each other, or they are wrong to do so. In fact you are free to do whatever you want, and they are free to what they want. Its just history shows that if you can win big individually(outlier) you are not likely to love unions. But very few people can be outliers so for the bulk of the human race unions work just fine. You tend to do well on the average on the longer run.
  • creer 2y ago
    The people with stake in the game (seniority, been together longer) can stick together and continue to drive what they think has worked for them (seniority). I haven't needed to mention skill or effort or initiative one bit here. While the newcomers have little stake in the game, perhaps don't even vote, vote in dispersed order, etc.
  • itsoktocry 2y ago
    >The whole point of a union is people sticking together for long to tend to each other's interests. I spent almost a decade doing union labour in Canada (auto industry). The idea that they "stick together" any more than any other group is not my experience. During one of our negotiations, the company proposed making everyone hired after a certain start date a "temporary employee" (no benefits, lower pay, can be laid off or recalled with 24h notice). This would affect 25% of the employees. In return, the company offered a bigger signing bonus: $2500 vs the usual $1000. The union leadership recommended voting against the contract; the fact they even brought it to the table is crazy. And the union membership voted it in anyway. Screwed over fellow workers for $1500 a head. It was that easy. Us "temporary workers" were now working beside people making 30% more money, doing the same job but facing more uncertainty. We were gradually laid off over a couple years, all in the name of "corporate viability". I had spent years hearing about "solidarity", but the second an extra paycheque was on the table no one cared about their "union brother". Joke's on that union, I guess: the plant closed during the 2008 financial crisis and everyone lost their job. Hope that $1500 lasted!
• mrguyorama 2y ago
  Which is why all those unionized hollywood actors DON'T make $80 million for two movies right? If you are truly valuable, no amount of union anything can prevent you from getting a good deal.