6 ms·

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think the best way to solve this is three things; entrepreneurs building real businesses, unions in the established compan

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think the best way to solve this is three things; entrepreneurs building real businesses, unions in the established companies, and switching jobs periodically. As a collective culture, we've chosen the easy way and overtime it gets worse without these checks and balances within the corporate world.

morgante 12y ago
Unions are directly contrary to the freedom and flexibility of switching jobs. They tie your pay to how many years you've worked at a company, not how skilled you are. I'd rather have my wage fixed by a corporation than a union. At least corporations value skill.
- Frondo 12y ago
  That's not true. Unions tie pay to whatever the unions decide to tie pay to. If you want your union to set a pay schedule based on lines of code, certificates earned, whatever, go for it: it's your union.
  - bjelkeman-again 12y ago
    Isn't that a bit like saying "if you want to change politics, go for it, it is your political parties". There is so much entrenched interests in most of these structures that it is really hard changing them. You could start a new one, but it is quite a lot of work.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      Yes, changing any preexisting system requires effort. It requires more than showing up one day and saying, "Here are my ideas, they are better than what you do, everyone do what I say now." That doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it requires skills and efforts that us technical types often aren't very good at--listening to people, understanding their motivations, and looking for common ground and compromises. Then acting on that persuasively, to get people to go along with your ideas. It's tough. Impossible? Absolutely not. It can be done.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        But the point is that, right now, there's no such obstacle to overcome; saying that "it's not impossible" is exactly not an argument in favor of introducing unions.
        Frondo 12y ago
        Well, yes, and the workers in the tech industry continue to suffer from a lack of the benefits unions bring, including better pay and protection against being fired capriciously. Remember the Adria Richards thing, how some guy lost his job? Having a union-back disciplinary process in place would have put a stop to that, you know.
        icebraining 12y ago
        (I'm sorry people are downvoting your post) I do remember the Adria Richards thing, but as far as I know, it's not exactly a widespread issue in the industry. Regarding pay, it's not clear to me that it would solve the capping/fixing issue. Even with the no-poaching agreement, developer salaries are usually pretty high in those companies (especially for employees worthy of being poached). Would union rates really be higher than what they're already getting? I doubt it.
  - morgante 12y ago
    > If you want your union to set a pay schedule based on lines of code, certificates earned, whatever, go for it: it's your union. Except I don't believe that there are quantifiable metrics which can be used to judge developer worth across the board. Unions remove my ability to negotiate. That ability to negotiate is crucial to me capturing some of the surplus value I create.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      I'm not sure how what you believe has much bearing on this situation. And I see no theoretical reason why union rules would necessarily do what you say--that is, why they would necessarily remove your ability to get better pay based on that thing you said is not generalizable or quantifiable anyway. After all, we have one good real-world example that does what you're going for, the Screen Actors Guild. I assure you that A-list actors command a great deal more pay than your run-of-the-mill SAG member. Why wouldn't something like that apply to the tech industry, as well?
      - smil 12y ago
        Unions negotiate higher/equal wages by arguing that all workers in the union are fungible, i.e. equally competent, and use quantifiable metrics and standards to argue for pay levels. That's why top talents' earnings are lowered by unions. Your example is not comparable with professional jobs like software development as actors are not paid by the hour. An actors' guild would be more comparable to an executives' guild, while a programmers' guild would be comaprable to a doctors' guild.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      "Unions remove my ability to negotiate." No, they don't. They add power to your ability to negotiate, as it's no longer just you against the entire company.
  - jkot 12y ago
    What if I have my own ONE MEMBER union?
    - Frondo 12y ago
      Unions are a tool for collective negotiation; you, as an individual, have no more leverage in directing the business than your "one member union." You and your coworkers together would have a great deal more leverage if you worked together to steer business operations to your benefit.
- fu9ar 12y ago
  Ah, the old corporate myth of meritocracy.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Either you believe programmers have unique skill, or you believe programmers are equally good replaceable parts. If you believe the latter, you should probably join the union.
    - whybroke 12y ago
      Those unique skills did not protect them from being abused by Oracle, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Intel or any others. Either you believe many companies abuse their employees with no real consequences or you don't. If you believe the former then avoiding the solution because it is contrary to your ideology is never going to fix anything.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        What if one agrees that company abuse their employees but think that, in this case, a union would be worse a cure than the disease? By saying it's the solution, aren't you the one being held by your ideology?
        whybroke 12y ago
        Because empirically it would not be. There is a great deal of mis-information about them from right leaning media that might create the contrary impression: That they limit wages, but the screen actor's guild certainly doesn't cap actor's wages. That they limit outside work, but for example, state employed court reporters do all their transcripts outside working hours and make quite a bit not being paid hourly for that. Indeed they have protected pilot wages for decades beyond what would have been possible otherwise. There is no case where an effective professional organization of some sort doesn't make things better for it members. To suppose that you as an individual will ever have any hope of negotiating on an equal basis with a multibillion dollar company because of "market forces" hand waving is utterly unreasonable and the poster child of limiting yourself due to ideology. Your one and only protection right now are few pieces of rapidly diminishing legislation. For better or worse you live in a society where if you don't have a lobbyist you are invisible and where what is considered bribery in every other country (ie money in politics) is considered free speech. A lobbyist alone would work wonders let alone the other advantages of an organization.
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  Bullshit. Does SAG control Leo DiCaprio's pay? No. Does NFLPA control Tom Brady's pay? No. They both negotiate their pay with their employers. Some unions have fixed payscales; some don't. It's not a universal feature of all unions.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  "They tie your pay to how many years you've worked at a company, not how skilled you are" There's nothing inherent about unions that makes this true. It's that it worked for many of the low-skill job unions. Nothing says this has to be true for a tech union. "At least corporations value skill." No they don't. They value paying the least possible amount for the most possible work.
- heimatau 12y ago
  I disagree with you. Unions are a way to balance the corporate power. I understand unions can become corrupt but there are ways to battle corruption on both sides. If the unions decide to be corrupt? Well, tank the business. I understand this isn't ideal but it opens up discussions. Demands for higher productivity is a management desire. Demands for better work-life is a worker desire. There is room for both sides to win. Letting management have free reign is more evil than the counter.

morgante 12y ago

Unions are directly contrary to the freedom and flexibility of switching jobs. They tie your pay to how many years you've worked at a company, not how skilled you are. I'd rather have my wage fixed by a corporation than a union. At least corporations value skill.

Frondo 12y ago
That's not true. Unions tie pay to whatever the unions decide to tie pay to. If you want your union to set a pay schedule based on lines of code, certificates earned, whatever, go for it: it's your union.
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  Isn't that a bit like saying "if you want to change politics, go for it, it is your political parties". There is so much entrenched interests in most of these structures that it is really hard changing them. You could start a new one, but it is quite a lot of work.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    Yes, changing any preexisting system requires effort. It requires more than showing up one day and saying, "Here are my ideas, they are better than what you do, everyone do what I say now." That doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it requires skills and efforts that us technical types often aren't very good at--listening to people, understanding their motivations, and looking for common ground and compromises. Then acting on that persuasively, to get people to go along with your ideas. It's tough. Impossible? Absolutely not. It can be done.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      But the point is that, right now, there's no such obstacle to overcome; saying that "it's not impossible" is exactly not an argument in favor of introducing unions.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        Well, yes, and the workers in the tech industry continue to suffer from a lack of the benefits unions bring, including better pay and protection against being fired capriciously. Remember the Adria Richards thing, how some guy lost his job? Having a union-back disciplinary process in place would have put a stop to that, you know.
        icebraining 12y ago
        (I'm sorry people are downvoting your post) I do remember the Adria Richards thing, but as far as I know, it's not exactly a widespread issue in the industry. Regarding pay, it's not clear to me that it would solve the capping/fixing issue. Even with the no-poaching agreement, developer salaries are usually pretty high in those companies (especially for employees worthy of being poached). Would union rates really be higher than what they're already getting? I doubt it.
- morgante 12y ago
  > If you want your union to set a pay schedule based on lines of code, certificates earned, whatever, go for it: it's your union. Except I don't believe that there are quantifiable metrics which can be used to judge developer worth across the board. Unions remove my ability to negotiate. That ability to negotiate is crucial to me capturing some of the surplus value I create.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I'm not sure how what you believe has much bearing on this situation. And I see no theoretical reason why union rules would necessarily do what you say--that is, why they would necessarily remove your ability to get better pay based on that thing you said is not generalizable or quantifiable anyway. After all, we have one good real-world example that does what you're going for, the Screen Actors Guild. I assure you that A-list actors command a great deal more pay than your run-of-the-mill SAG member. Why wouldn't something like that apply to the tech industry, as well?
    - smil 12y ago
      Unions negotiate higher/equal wages by arguing that all workers in the union are fungible, i.e. equally competent, and use quantifiable metrics and standards to argue for pay levels. That's why top talents' earnings are lowered by unions. Your example is not comparable with professional jobs like software development as actors are not paid by the hour. An actors' guild would be more comparable to an executives' guild, while a programmers' guild would be comaprable to a doctors' guild.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    "Unions remove my ability to negotiate." No, they don't. They add power to your ability to negotiate, as it's no longer just you against the entire company.
- jkot 12y ago
  What if I have my own ONE MEMBER union?
  - Frondo 12y ago
    Unions are a tool for collective negotiation; you, as an individual, have no more leverage in directing the business than your "one member union." You and your coworkers together would have a great deal more leverage if you worked together to steer business operations to your benefit.
fu9ar 12y ago
Ah, the old corporate myth of meritocracy.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  Either you believe programmers have unique skill, or you believe programmers are equally good replaceable parts. If you believe the latter, you should probably join the union.
  - whybroke 12y ago
    Those unique skills did not protect them from being abused by Oracle, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Intel or any others. Either you believe many companies abuse their employees with no real consequences or you don't. If you believe the former then avoiding the solution because it is contrary to your ideology is never going to fix anything.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      What if one agrees that company abuse their employees but think that, in this case, a union would be worse a cure than the disease? By saying it's the solution, aren't you the one being held by your ideology?
      - whybroke 12y ago
        Because empirically it would not be. There is a great deal of mis-information about them from right leaning media that might create the contrary impression: That they limit wages, but the screen actor's guild certainly doesn't cap actor's wages. That they limit outside work, but for example, state employed court reporters do all their transcripts outside working hours and make quite a bit not being paid hourly for that. Indeed they have protected pilot wages for decades beyond what would have been possible otherwise. There is no case where an effective professional organization of some sort doesn't make things better for it members. To suppose that you as an individual will ever have any hope of negotiating on an equal basis with a multibillion dollar company because of "market forces" hand waving is utterly unreasonable and the poster child of limiting yourself due to ideology. Your one and only protection right now are few pieces of rapidly diminishing legislation. For better or worse you live in a society where if you don't have a lobbyist you are invisible and where what is considered bribery in every other country (ie money in politics) is considered free speech. A lobbyist alone would work wonders let alone the other advantages of an organization.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
Bullshit. Does SAG control Leo DiCaprio's pay? No. Does NFLPA control Tom Brady's pay? No. They both negotiate their pay with their employers. Some unions have fixed payscales; some don't. It's not a universal feature of all unions.
s73v3r 12y ago
"They tie your pay to how many years you've worked at a company, not how skilled you are" There's nothing inherent about unions that makes this true. It's that it worked for many of the low-skill job unions. Nothing says this has to be true for a tech union. "At least corporations value skill." No they don't. They value paying the least possible amount for the most possible work.
heimatau 12y ago
I disagree with you. Unions are a way to balance the corporate power. I understand unions can become corrupt but there are ways to battle corruption on both sides. If the unions decide to be corrupt? Well, tank the business. I understand this isn't ideal but it opens up discussions. Demands for higher productivity is a management desire. Demands for better work-life is a worker desire. There is room for both sides to win. Letting management have free reign is more evil than the counter.