4 ms·

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

by 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.

by Frondo 12y ago

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.