5 ms·

You're not talking about unions. Those are cartels that restrict supply. Lawyers and Doctors are business owners operating as an oligopoly. I'm not talking abou

You're not talking about unions. Those are cartels that restrict supply. Lawyers and Doctors are business owners operating as an oligopoly. I'm not talking about business owners. I'm talking about employees. I'm talking about people joining together to put themselves on equal negotiation grounds with their employers. Just because no union has successfully produced wages of 200k plus doesn't mean it can't happen. Software Engineering is a highly skilled occupation that generates a great deal of wealth. If all software developers demanded 200k then companies would pay that price because our work generates well north of that. The reason we don't get a fair share of the pie, like all other laborers, is a lack of organized negotiation. In short, 200k+ union salary has never happened, but is well within the means of the industry to support such an endeavor. It CAN happen and it will make wages MORE fair. Don't argue against unions. It's the stupidest thing to do, because even if you can't negotiate your salary up to 200k you got nothing to lose by making/joining one or even raising your salary by 10k. That is unless, you're an executive/major shareholder... then we'd be opponents from a negotiation standpoint.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I'm not sure I want anyone else negotiating my salary, or deciding what work I'm allowed to do, or creating some hoops of qualification or exams for me to jump through so I can get a "Programmer III" classification and get another 10K. No thanks. Too blue-collar for me. Its not all about the money after all. We're not talking about poor sweatshop guys trying to feed a family or go on public assistance. We're talking about folks paid quite a bit for sitting on their butts and typing. Sure we have value. Learn to negotiate, become a contractor or consultant if you like, switch jobs as needed to get what you think you're worth. But don't imagine you'll sign me up for a club where you decide what I'm worth, and make me pay for the privilege.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  The "club" doesn't negotiate FOR you. It negotiates WITH you. You can still negotiate for higher if you think you can get it. All the union says is, no programmer gets paid less the 200k. You want to negotiate to 300k because you think you're that good? Be my guest. A corporation is a group of organized individuals negotiating against you. A union puts you on equal ground. That's it. If a union doesn't work this way, then it needs to be changed.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Lets not pretend unions don't totally change the hiring landscape. Easy to say "be my guest" but we both know the corporation will not deal at all, after they've dealt with the union.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=659718 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=659718 short answer: It depends on the union. It does happen in this country.
beagle3 11y ago
I'm intrigued to hear what examples you draw your inference from. These days I reside in a country which has unions everywhere - including in engineering disciplines. And everyone who wants to increase their salary runs away from union and unionized workplaces as far away and as quickly away as possible. It CAN happen? Why hasn't it, except for guilds (which you rightfully group with business owners)? I can tell you why it didn't happen in unions I'm familiar with: The union representatives who negotiate on behalf of the employees and the people who can score a >$200k salary are mutually exclusive groups. In fact, they negotiators are usually those who wouldn't score more than the prevailing average in an industry. At which point, they are happy to sign an agreement for just 5% than the prevailing average - and they do so in the name of the more capable employees as well. Other things that happen is stuff like management requesting the union to agree that "no employee will be paid higher than their manager". Which union officials always agree to (for various reasons), and which causes your most productive employees - those who are at the top of their fields but not anywhere near the top of the managerial ladder - to abandon ship. The unionized software professionals are among the least capable and worst paid software professionals around here. And it's not a fluke - it basically converges the same way in every unionized industry where capabilities (and earning potential) have large variances. It's excellent for retail employees, public school teachers, bus drivers, port workers - but all my observations lead me to believe it is horrible for programmers, engineers, actors and even lawyers.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >These days I reside in a country which has unions everywhere - including in engineering disciplines. And everyone who wants to increase their salary runs away from union and unionized workplaces as far away and as quickly away as possible. Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm >It CAN happen? Why hasn't it, except for guilds (which you rightfully group with business owners)? I can tell you why it didn't happen in unions I'm familiar with: The union representatives who negotiate on behalf of the employees and the people who can score a >$200k salary are mutually exclusive groups. In fact, they negotiators are usually those who wouldn't score more than the prevailing average in an industry. Why are union members usually people with low salaries? Simple. Only the least skilled are desperate enough to form unions. They have to do it in a sense. Software engineers are complacent with their super high salaries, not knowing that their 120k annual salary is based off work that generates 1 million in monthly revenue. Thanks to the lack of unions, if you try to negotiate a more than fair 500k annual salary the company will shoot you down. Due to another idiot SE in the world who thinks he's only worth 120k, you're easily replaced without a union backing you up. >At which point, they are happy to sign an agreement for just 5% than the prevailing average - and they do so in the name of the more capable employees as well. There's no need to negotiate upper limits on pay. There also should be no need to end individual negotiations. If unions aren't currently structured in a way that benefits the employee then the structure of what we consider to be a union should be changed. >Other things that happen is stuff like management requesting the union to agree that "no employee will be paid higher than their manager". Which union officials always agree to (for various reasons), and which causes your most productive employees - those who are at the top of their fields but not anywhere near the top of the managerial ladder - to abandon ship. why does this need to be agreed too? There's no need for this to be agreed to at all. No upper limits to salary. Who wants that? Union members should vote for what they want. Union officials should be held accountable every decision they make. Only lower limits on salary should be negotiated with the union and employer. The actual salary should be a separate negotiation between employee and employer. IF unions aren't structured that way then they should be. The government shouldn't decide on some arbitrary hierarchy for a union that ends up not benefiting people. People acting together in organized groups generally don't want to fuck themselves over with stupid things like upper limits to salary and ending all individual negotiations with the employer.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

I'm not sure I want anyone else negotiating my salary, or deciding what work I'm allowed to do, or creating some hoops of qualification or exams for me to jump through so I can get a "Programmer III" classification and get another 10K. No thanks. Too blue-collar for me. Its not all about the money after all. We're not talking about poor sweatshop guys trying to feed a family or go on public assistance. We're talking about folks paid quite a bit for sitting on their butts and typing. Sure we have value. Learn to negotiate, become a contractor or consultant if you like, switch jobs as needed to get what you think you're worth. But don't imagine you'll sign me up for a club where you decide what I'm worth, and make me pay for the privilege.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
The "club" doesn't negotiate FOR you. It negotiates WITH you. You can still negotiate for higher if you think you can get it. All the union says is, no programmer gets paid less the 200k. You want to negotiate to 300k because you think you're that good? Be my guest. A corporation is a group of organized individuals negotiating against you. A union puts you on equal ground. That's it. If a union doesn't work this way, then it needs to be changed.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Lets not pretend unions don't totally change the hiring landscape. Easy to say "be my guest" but we both know the corporation will not deal at all, after they've dealt with the union.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=659718 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=659718 short answer: It depends on the union. It does happen in this country.

beagle3 11y ago

I'm intrigued to hear what examples you draw your inference from. These days I reside in a country which has unions everywhere - including in engineering disciplines. And everyone who wants to increase their salary runs away from union and unionized workplaces as far away and as quickly away as possible. It CAN happen? Why hasn't it, except for guilds (which you rightfully group with business owners)? I can tell you why it didn't happen in unions I'm familiar with: The union representatives who negotiate on behalf of the employees and the people who can score a >$200k salary are mutually exclusive groups. In fact, they negotiators are usually those who wouldn't score more than the prevailing average in an industry. At which point, they are happy to sign an agreement for just 5% than the prevailing average - and they do so in the name of the more capable employees as well. Other things that happen is stuff like management requesting the union to agree that "no employee will be paid higher than their manager". Which union officials always agree to (for various reasons), and which causes your most productive employees - those who are at the top of their fields but not anywhere near the top of the managerial ladder - to abandon ship. The unionized software professionals are among the least capable and worst paid software professionals around here. And it's not a fluke - it basically converges the same way in every unionized industry where capabilities (and earning potential) have large variances. It's excellent for retail employees, public school teachers, bus drivers, port workers - but all my observations lead me to believe it is horrible for programmers, engineers, actors and even lawyers.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
>These days I reside in a country which has unions everywhere - including in engineering disciplines. And everyone who wants to increase their salary runs away from union and unionized workplaces as far away and as quickly away as possible. Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm >It CAN happen? Why hasn't it, except for guilds (which you rightfully group with business owners)? I can tell you why it didn't happen in unions I'm familiar with: The union representatives who negotiate on behalf of the employees and the people who can score a >$200k salary are mutually exclusive groups. In fact, they negotiators are usually those who wouldn't score more than the prevailing average in an industry. Why are union members usually people with low salaries? Simple. Only the least skilled are desperate enough to form unions. They have to do it in a sense. Software engineers are complacent with their super high salaries, not knowing that their 120k annual salary is based off work that generates 1 million in monthly revenue. Thanks to the lack of unions, if you try to negotiate a more than fair 500k annual salary the company will shoot you down. Due to another idiot SE in the world who thinks he's only worth 120k, you're easily replaced without a union backing you up. >At which point, they are happy to sign an agreement for just 5% than the prevailing average - and they do so in the name of the more capable employees as well. There's no need to negotiate upper limits on pay. There also should be no need to end individual negotiations. If unions aren't currently structured in a way that benefits the employee then the structure of what we consider to be a union should be changed. >Other things that happen is stuff like management requesting the union to agree that "no employee will be paid higher than their manager". Which union officials always agree to (for various reasons), and which causes your most productive employees - those who are at the top of their fields but not anywhere near the top of the managerial ladder - to abandon ship. why does this need to be agreed too? There's no need for this to be agreed to at all. No upper limits to salary. Who wants that? Union members should vote for what they want. Union officials should be held accountable every decision they make. Only lower limits on salary should be negotiated with the union and employer. The actual salary should be a separate negotiation between employee and employer. IF unions aren't structured that way then they should be. The government shouldn't decide on some arbitrary hierarchy for a union that ends up not benefiting people. People acting together in organized groups generally don't want to fuck themselves over with stupid things like upper limits to salary and ending all individual negotiations with the employer.