This is precisely why tech employees need to negotiate collectively. When your employer is posting record profits, but is lowering compensation, you have a much stronger negotiating position when you work as a team.
If you go to a competitor and negotiate a 25% higher salary and bring it back to your current employer, either they give you a 25% raise or you leave. Either way you get 25% more money.
If you go to a union and ask for a raise, they go to the employer, the employer can't afford to give everyone a 25% raise, so they give everyone a 2.5% raise. Then you have to quit and go work for the competitor. Only now they won't pay you 25% more because now they know your current salary based on where you work, your position and the terms of the union contract, so they know they only have to pay you 5% more. So either way you're making less.
Meanwhile the competitor is still offering more, so your current employer starts bleeding talent, which reduces revenue generation and thereby the amount of money they have to pay employees in the future.
It's not as if many people still aspire to work for GM.
Here in Austria we have "collective contracts" which are negotiated by unions. The "collective contract" specifies a minimum salary (depending on job title/experience), but employees are free to negotiate higher salaries. Senior developers usually earn way more than the minimum.
The union also negotiates a minimum raise every year (I think it is 2.6% for IT workers in 2019). Employers are free to offer additional raises, and typically they do.
I've never been the alpha chimp, but I've also never been the bottom of the heap. It strikes me that your lack of empathy strongly implies you think you not only would do better, but that you deserve to.
Let me put it to you that you're wrong: you would actually do better long term fighting to get better pay across the board and incentives for high achievers actually do better long term (as in vesting) when everyone wins.
A: [Proposal for collective organization] B: [Explains logical holes in proposal] A: You're a bad person!
Every single discussion on this topic eventually devolves into people demanding that others support a system that's not in their interest on the basis of specious moral principles that happen to benefit the person making the moralistic argument, for example, "you lack empathy" or "you hate democracy". The truth is, nobody is required to support a system that's not in his interest, and if organizers can't create a system that makes everyone better off, they'll fail to achieve their goals. Shame is no substitute for incentive.
I agree with this part.
However, "but unions would try to level the playing field so I would not be able to maintain my (obviously well-deserved) elite status" is not a logical argument.
And "you appear not to want to make things more equitable" is not saying "you're a bad person"—and you saying it is says, I think, more about you than it does about ggm's post, which stated things in fairly value-neutral terms. Even his final remark was not a moral judgement of any kind, but rather an economic argument.
Of course nobody's required to support a system that doesn't benefit them. But (to take your position to its illogical extreme) if everybody fought tooth and nail to ensure that they got the very most possible without regard for what anyone else got, I don't think anyone would be very happy with the result.
So yes, this thread is very much a microcosm of every unionization discussion I've seen on the Internet.
A: [proposal for collective organization]
B: [objects that with a union, they wouldn't be able to use their Mad (Negotiating/Programming) Skillz to get hugely better compensation]
A: [attempts to argue that with a union, more people would be better off on average]
B: [You're a socialist!]
But I do also really believe an economics story here: fairer wage structure with less super pay for geniuses and shit pay for everyone else makes better sense. More people can spend disposable income so the economy does better overall and the company is more profitable.
I've worked with genius programmers and they're not team players and whilst it's exhilarating, the outcome is mixed.
The boring programmers make staid reliable systems. They sell because they work.
That doesn't mean those who oppose collectivism (particularly the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" style) don't have empathy. There are many here for example who support vigorous free market competition (both in goods and services and in labor) run by supply and demand but also advocate a basic income out of empathy to make sure everyone is ensured a minimum humane standard of living.
>But I do also really believe an economics story here: fairer wage structure with less super pay for geniuses and shit pay for everyone else makes better sense. More people can spend disposable income so the economy does better overall and the company is more profitable.
There are plenty of companies that have a primarily tenure-based system of pay and promotion. At least in tech, those legacy incumbents tend to be far less successful and profitable than the merit-based companies disrupting them. I know which kind of company I'd rather work for.
>I've worked with genius programmers and they're not team players and whilst it's exhilarating, the outcome is mixed.
Systems for career advancement / promotions are never perfect, but rarely do they just hire and promote the smartest geniuses. Generally, being a team player is a very important part of career improvement / advancement.
>The boring programmers make staid reliable systems. They sell because they work.
That's not why IBM software sells.
You're framing this as some kind of 99th percentile elites vs. everyone else situation, when the real issue is that 65th percentile employees have different interests than 35th percentile employees. Who themselves have different interests than 2nd percentile employees.
And there is a difference between leveling the playing field and leveling the players.
Correct. I do not want to work at a place where no matter how much I invest in improving myself (learning a new coding technic in my free time rather than going to a movie) I will earn the same (or similar) to that of the cleaners.
> Presumably you also don't mind that your elitism assumes a lot of upside benefit for a few and a lot of downside consequences for most.
Me upgrading my TV to a 50' does not make your 20' TV worse.
> It strikes me that your lack of empathy strongly implies you think you not only would do better, but that you deserve to.
I have a lot of empathy. I give more than minimum wage in charitable donations.
> Let me put it to you that you're wrong: you would actually do better long term fighting to get better pay across the board and incentives for high achievers actually do better long term (as in vesting) when everyone wins.
Why?
Even if I’m paid a ton more, I’d be happy knowing that at least my coworkers are not being exploited.
The contract really benefits everyone, regardless of salary level.
And you don't even need to be a union member. The contract is binding for every employer in Austria, but union membership is voluntary. (Unions offer additional benefits to members, eg. legal assistance)
The system really isn't that bad.
The on-call policy is discussed in paragraph 7.
Summary: At most 10 times on call per month, no more than 168 hours per month, no more than 30 days in 3 months, payment of 4,33€ per hour for being on call, as soon as you start doing something it counts as regular working time.
In Poland it is, we have limits of how much overtime one can have, how much money you get when working overtime (e.g. during the week it is +50% more per hour, during the weekend it is +100% more). One has to have at least I think 11 hours of free time from work ("on call" + usual office time hours) per 24hrs during the week and it is 36 hrs during the weekend.
As far as overtime goes, in Japan you are basically pre-paid for 35 hours of overtime a month regardless of whether you actually work it, so I’ll probably never get any extra money for it unless things get really crazy.
And yes, it probably does depress salaries for the people on the top of the curve. But they are also often not the highest performers either, but the people best at marketing themselves. Sometimes the two intersect, but often it does not.
The reality is that what you're suggesting in terms of employers avoiding union employees rarely is an issue in countries with high proportions of unionized employees.
I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I’m nowhere near the west coast, but I can definitely tell you that the stagnation of my salary during the first decade of my career and the rapid rise during the second decade is much more attributable to the increase in my emotional intelligence, knowing how to play the game, and knowing how to get to know the right people and networking.
No, that isn't really how it works. Unions are basically insurance. Some of that insurance is minimum wage, but others are vacation, promotions, non-disclosures, arbitration, work environment etc.
Minimum wage in white collar unions usually isn't very high. It is usually just protection against the company dumping salaries below the level of reasonable living conditions.
> That means that not so many top employees wound want to join unions, making employers even less likely to employ union workers.
Talented employees have the most to lose by being unfairly treated. To be underpaid, to have your career interrupted, to not be able to take other opportunities etc. Again it is insurance.
Say you are a talented employee at company X. You have invested time and effort in a project for the last three years and done good work. Now you get into a dispute with a manager over the future of the project. They start playing office politics and eventually get your project defunded, blocks your promotion and requires you to sign a non-compete to get your bonus.
While you can just quit and join company Y the first thing they will ask is what you did the last three years, what your project was and which position you attained. Chances are you are back in a similar position, having to reinvest that time and effort. Thing like this can really mess up your career.
If you are just working on a average project, not really expecting a promotion or in other ways are average, you don't have as much to lose. Sure, if you don't get treated right at company X, you go join company Y in a similar position. On the other hand since you don't expect a trajectory attaining things like good pension, vacation and overtime early matters a lot.
On the other hand, at any given time, the union is always going to be fighting for you to get reasonable raises based on your position, and will be available to help you show that you deserve a significant raise if your current compensation does not match the going rates for what you're actually doing.
This is ignoring all the other things unions do, that don't directly relate to compensation, like ensuring that employees aren't taken advantage of by the company in a variety of creative and quasi-legal ways.
Frankly, if software developers of various types unionized, I would be shocked if that union bore much resemblance to the propagandistically stereotyped picture of unions we've had painted for us over the past several decades. I think it's much more likely that, given the prevalence of attitudes such as yours, it would be primarily concerned with the aforementioned protections, as well as setting wage floors for given levels of expected performance, while leaving the ceiling free for people who, like you, think they can negotiate something better.
It's not like there's some "union rulebook" that all unions must follow as soon as they come into existence, that says, "First, make sure absolutely everyone makes the same amount of money. Next, make really crappy employees unfireable."
Unions are made up of people in the industry they represent—that's the whole damn point—and their goals are set by those people. So in all likelihood, if there were a programmers' union, and you were in it, and you're really as good as you seem to think, you'd have negotiated your way to a position where you have at least some say over union policy. Then, even if there were, for some reason, union rules specifying that compensation for position title X could be no more than Y, you could work to change that.
Because you took it before you had your current level of experience or list of accomplishments that makes you worth 25% more money.
> It's not like there's some "union rulebook" that all unions must follow as soon as they come into existence, that says, "First, make sure absolutely everyone makes the same amount of money. Next, make really crappy employees unfireable."
There kind of is. What above average employees want is above average wages and competent peers. What below average employees want is average wages (i.e. more than they're worth). What really crappy employees want is to not be fired.
You can't have them all at the same time. So if the union nominally represents all of them, who is it supposed to throw under the bus? If the company can spend a given amount of resources on employees, which employees should get them? A union representing multiple types of employees inherently has that conflict of interest.
You can't just assume that the best employees will control the union. It's the worst employees that have the most incentive to make sure the union keeps them in their jobs -- the best employees can make the calculation that they're better off at a competitor without a union than to have to engage in constant struggle with not only management but also the other employees with conflicting goals.
> On the other hand, at any given time, the union is always going to be fighting for you to get reasonable raises based on your position, and will be available to help you show that you deserve a significant raise if your current compensation does not match the going rates for what you're actually doing.
How is that any different than what you can do on your own, or hire someone to do who doesn't have the conflict of interest of representing other employees competing for the same pool of company resources?
> This is ignoring all the other things unions do, that don't directly relate to compensation, like ensuring that employees aren't taken advantage of by the company in a variety of creative and quasi-legal ways.
That seems like the role of the various attorneys general.
> I think it's much more likely that, given the prevalence of attitudes such as yours, it would be primarily concerned with the aforementioned protections, as well as setting wage floors for given levels of expected performance, while leaving the ceiling free for people who, like you, think they can negotiate something better.
Then you're paying dues so they can negotiate higher wages for people who aren't you but come from the same pool of available employee compensation, leaving less for you when you still have to spend your own time/resources on top of that to negotiate your own compensation.
Good employees and bad employees have different interests. And if you put them together in the same union, the bad employees are usually more interested in not getting fired than the good employees are in making sure that they do -- because the good employees have plenty of prospects at other companies where they don't have to constantly struggle to keep their own union from acting against their interests.
Then good employees leaving impairs the long-term health of the company, which hurts even most of the employees left behind. (Though presumably not the ones that would otherwise have been fired for incompetence.)
Unions don't have to involve fixed pay scales to boost salaries for the participants, e.g. SAG-AFTRA mandates a portion of revenue go to actors in addition to salaries, NFLPA requires that a certain portion of revenue be paid in player salaries, neither prevents individuals from negotiating a higher salary for themselves.
Hollywood unions: lol srsly, we have millionaires in our unions