I’m 45 and the last thing I want is a union. Unions tend to make all workers equal even those who work harder/smarter. If I am 50, staying current with technology, kept my resume up to date, and kept my network strong, why would I want to be lumped in with someone who has done none of those things?
I’ve also said that I think ageism is overblown in software engineering. Yes, this is a clear cut case of discrimination what happened with IBM. But, IBM is far from being a software engineering focused company.
I also don’t live in a fantasy land where the world is fair. I’ve learned a long time ago not to depend on a job for my livelihood, but my career. For software engineers who have kept their skills current, live in a major metropolitan area in the US, and have kept their network strong, in 2019, I know for a fact that companies are falling all over themselves to hire us. How many people at IBM fall in that category?
Given the choice between unionizing and taking the tact I recommend - changing jobs anytime you see that your skills are falling behind the market, keeping your resume up to date, keeping in touch with former managers and coworkers and just really not being complacent- I would prefer keeping my future in my own hands.
I said in another post that I’m 45, Black, with a mild disability that only allows me to type with one hand. If anyone theoretically should have to worry about discrimination it’s me.
But the alternative that is being proposed - unions - aren’t about fairness if your definition of fair is that people who work harder should be awarded more.
Can you provide some concrete evidence to back up your claim that unions treat everyone the same? Unions exist in hundreds of occupations in the US that have clear career progression. Police, teachers, pro athletes, pilots, manufacturing, and many many more utilize unions for labor negotiations.
I don’t buy this sweeping generalization argument at all.
Wow, that sounds really bad... until you read why. Have you tried to see if "pay for performance" schemes are weasel words by conservative politicians to institute damaging policies?
The brainwashing runs deep in this country, a couple generations was taught to fight against their own interests in support of oligarchs and corporations and was sold as "democracy". We're witnessing the terminal phase of that, where it goes from here is up to us but you're killing all faith I have that we will have better lives in my lifetime.
Some are born to be willing slaves and some are born to break the chains.
From the NYT - the favorite magazine of the right:
Even though the pay plan meant more money for many of its members, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association filed an improper practice petition against the city, arguing that any changes in pay rates must be negotiated through collective bargaining.
That response pretty much spawns the existence of all of the currently-ongoing problems in America.
Our founding fathers also had bills to pay, and yet they somehow managed to find time to start a war and create a new country. That was the 1700s. Why aren't you capable of doing that now?
Every time unions come up here on HN, this is a common sentiment. I just confuses the hell out of me, too.
Unions got fat and lazy, but a recent SCOTUS ruling[1] will very likely change that. No longer can unions force employees to be part of it. Until that ruling, there was no accountability. Now, the bad unions will need to be more responsive to their membership.
Btw, this SCOTUS battle was billed as conservative vs liberal, but I'm liberal and I welcomed this decision. I think it is the best thing to happy to unions in a long time. It could have the opposite effect that conservatives want, which is to make unions more responsive to their members and more effective in doing what they are supposed to do.
because you can still benefit from collective bargaining power even if you see yourself as personally superior to your peers.
Not to mention that this is a somewhat terrible attitude to be honest. A lot of 45 year olds might have legitimate disadvantages compared to younger workers. Like say children, health issues, other commitments that keep them from being as flexible as someone in their youth.
So this isn't just an individual issue, it's a collective one. A little bit of looking out for each other rather than treating this like a olympic competition probably wouldn't hurt. And it's probably what got us into this situation to begin with.
Like say children, health issues, other commitments that keep them from being as flexible as someone in their youth.
As far as family, you can’t have it all. If you decide to prioritize family over your career (which you should), why do you expect to be compensated as well as someone who is willing to put their job first?
While I’m fairly compensated for my location and for what I do, should I complain that consultants make $60K+ a year more than I do because they are willing to do “100% travel” during the week and I’m not until my younger son graduates?
I’ve said twice in this post, I know I have a disadvantage over other developers - I have a disability that only allows me to type with one hand. There are legal protections sure, but those are easy for a company to get around. I am use to having to be more competitive.
But there is a difference between being competitive getting a job - if I fill a position that means someone else didn’t get that position. But, I refuse to waste time playing politics and getting ahead at a job at the expense of someone else.
It's so sad that years of brainwashing made you think this pile of bullshit. The way we organize society and the economy IS UP TO US, to find a model that serves our happiness and fulfillment as humans, not the other way around.
It saddens me that so many of us are willing slaves to a dehumanizing system of oppression.
Yes. I find happiness going to work at 8 and getting off at 5 and having someone else worry about finding clients, funding,customers and getting the same amount in my check every week.
Some other people find happiness from starting a business where there is a lot of uncertainty, risk and they have to put in long hours.
Some other people find happiness of making more money and accepting the trade off of traveling during the week.
So what part of me going into an office every day getting paid doing the same thing I did as a hobby 30 years ago in my bedroom on my Apple //e and coming home to my family in my house in the burbs is dehumanizing?
If you are a software developer in almost any major city in the US, on average your income is more than 80% of the population.
I'd value a strong professional association, and I would even pay meaningful dues to it, but I don't want a union. I'd like to be part of an organization that can keep a staff of lawyers around to review contracts and have an official policy on what clauses are acceptable and what aren't acceptable, what to expect in terms of intellectual property ownership, working hours, etc. Having a cadre of lawyers around to protest discriminatory hiring and firing practices would also be great. But having quotas, or formal seniority, or having said organization have a seat at the table during hiring and firing discussions or salary decisions sounds like a total disaster.
Perhaps what I want is a guild? Maybe a licensing board? Professional association seems like the best terminology, but I want a professional association with some teeth.
You've described a union and said that you hate the things which are not necessarily something a union does. So you want a union that works well for you. I think that sounds reasonable.
Tom Brady is in a union. That doesn't mean he gets paid the same as everyone else in the union, it just means the rookie he's throwing the ball to gets non-abusive treatment.
Yes but the union also limits how much Tom Brady can get paid and where he is allowed to work.
Also once you try to enter the pros, you don’t get to decide the team you go to. It’s based on which team chooses you based on the draft order. Teams also can’t compete with each other for the best players. If a team chose Tom Brady and had the first pick, another team can’t offer him more money to come to their team.
> He was scheduled to earn $14 million in base salary with a $1 million roster bonus in both 2018 and 2019
Works for me.
Anyway, the rules you are talking about are NFL rules, and NFL is a legal trust. The NFL draft is equivalent to a hiring manager claiming you from your company's hiring pool. Tom Brady can play football in a different league if he wants to, and his union has negotiated his right to profit from his IP outside of team work.
Currently an employee and since we are talking about ageism, it’s a small company where the founders, management and all of the devs and QA are between 35-55.
In two or three years, I will probably work for a consulting company or just as a W2 contractor for recruiting agency.
I’ll take the lower pay for the peace of mind from not having to chase clients and payments.
I never said I was "far ahead of others". The only thing I said is that I keep my skills current with the market, keep my resume up to date, and keep my network warm.
The objective measure that all that is true, is that I can reach out to my network and have multiple job offers in three weeks. It doesn't take a special snowflake to do that if you live in a major metropolitan area and you've done all of the above.
I'm definitely not still doing ASP.Net WebForms and VB.Net in 2019 trying to compete in a market where everyone wants the $cool_kids stack.
