Do you mean the ones that sit at their keyboards earning a multiple of the salaries of those who do the actual physical work necessary to serve customers.
I often remind my colleagues that we are very lucky to have such easy and well paid jobs by asking the simple question, “how many bags of sand did you carry yesterday?”
While I agree that workers who do physical work do not earn enough, it's not OK to simplify the work that sysadmins, developers and other people do.
I for one work for 7 days a week for ~8 weeks now, and just sat and watched a wall to relax yesterday night because my brain and body refused to do absolutely anything.
Every work is exhausting when overdone or just done with sufficient care.
To be brutally honest, I have great respect who work at manual jobs, work at shifts, work at weekends. In general who work hard, a lot and in unconventional hours.
I try to be extra nice to these people, try to release the burden on them, when I can. When chatting with my SO, we sometimes talk about these people and how bad I feel about their circumstances.
I want to reiterate that I think that they need to earn more and live better.
I haven't worked in full time labor job, however I helped or worked with laborers on volunteering basis. OTOH, just because I worked as a volunteer, I didn't work less when compared to them.
Similarly, on my current job, I have worked off-site, in hazardous sites, in off-hours (including all-nighters), in movement restricted conditions (think as soft imprisonment inside a building) or extremely stressful circumstances. These weren't "Oh, there's a deadline, so let's crunch!" stuff. It was against all odds, against the clock rescue jobs where nobody including your teammates were believing that it's possible, but we (me and a friend) have prevailed.
On the hardware mounting stuff, it was not again "let's playfully install" this stuff too. 100+ servers, left in boxes in front of the building. Carry, unbox, install rails, mount, make all the cabling (incl. electricity, from distribution boxes if req'd) and make them work, in 2 days most.
Yesterday, I was carrying servers to make some part replacements on them.
I never expect not to become one of these laborers. I never think of them as servants or invisible people. On the contrary, they are forming the backbone of some of the stuff that we never see consciously. These systems become invisible because of their hard work. They deserve a lot of respect.
Trash is picked up 1am in my street. I always think of the man, their families and circumstances.
Similarly, when I go to a carrier's office, I try to prepare all my answers and papers before to take their time less (they're literally drowning in packages to ship, so if I'm faster, they can finish their other work faster). I actively try not to reflect myself onto them since they see hundreds of people every day. I try not to be one of the people which makes them feel like a useless/replaceable cogs.
Just because I can play with a lot of cutting edge servers, not sweat everyday and wear my body down to earn a bit of money, it doesn't mean that I can not or don't want to understand and romanticize the burden they're going through.
Similarly just because I have a nicer job, it doesn't mean that all my friends or people I know and care are in the same circle or in higher places.
Just because I know how to manage an OS and write high performance code, it doesn't mean I live isolated in my high castle.
Sounds like you definitely appreciate the efforts of manual labor and even have some manual labor as part of your job.
I agree that there are other factors (far more important ones) than just job/earnings. For example, a star developer making millions with a terminally ill spouse or child would easily trade places with manual laborer if doing that made a difference in their outcome. Silly example but it does illustrate how money is really not at the top of everyone’s list.
> Sounds like you definitely appreciate the efforts of manual labor and even have some manual labor as part of your job.
Thank you. I really appreciate them. Yes, manual labor is a part of our job and we (as the group) do not whine about that. On the contrary, we like the thing TBH.
> For example, a star developer making millions with a terminally ill spouse or child would easily trade places with manual laborer if doing that made a difference in their outcome.
That's not a silly example. It's spot on. I did similar choices (not drastic as the example, and luckily not based on health issues). Rejected higher pay or prestigious titles or shiny companies to be able to stay closer to my family and people I love, to be able to live a simpler and more free life.
I'm not a money oriented person. I do this job because I like computers, I worked a lot and I was definitely lucky up to a certain extent.
However as I said, I don't keep my job as a crown or title about myself to pretend to be more precious and important than other people. We're equal on this little blue dot and everyone and everything deserve respect IMHO.
The issue was comparing suffering. If one makes 7 times more than another, they only have to put up with it 1/7th the amount of time before earning enough to tell their employer to screw off. Hard to feel as sorry for the person making much more money.
That resentment is harmful. It's built on prejudice that the one earning more money is looking down to person with lower income, and it's not always true.
Also, I still do not agree on earning sevenfold with 1/7 amount of effort (a 49 fold difference). Neither being a sysadmin or a developer is that easy when a single click of your mouse can affect research of 500 people who have deadlines.
It's not "just a walk in the park" when you're working with a lot of projects with deadlines, entering meetings and try to finish everything on time and not being able to see straight due headaches induced by overloading yourself and sleeping 3-4 hours continuously.
No job is easy, they're different. All of them worthy of respect. Also it's always greener on the other side.
> Great, now do the same thing but you have to lift boxes.
We install our own datacenter hardware. Hundreds of servers. Carrying. Mounting. Cabling. I'm no stranger to hard, manual work.
I feel tired, but I feel no pain. That's a different kind of being exhausted. Mental exhaustion cannot be compared with physical exhaustion. Both are hard, both are crippling, however one is not better than the other.
It's also very satisfying to install a new fleet and bring it up while drinking tea with muscle tingling all over your body.
It can be. Some offices are hazardous (sick building syndrome, mold) on top of the problems associated with a sedentary lifestyle. Whereas some physical jobs are amazing (work outside, lots of breaks, stay in good shape because you’re moving a lot). It really depends on the specifics of the job.
> Do you mean the ones that sit at their keyboards earning a multiple of the salaries of those who do the actual physical work necessary to serve customers.
I mean “higher performing” according to the people who pay them.
> I often remind my colleagues that we are very lucky to have such easy and well paid jobs by asking the simple question, “how many bags of sand did you carry yesterday?”
I’ve been a welder/fabricator, machine operator, and forklift driver. Programming and web development isn’t easy although it isn’t physically arduous. Whats more relevant to our discussion is that a high performer is not as easily replaced. Physical work is honorable and demanding. Its also something a lot of people can do.
> Whats more relevant to our discussion is that a high performer is not as easily replaced.
I agree that a high performing developer is hard to find, but so is a high performing manual worker.
Conversely in my experience retaining a high performing developer at market rates is easier, because the job is more rewarding (that’s what I think makes the job easier to do).
I think what you are talking about is scarcity driving the market salary rates for developers, not performance.
Personally I think a union with members including the scarce developers and the abundant manual workers would be a good thing for all the employees.
I expect 20 years from now there will be no scarcity of developers, and the vast majority of them will not be paid nearly as much as US manual workers - primarily because they will be working in poorer countries with labour laws that favour the employer.
> I agree that a high performing developer is hard to find, but so is a high performing manual worker.
high performing manual workers negotiate superior wages unless they are restrained by a union
> I think what you are talking about is scarcity driving the market salary rates for developers, not performance.
So they are related but the key concept here is that a low performer is more easily replaced, and so does not have the negotiation power to negotiate a higher wage. So these workers benefit from a union.
> Personally I think a union with members including the scarce developers and the abundant manual workers would be a good thing for all the employees.
It would be a good thing for the replaceable workers and a bad thing for the less replaceable workers.
>I’m defining “high performance” to include those sorts of persons.
My point is that you may be confusing the ability to perform a function efficiently with the ability to perform a function that less people can do.
I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace.
>It is equitable precisely because those skills are scarce.
My use of the use of equitable was as a synonym for fair.
I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair.
> I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace.
I didn’t mean to debate semantics with you and I can see how my language provoked that. My claim is that a scarce, difficult to replace employee deserves more money because of their scarcity and difficulty in being replaced.
> I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair.
I believe its fair. In fact I believe its unfair not to do so. Rather than debate the fairness, I’m more interested in if you think fairness is objective or intersubjective?
I respect your attempt to disengage from the discussion. Can I respectfully ask you to consider how your notions of fairness impact on the ethics of forcing one person’s notion of fairness on another? Thank you.
...except for Amazon warehouses where to my knowledge almost everyone with the same role gets basically the same pay (without any unions). Minimum wage (or even amazons $15 minimum wage) jobs are very difficult to negotiate from a performance perspective given the nature of the job.
Different country and different rules but when I was an employee I always earned much more than the basic salary for the industry I was working in. And I always got salary increases, either because I performed well or because the company knew they had to keep up with the competition.
A union in Germany negotiates income in multiple income brackets. People on the same bracket get the same income. As an employee you just negotiate which bracket you are on. You can still get more income from better performance.
What is even wrong with the world you are describing? I would much rather live in a world of more flat compensation, where I don’t have to worry about negotiating a salary, where there are more rigid worker protections, etc. I don’t see myself as better or more deserving than my coworkers, I see us all as on the same team, with the same basic interests.
> I would much rather live in a world of more flat compensation, where I don’t have to worry about negotiating a salary, where there are more rigid worker protections, etc.
Thats fine and all but I don’t share your preference and so I’d appreciate it if you’d understand that I’m free to negotiate and don’t attempt to take that from me.
> I don’t see myself as better or more deserving than my coworkers,
I do think its better to earn your own wage rather than an average of all wages. After all I contribute my own productivity, I don’t contribute some average negotiated productivity.
> I see us all as on the same team, with the same basic interests.
> I’d appreciate it if you’d understand that I’m free to negotiate and don’t attempt to take that from me
No-one is trying to do that (at least, not at this stage, and any attempt to do so would be subject to at least a second vote). You are welcome to simply not join the union if you feel it doesn't represent your interests.
> I do think its better to earn your own wage rather than an average of all wages. After all I contribute my own productivity, I don’t contribute some average negotiated productivity.
Leaving aside the fact that is perfectly possible for a union to negotiate performance-based pay and/or bonuses, I would be interested to think what you think a fair productivity:pay ratio would be for a worker in an Amazon fulfillment centre. Currently, I understand employees are held to such high productivity targets as a matter of course that many of them are afraid to take bathroom breaks in case their productivity dips and they end up getting fired.
This seems to be a valid fear - I couldn't find anything for Alabama, but in Baltimore, Amazon fire around 10% of their workforce annually for failing to meet performance targets. I wasn't able to find any documentation of bonuses or higher pay for higher performance, only the 15.30 USD starting wage, but if anyone has evidence that compensation is higher for high performers, I'd be happy to see that.
> Do you share a bank account with them? Why not?
This question doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why are you asking this?
> Leaving aside the fact that is perfectly possible for a union to negotiate performance-based pay and/or bonuses, I would be interested to think what you think a fair productivity:pay ratio would be for a worker in an Amazon fulfillment centre. Currently, I understand employees are held to such high productivity targets as a matter of course that many of them are afraid to take bathroom breaks in case their productivity dips and they end up getting fired.
You know I heard those stories before I went to amazon, and while I wasn’t happy with the work conditions, it certainly wasn’t like that. So I’m not saying the stories are false. But I’m not convinced they are representative either, they certainly weren’t representative of my experience.
I’ll answer your question with a question, how do you measure productivity? What percentage of productivity is contributed by labor, and what percentage by capital? We’re going to need this number if we are to answer your question anyway.
> This seems to be a valid fear - I couldn't find anything for Alabama, but in Baltimore, Amazon fire around 10% of their workforce annually for failing to meet performance targets.
That seems reasonable. I think Jack Welch had a similar policy.
> This question doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why are you asking this?
Gp said he/she were on the same team and have the same interests. If one has the same interests why does one have separate bank accounts?
> I’ll answer your question with a question, how do you measure productivity? What percentage of productivity is contributed by labor, and what percentage by capital? We’re going to need this number if we are to answer your question anyway.
I personally don't really object to being paid the same as everyone who shares my job title and does substantially the same job as me, provided we're all making the same (and proportionate to hours worked). This was based on your statement that 'I do think its better to earn your own wage rather than an average of all wages. After all I contribute my own productivity, I don’t contribute some average negotiated productivity.'
> That seems reasonable. I think Jack Welch had a similar policy.
For a lot of people, that doesn't seem reasonable at all, but ultimately, you are entitled to your opinion. If you have first-hand experience working in a fulfillment centre and your opinion is that these stories aren't representative, then I will bow to your experience.
> You said you’re on the same team and have the same interests. If you have the same interests why do you have separate bank accounts?
Can we skip past the point where you try to get me to say something and move to the counterpoint you're trying to set up? The original statement was not me, actually, but in case it's one of the below, then I'm not arguing, but feel free to add what you need to make your point:
- if one person 'earns more' then they should have the right to 'spend more'
- if you want to spend your money differently to someone else then you don't have the same interests
- how I spend my money shouldn't be dictated by other people (with provisos around tax, etc.)
From my perspective though, the main point that I wanted to raise with you was the first one, that no-one is being forced to join, and no-one is losing any right to negotiate individually, so why shouldn't the people who want to unionise be allowed to do so?
> From my perspective though, the main point that I wanted to raise with you was the first one, that no-one is being forced to join, and no-one is losing any right to negotiate individually, so why shouldn't the people who want to unionise be allowed to do so?
Well I’m arguing that its not in some employees interest to unionize. I’m fine with people voluntarily agreeing to whatever, freedom of association and all. I just don’t like unions when they require people to join or hold a monopoly on labor.
You and your work are not an island. My productivity is not just my own, I am aided by mentors, supported by smart teammates, etc. I find your hyper individualist mindset very depressing and isolating. I think it would be foolish to claim that any success or talent of mine or my team is solely my own. I believe in social obligations, not just in the context of work, but in general. My goal is not to maximize my personal salary, but to live in a world that is more humane and more just and treats everyone, including myself, with dignity and respect.
> Do you share a bank account with them? Why not?
No, because I don’t have a pension, but many people do and I am fully in support of the concept.
> I find your hyper individualist mindset very depressing and isolating.
I’m not a hyper individualist, a lot of this seems to be interpretation you’re bringing.
> I think it would be foolish to claim that any success or talent of mine or my team is solely my own.
There’s definitely a way to consider a person’s individual productivity in the context of a team of people they work with. Its not easy to measure or quantify and its definitely got subjective elements but some people are more productive than others and in a team that shares work, someone has to do the work that other people don’t do or it doesn’t get done.
> I believe in social obligations, not just in the context of work, but in general.
I believe in the power of incentives to shape behavior and I think there is a soft social obligation to align incentives so that they encourage desired behavior.
