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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
I see. You're arguing that some theoretical, immaculate, incorruptible organization that represents employees selflessly (with no regards to the negotiator's own status, for example) would be better than what we have now. Well, yes. But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years.
> Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm
No, but they do negotiate higher salaries for people who can't find a better job, at the expense of lower salaries for the top earners.
> 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.
Oh, but there is a need - the corporate's need, of course - which the corporate demands and enforces, and the union representatives usually agree one way or the other - often legally bribed. You imply that all the bargaining power is with the employees, and that is simply not the case.
> 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.
Try to reconcile this statement with all the things your government does that fuck you over, which surely yourself (and a large group, some of it well organized) does not want. When you've reconciled it, you might have some insight about why you are wrong, or about how to set the right kind of union/government -- if it's the latter, I'll vote for you. But the former is overwhelmingly more likely.
> But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years.
So you agree, but you think this is an ideal not worth fighting for because the probability of success is way to low. I can't argue with that since that's an opinion.
From my perspective though, we have a better chance making these "ideal" unions happen then we have of stopping the polar ice caps from completely melting. Higher pay is something we all want. And by "all" I mean the 99%. If 99% of people can't fight for something they want then we can't do anything.
No, I think it's an ideal in the style of "wouldn't it be nice if there was affordable healthcare / no crime (pick your pet peeve)". I mean, 99% of people want affordable healthcare / no crime, why can't we get to a state when there's affordable healthcare / no crime? (and the simple answer is the same: the existing power structure and enough pawns benefit from the existing situation as it is). I am saying that as someone living in a country with affordable care, btw - but the last 80 years of politics in the US indicate it will take a miracle or catastrophy for the US to do the right thing. I bet on the latter.
I think that without another very significant shift in the status quo (one I can't really anticipate, and it seems neither do you), it CANNOT work.
Take your idea ad absurdum - the world needs laptops - why don't all the [currently chinese] laptop manufacturers unionize and charge 5 times as much? I mean, we can definitely afford them, they provide most people with enough benefit to support that price. Exactly the same arguments apply, and similar reasons why it won't work. Programmers are not special snowflakes - they (we) are much closer to being a commodity.
Also, I think you are delusional in thinking all programmers deliver >$300k of value (which is needed for a $200k salary, all things considered - don't forget payroll taxes, healthcare, and other expenses, as well as minimal profit). Some only deliver $50k in value, and are well paid at the $80k they earn.
>Also, I think you are delusional in thinking all programmers deliver >$300k of value (which is needed for a $200k salary, all things considered - don't forget payroll taxes, healthcare, and other expenses, as well as minimal profit). Some only deliver $50k in value, and are well paid at the $80k they earn.
You're the one that's delusional. 50k? that's a loaded number. A more realistic number is at least half a million per head, and that's the LEAST. Many times it can be much MORE. Take the annual revenues of google and divide it by the number of their engineering employees, then come back to me.
>but the last 80 years of politics in the US indicate it will take a miracle or catastrophy for the US to do the right thing. I bet on the latter.
The probability is in the favor of the rich. There's no doubt about that. I disagree with you in thinking that the probability is so low that it's impossible. In the past decade I've seen entire industries go extinct, literally within a couple years. Taxis and television to name a few. If you asked me in the early 2000s whether TV would be around in 10 years I would've said definitely.
Which one sounds more unrealistic to you? Bringing down the entire television empire or forming one goddamn union for one company that fits my ideal?
If there's one thing that's unpredictable it's the movements of the mob. The status quo was and never is with the people at the top of the power structure. The power is with the 99%, and it's a thin line stopping us from acting on it.
> Take the annual revenues of google and divide it by the number of their engineering employees, then come back to me.
May I ask how many years of real world experience running a business you have under your belt? Do you really believe that none of the non-engineering google employees contribute to the profit? Do you really believe all Google employees contribute equally? All the Google Plus employees create negative value; Paying them $200K guarantees someone gets LESS than they could have been paid -- and that assumes google actually gives in and pays everyone the maximum they can, which is unlikely cause they have cheaper talent pools to draw on. They pay less in London than they do in Mountain View.
> If you asked me in the early 2000s whether TV would be around in 10 years I would've said definitely.
It is 2015, and TV is still around and profiting nicely. Or, are you living in 2030?
> Which one sounds more unrealistic to you? Bringing down the entire television empire or forming one goddamn union for one company that fits my ideal?
Ah, but that one company will just shutter their R&D. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
> The power is with the 99%, and it's a thin line stopping us from acting on it.
Yes, but as a software engineer you are part of the 1%, not the 99% (literally - the "1%" Occupy talks about are actually the 0.01%). If the real 99% applied the same rule, you effectively get communism. <s>And that worked very well as an incentive for talented people</s>
> You from canada or something?
I left the US and I live in Israel these days. Where Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel and various other companies you have heard of have their largest most prolific campuses outside the US. They do this because the talent pool is large, and is cheaper than the US. The unions already exist; joining them is as simple as declaring "I want to join" and paying a small percentage of your salary (1%-2%, I think) as union fees; There are, in fact, multiple competing unions. And yet, over 90% of software engineers are not union members - and those that are make much lower salaries (correlation, not causation of course - but it definitely isn't random).
>It is 2015, and TV is still around and profiting nicely. Or, are you living in 2030
Not where I live it's not.
>May I ask how many years of real world experience running a business you have under your belt? Do you really believe that none of the non-engineering google employees contribute to the profit? Do you really believe all Google employees contribute equally? All the Google Plus employees create negative value; Paying them $200K guarantees someone gets LESS than they could have been paid -- and that assumes google actually gives in and pays everyone the maximum they can, which is unlikely cause they have cheaper talent pools to draw on. They pay less in London than they do in Mountain View.
All ventures are a gamble. But all the losing gambles need to be made in order to find the successful one. Therefore the profits need to be split evenly. Additionally google engineers can move between projects.
>Yes, but as a software engineer you are part of the 1%, not the 99% (literally - the "1%" Occupy talks about are actually the 0.01%). If the real 99% applied the same rule, you effectively get communism. <s>And that worked very well as an incentive for talented people</s>
90k average sw salary in america is at the 95%-tile. Please note that the 1% control half of the worlds' wealth. Also, who says we need communism? I'm still talking about capitalism just with a greater balance of power.
> The unions already exist; joining them is as simple as declaring "I want to join" and paying a small percentage of your salary (1%-2%, I think) as union fees; There are, in fact, multiple competing unions. And yet, over 90% of software engineers are not union members
If there was a union that negotiated 200k. Over 90% of those engineers would join. You guys just aren't desperate enough to form one.
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.