Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

nityesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 624 posts

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#601

Post by plutonorm »

KittenInABox wrote: post #275
bumby wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that it's a broad generalization, but I would disagree that a lot of the same rhetoric isn't applied to corporations or governments. I should have been more specific to say 'unions with bad reputations are often culpable for those stereotypes'

I will be honest I've never seen an across the board "but that's a corporation, we don't want anything to do with that" to corporations the way that's done with unions at least on HN. No one's languishing a " is a corporation? I don't know, look at nestle and its human rights abuses. I don't think we should support ". FWIW I don't think unions are a silver bullet. I'm just pointing out that if you look at it from a n…

The bias isn't weird it's the result of propaganda from corporate interests

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#602

Post by bumby »

whimsicalism wrote: post #596
bumby wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant from the perspective of the employee. If there’s a contract in place in a non-right-to-work state, you must join the union. The “just find a different job” position is the trivial case that doesn’t really add much to the discussion

There is no law requiring you join a union in any state. It might be that you have to join a union upon being hired for a job, just like I had to waive my right to sue my employer in a court of law (rather than an arbitrator) in order to accept my current job. I was never mandated to do so, at least not in the way that right-to-work laws mandate that employers can't sign security clauses with unions because they woul…

I conceded the point that there's no law, but am trying to make the point that from a pragmatic policy perspective it's a trivial point that isn't helpful.

Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union.

"If you don't like the job, don't take it." It's like the argument when discussing child welfare policy where one side says "Don't ask society to help; if you need help, don't have kids". Or in healthcare policy, "Don't want high medical bills? Buy better insurance." While true, it is just a way to elevate above the actual problem without providing a satisfactory policy solution.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#603

Post by bumby »

JAlexoid wrote: post #599
bumby wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer: people have limited bandwidth and are forced to pick their battles. Open your refrigerator, look in your closet. Can you say with certainty that you voted with your wallet by only supporting companies that adhere to your values? Today’s economy has too many interactions to have any confidence about how you vote with your wallet. In this case complexity, not religion, is the opiate of the masses. Most pe…

Well... The answer isn't to force Walmart to provide a service to them.

I don't know if you're strawmanning on purpose or missing the point. I also don't think the answer is "the market will just sort it out...eventually."

Of course there is no law mandating Walmart provide a service. There are, however, laws governing how Walmart must treat employees. Part of their bad reputation is that they run afoul of these laws.

I know the anarchist view is to just decide not to shop there. My point is that in a pragmatic sense, consumers in a globalized economy cannot assess all the information to do so, even if it was freely available. The counterargument is that regulators are the better alternative, which is why the Dept. of Labor has fined them in the past to correct that behavior.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#604

Post by whimsicalism »

bumby wrote: post #602
whimsicalism wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no law requiring you join a union in any state. It might be that you have to join a union upon being hired for a job, just like I had to waive my right to sue my employer in a court of law (rather than an arbitrator) in order to accept my current job. I was never mandated to do so, at least not in the way that right-to-work laws mandate that employers can't sign security clauses with unions because they woul…

I conceded the point that there's no law, but am trying to make the point that from a pragmatic policy perspective it's a trivial point that isn't helpful. Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union. "If you don't like the job, don't take it." It's like the argument when discussing child welfare pol…

> Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union.

I guess I don't see why an employer requiring you to join a union upon joining the job is

a. a mandate (it's not) b. at all different from any number of things that an employer can require you to sign off on to start working at a job.

Union membership is "mandated" in the same way that when you accept a job that requires a 40 hrs/week, you are "mandated" to go to work.

> the actual problem

What is the actual problem? I don't see union security clauses as a problem, it's basically the only way collective bargaining can solve the free-rider problem and generally benefits the worker.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#605

Post by a_imho »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #591
a_imho wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purchasing power is the property of the money received, it is exactly the same in all cases. If the problem is that we want to ensure some kind of equality of outcome that is ill posed 1. Companies are not arbiters to define what that outcome should be. In fact, any such attempt boils down to the argument that the current status quo is the natural state of things and everything should stay that way. Trying to com…

> The purchasing power is the property of the money received, it is exactly the same in all cases. That's nonsensical. You can trivially find examples of where the same goods cost different prices in different locations. Here's a really simple example. $5.79 will buy you a McDonald's Sausage Egg McMuffin meal in Montgomery AL. The same menu item is $6.71 in Los Angeles CA. The same money has less power to buy goods a…

No, that is the definition given by wikipedia right in the first sentence, it is not a function of location.

You can come up with your own definition of what you consider local (neighbourhood, city, county, state, country?) or cherrypick a basket you want to use as a base (McD), but that simply reflects your biases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#606

Post by bumby »

whimsicalism wrote: post #604
bumby wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I conceded the point that there's no law, but am trying to make the point that from a pragmatic policy perspective it's a trivial point that isn't helpful. Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union. "If you don't like the job, don't take it." It's like the argument when discussing child welfare pol…

> Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union. I guess I don't see why an employer requiring you to join a union upon joining the job is a. a mandate (it's not) b. at all different from any number of things that an employer can require you to sign off on to start working at a job. Union membership is…

It's not a mandate in the formal governmental legal sense. It is a mandate in the corporate administrative sense.

The problem is many people don't feel they should be forced to pay into an organization that doesn't reflect their values in order to have a job. In some ways, it's similar to the notion that many people don't feel they should pay taxes that go to support something they don't personally support (e.g., abortion, war de jour).

Right-to-work is a way around that in many peoples eyes. In my opinion, it's a policy that takes advantage of people's short-term bias.

Saying "just don't take that job" is like saying "just don't live in that society". It's not wrong; it's just not particularly helpful

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#607

Post by bumby »

JAlexoid wrote: post #600
bumby wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's too much of "we know better" attitude. I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. The alternate is there is an acknowledgement that the system is less than ideal and could be improved. > People who are awesome get shafted I mean, isn't this par for the course in any group environment? If you're healthy, you get shafted by paying more into insurance than you use. If you're wealthy…

> I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. Because it is arrogant to say that vegans must subsidize milk production(which they do), it is arrogant to say that an atheist must pay compensate for Church tax exemptions... and the farther away the taxing authority, the more arrogant it is. The biggest issue that I have with my taxes here in US - subsidies for military to fight a war on behalf…

I think it's arrogant for the collective to assume they know what's best for the individual just as it's arrogant for the individual to think they know what is best at the group/societal level.

I think everybody has policies that their tax dollars support that they don't agree with. That is part of the compromise of living in a society. I don't think the solution is to have individuals decide on each line item they are personally willing to support unless we want to be a yeoman farmer society. Modern society is too complex and I think the ship has sailed on that point.

I do think there is room for middle ground. I think it would be useful for people to see, say, on their tax returns how much of their individual tax money goes to each high-level government agency. This would bring it out of the abstract and connect them more closely to those policies so they can adjust them to their particular values by voting at the polls while reducing the overall information budget they have to digest.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#608

Post by whimsicalism »

bumby wrote: post #606
whimsicalism wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union. I guess I don't see why an employer requiring you to join a union upon joining the job is a. a mandate (it's not) b. at all different from any number of things that an employer can require you to sign off on to start working at a job. Union membership is…

It's not a mandate in the formal governmental legal sense. It is a mandate in the corporate administrative sense. The problem is many people don't feel they should be forced to pay into an organization that doesn't reflect their values in order to have a job. In some ways, it's similar to the notion that many people don't feel they should pay taxes that go to support something they don't personally support (e.g., abo…

Yes, corporations can require you to join a union and maybe that is a "corporate mandate."

I'm unsure of the relevance to "freedom of association" as a negative concept, though. You are still free to associate with who you wish, just as corporations are free to not associate with you if you do not join a union.

If we are going to transform a negative right to not join a union into a positive one, there are many other things I'd like to turn into positive rights first.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#609

Post by ironmagma »

joelbluminator wrote: post #585
ironmagma wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food science findings (which tend to be unreliable) aside, eating food is something that’s hard to fault someone else for doing. The fact that most people eat meat alone is something that makes it more of a reasonable thing to do, even more so that we typically don’t find out about the conditions of cows, chickens, etc. until we are already mostly grown and hooked on the stuff. Morality is a complicated thing to defi…

Its not eating food that I have a problem with. Its choosing steaks, pork and beef when there is a huge amount of alternatives. The fact we are brought up like that and are hooked does not make it any better or morally sound. The fact that everyone is doing it makes it Ok in your eyes? Please explain. Everyone was a nazi in Germany at a certain point.

It doesn’t make it OK, it just makes it bad and reasonable. If I’m in Nazi Germany and all my friends and family are Nazis, and my neighbor too, I’m going to think less of my neighbor but not exactly hold it against him as much as if there were 100 Nazis in the country and he was one. There’s reasons people have at that point for being Nazi, even though the thing is ultimately terrible. Group dynamics, which are more or less baked into our (epi)genetics, for one.

In America we pretty much all get a pass for buying clothes, for instance, which has some considerable moral strings attached to it. We could make our own, but that’s just not a reasonable way to live life here. You would have no company if that was the way you chose to spend your time, so it would be a sad existence, and as humans we are wired to want to behave like those around us.

Re: "Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs

#610

Post by chillacy »

dvtrn wrote: post #334
chillacy wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the tool is as important as the what you’re doing with it. QA is done with a keyboard but is considered less skilled. Sculpting statues may use a water jet but would be considered more skilled. So the question seems to me: what are people doing with these water jets in US automotive plants? How long does it take to learn? How much variance is there in ability? (We talk about 10x programmers, are there 1…

(We talk about 10x programmers, are there 10x machinists?) Yes. Why wouldn't there be? Asking honestly? A story, if you will-because I have a very intimate relationship with industrial machinists: My father was a certified industrial welder, pipe fitter and metallurgist for General Electric's gas turbine division for 32 years (he was also a licensed master electrician) He was the only individual in his functional tea…

Makes sense, as I was typing that out I suspected the answer was yes, given what I've seen in various labs I've worked at, but just wanted to frame the question in terms of skill cap.
Post reply on HN