[slibhb]

> The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications.

No, it's just a scam, and anyone should be able to see that. It's like saying I get 2 days pay if I have to write go in addition to typescript. And 3 days pay if I have to write java.

> There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that some are dysfunctional, but making a claim like "with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad" needs a lot more evidence. My counter-evidence is simple: historically, there's a direct correlation with the strength of unions and the existence of a strong middle class.

Unions had a good reason to exist post industrialization when many people worked in factories under terrible conditions. But today, in the West, that's no longer the case. Today, unions are mostly bad.

[InsideOutSanta]

> No, it's just a scam

The analogy you gave supports my argument: if you are easily able to switch between TypeScript and Java, you are more valuable to your employer than somebody who is unable to do that, so you should get paid more.

> when many people worked in factories under terrible conditions

As opposed to now, where many people work in offices under terrible conditions?

[slibhb]

If it was really about paying valued employees more, it would be like 5% or 10%. It's not feasible to pay people 2x-3x every day, so the result is painstakingly scheduling people so they don't meet the criteria for that.

Second, the idea that we should formalize "being a valuable employee" i.e. "learn X skill and get Y raise" is just a bad idea. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". If you pay people more for using more programming languages, you'll end up with frankenstein projects written in dozens of languages.

> As opposed to now, where many people work in offices under terrible conditions?

Ah yes those horrific air-conditioned offices.

[InsideOutSanta]

> It's not feasible to pay people 2x-3x every day

So what you're saying is that the incentive is working.

> Ah yes those horrific air-conditioned offices.

The offices themselves are usually not the terrible condition.

[thrance]

And what do you think would happen if unions were made illegal? Employers would just play nice? It's crazy how far propaganda has gone in the US, where the average worker is longing for a return to the Gildee Age.

[slibhb]

Ultimately, it is in the interest of employers to treat their employees well. Well-treated (and well paid) people do more work and are more loyal.

[thrance]

No, it's in their interest to squeeze as much work from them for as little pay as possible, to maximize short-term profits. And that's how it was during the Gilded Age, before unions: workers were treated like a disposable and abundant resource.