Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Apr 2010 22:00 UTC, submitted by Cytor
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Last Friday HTC unveiled its entry-level Smartphone, aptly named the Smart. [...] However, what we'd like to tell you about is not the new handset, but instead what happened during the press event inside the Taipei 101. This news story hasn't made it outside of Taiwan so far and we felt it was worth reporting on, despite the event taking place a few days ago. As the press conference was drawing to a close and the group photos were about to be taken, the event was gate crashed by representatives for one of HTC's suppliers. A woman came in shouting with several other people following her and there was a general confusion among the media at the event. The HTC PR representatives were doing their best to drag her away from the stage, while she was trying to hand over some kind of a list to Peter Chou, the president and CEO of HTC."
Thread beginning with comment 417686
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I call B.S.
by shaunehunter on Thu 8th Apr 2010 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Right on!"
Member since:

This article wasn't about software developers it was about factory workers. Just like the Labour movement was about them and not engineers.

Your argument using software developers is illogical. First you state the quality of a developer can't be determined then presume that a company employing union workers can't reward their employees based on merit and achievement and must all earn an equal wage. I think your getting unions confused with communism as a lot of conservitive americans/canadians do.

Unions still benefit and protect workers. Most good paying, safe and stable jobs are union (ie. government,health care, auto, oil & gas). It can be true that its harder to fire problem employees but in my opinion if they don't cost the company more than paying the severance then their not that much of a problem. A union can't force a company to keep someone, companies want to terminate without acknowledging the collective bargaining agreement. Think about it.

A union has never driven a business under thats just an excuse for bad management (ie. GM, Chrysler).

I think your poorly enformed and need to read up on the labour movements of the industrial revolution and the conditions that lead to them. You can draw a line between their struggles and what we consider not just acceptable but humane working conditions. Commonly known and documented history backs my opinions so I have to insist on them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I call B.S.
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 8th Apr 2010 14:15 in reply to "I call B.S."
JonathanBThompson Member since:

Just because your reading comprehension sucks as well as your correct use of english sucks and you're yelling at the top of your voice does not mean that you are correct in your assertions.

I'm not saying bad working conditions should be accepted: when employees have options of other employers, based on their training and experience and demonstrated skill and productivity, they can better bargain individually than as a group.

Outside of a few situations where productivity and accuracy is easily assessed on-the-spot for work, unions and the typical group bargaining for wages does NOT make sense. Why? In typical assembly line jobs, or jobs where there is a quota of correctly mated/manufactured parts, it's easy to determine who is good/bad at their jobs, since their jobs are simple and they simply don't have much room for variation in ability based on skill, and time on the job only means time on the job, but doesn't really affect their production efficiency beyond a training period. Other such jobs would be, for example, public transportation and garbage collection, and other easily quantifiable positions that can be quantified on a very short-term basis, as none of these types of jobs has more than a day's timeline for any task completed. Perhaps things are different in places other than the US and Canada, but such jobs as assembly workers, public transit drivers and sanitation workers tend to have employees rewarded merely for their seniority, as it is easy to say yes, they meet quota, or, if they don't, hopefully they're fired. Unfortunately, such jobs tend (in way too many cases) to have the union protect under-performers from termination: this is clearly not right and just, but this absolutely DOES happen. In the US, unions have far more power over such things than they should.

Now, let's compare the realities for software developers and other people involved in the whole process, such as QA and project managers:

1. Rewarding someone by time on the job by itself is a worthless method, because people come in with many different levels of past experience, even in the tasks they're performing in their current role.

2. Not all experience is created equal: some people build experience over many years with several different software projects, while some spend many years on the same one: or, in other words, many people repeat the same year many times over for their experience.

3. Not all learn the lessons they need while going through that time: all other things being equal, a given number of years of experience would have two developers being equal, but the problem is that not all developers are created equal, even if they're working on the same long-term project.

4. Unlike assembly workers or other easily quantified short-term task employees, where training for them is either pass/fail for being able to do the job, software developers have a very wide latitude for how much learning of new skills/technologies they have available to perform their jobs, and perform them well or not. How do you quantify that, along with quality? Years of experience mean nothing: results mean everything, at least if you add other harder to quantify things, like flexibility, which becomes important when times get lean: do you reduce headcount by getting rid of the uni-tasker, or the ones that haven't shown initiative to improve their flexibility? Of course, then you have the question: those that aren't broad, are they deep, or not, and how valuable is that to the team/organization?

5. How, exactly, do you measure productivity of software development teams (QA and project/product managers included) from one project to the next, when there's often cases of things the developers haven't done before, because they're creating new things? Do you go by how many features they've completed, when not all features are as complex to implement and test, and they don't take a predictable amount of time to implement, even if they are relatively simple? Do you quantify by the number of lines of code, even though one developer may get something written in 10 lines where another one takes 100 lines? Do you do it by the number of defects found, where reality is that defects often remain hidden for long periods, even to the end of a product's lifespan, and those on the QA side of the fence are of varying ability? How about the fact that there's almost always never enough time to do full, ideal testing before shipping, as eventually, a version must get out the door? What about number of hours a developer puts in per week, when a lot of hours are often wasted in various ways?

Unions, if used correctly, can be a good thing, but I argue that, at least in creative professions that aren't so easily quantified, they're of limited utility, because workers are usually more flexible in whom they work for, combined with all those other factors mentioned, and others, too, making collective bargaining for such things as wages, and job security (HA!) a rather difficult thing to make sense, because those that are motivated tend to get screwed over by those that aren't, because those that aren't want to have the same pay for not as much work, and will make it much harder for the productive ones to get the credit they deserve, if only by being the weakest link in a team. In developed countries, at least, typical employment laws already address all the things that matter, which sets a known-good starting playing field: unions are unnecessary where employers aren't royally screwing employees, and way too often, unions become as onerous of entities as the companies they work with and against. Oh, and BTW, unions were a huge part of the existence of workers and employers where I grew up, along with extended family members, family friends and neighbors being in them, like it or not (and generally, where there's a union, either you join the union and pay their dues, or you don't work: so much for personal incentive!) as I come originally from the Detroit, Michigan area, where there's now not so many big American car companies and their suppliers as there used to be, and crime families tend to be heavily involved in the whole racket, as they're in the whole thing for the dues they collect from union workers, and the companies are really screwed if the unions decide to strike long enough, regardless of the validity of demands made by the unions, but it's evident you have no experience in seeing that, or you wouldn't have spouted so much ignorance about how unions can be and are in many places and industries. Unions often start out and do good things, but most often outlive that good phase, and get in the way later on.

Reply Parent Score: 2

by shaunehunter on Fri 9th Apr 2010 01:57 in reply to "RE: I call B.S."
shaunehunter Member since:

for childishly insulting me and vastly expanding an argument that was irrelevant to the original story while not adding any real information to your argument. What made you decide to argue against unions from a software development perspective anyway?

Simply being long winded doesn't score any points buddy.

I'm not responding to you further.

P.S. Me reed aslo rite much good ingillish yoo need many scool.

Reply Parent Score: 1