Unionizing or creating a standardized contract for software developers across the industry. I'm tired of companies breaking their own policies, eroding benefits, and having unrealistic expectations.
Political parties need to be refreshed and probably add more so there aren't just two mainstream ones. I hate that this election will be a choice between two corrupt, senile, old aholes.
Restructuring government spending and taxes. For example, property taxes funding education - it provides uneven funding based on the socioeconomic status of the locale and also provides a mechanism to throw the elderly out if their homes, or prevent that transfer of 'wealth' to the next generation (who likely need it). And the spending side is ridiculous with their turf fields, fancy new buildings, etc.
I could go on and on.
Why on earth would software developers unionize? There probably isn't a profession where the workers have more power. If you don't like the way a company is treating or compensating you, leave!
Standardized contracts would also not be positive. The problem with standardized anything is that is where things stay, they don't get better. Competition in the marketplace is how contracts will get better.
So if you are tired of companies breaking their own policies, eroding benefits, and having unrealistic expectations, leave when your company does those things. By staying, you are voting for those things to continue.
Some interesting things that could happen:
- We software developers create a hierarchy/training program much like trade workers (electrical for instance) where your title in the union is dependent on mentoring and peer reviews.
- Silly interview leet bullshit disappears. Union people interview and assess candidates/new union people. Titles are earned via a formal process.
- Specializations could emerge that have more stringent requirements to attain a title/modifier.
- A company wouldn't need recruiters, they would be part of the union. If unionized software devs work at company ABC, then the union rep would know the contract is being expanded and they need 10 more devs and at what levels.
- Union representatives would negotiate contracts for pay and benefits. They would be uniform across devs at that company, possibly that region.
- Union workers could go on strike if they determine they find the employer doing morally questionable business practices.
- A bunch of software nerds will make a lot of poor attempts at jokes and memes like they are union mobsters so it should be called a guild, it suits us better :)
I agree that software devs have more power than other non-unionized workers. But we still get screwed on a industry level. How many times do you see someone get a 5% promotion with the expectation that they work 10-15% more hours. My buddy in construction has a union contract so he knows exactly what the expectations and duties are, not to mention he makes as much or more than I do with his overtime.
By standardized contract, I mean on a company by company basis. I'm tired of one pagers that say the company makes the rules and can change them anytime with or without notice. In case you were wondering why I took a FileNet or Neoxam job, it's because the company tricks new hires by advertising and hiring a person for a "Java Developer" position and then putting them into whatever tech they feel like.
There's usually a lot of things that you don't like about your job but isn't worth leaving for. The interview gauntlet is also one thing software jobs do wrong. My wife is an engineer, and they have nowhere near our broken interview practices.
We're basically saying we don't trust certificates, job experience, education, so here's a week of interviews on things that have little to do with your work and we'll need another two weeks to decide.
Relevant links: https://github.com/canonical-debate-lab/paper/blob/master/RE....
---
After years of training to be a monk, John left his monastery to travel the world and visit other places of worship. One day, he ended up at a monastery high up in the Himalayas. After exchanging pleasantries with his fellow monk brethren, they all gathered for their evening prayer followed by supper. Afterwards, the monks got to telling jokes to pass the time.
“Who would like to tell the first joke?” Said the lead monk.
“I would!” Replied brother Jacob. After some thought, brother Jacob said: “35!” Suddenly, all the monks began to laugh hysterically. John was confused as to why everyone found this so funny, so asked the monk next to him, who replied: “we monks have lived together for so long that we tell each other the same jakes over and over again, so we decided to number them to make things simpler.”
After a few more jokes, John was called upon to tell a joke. After thinking hard, John said: “126.” John then witnessed the monks laugh harder than he had ever seen before. John was both proud of himself and somewhat confused at the same time, so he asked the monk next to him “why is everyone laughing so hard at that joke?”
The monk turned to John and said: “because we’ve never heard that one before!”
---
Imagine in future arguments, a discourse that sounds like:
Person A: The sea levels are rising. Person B: 4,512 Person A: but 125 Person B: Yes, and also 51.
Room temperature superconductors also come to mind but I think that venture is somewhat better funded than Fusion.
All aggregators I know are driven by feedback loops, which lead to false negatives (good content with bad score) and chaotic behavior of what actually bubbles to the top.
