It could also be because everybody got an 18% raise across the board. This is an under-researched topic in employment statistics and I would love to see a better understanding of cause and effect behind wage discrepancies in union and non-union positions.
> a few rockstars make $100k
My problem with this narrative is that I have never worked somewhere where the "10x rockstar" was actually that, or wasn't also toxic in some other way. All we have here are competing versions of anecdata about high-vs-low performers.
I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. That seems to assume that companies are good at actually identifying performance and compensating fairly for it.
> I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer.
I never implied that. The only information I gave you were the respective salaries of the high and low performers. I as a developer know who the average and low performers are but I can only guess at their salaries. I don't want a union boosting their pay while reducing mine in order to raise the "average" pay.
Except my point is exactly this - if you can only guess at the salaries of average and low performers than you have nothing to suggest that they aren't, in fact, paid more than you, and a union coming in would boost your salary and not theirs.
> a few rockstars make $100k
My problem with this narrative is that I have never worked somewhere where the "10x rockstar" was actually that, or wasn't also toxic in some other way. All we have here are competing versions of anecdata about high-vs-low performers.
I also take issue with the reverse causation you seem to imply - that somebody making 60k is a low performer. That seems to assume that companies are good at actually identifying performance and compensating fairly for it.