Especially as this submission continues to be upvoted.

I don't understand why more people haven't flagged this story.

That sounds humiliating for candidates who don't make it. Especially having to go back to work with the engineers that rejected them.

In the "traditional" method of selecting a manager, most engineers don't get selected either. However, the process is less transparent that way.

I'm saying this as a candidate that didn't get selected. I got great actionable feedback on how to be a better leader, and I'll keep my fingers crossed when there is another opportunity available.

Isn't that what apropos is for?

> Too rich for substantial need-based financial aid, too poor to pay without big loans.

That's the problem with being middle-class. Anybody who really cares will abandon you for those who need it more. -- Mr. Bergstrom

How do you unionize just the value producers, without also unionizing (and entrenching) layers of middle management?

As long as companies maintain a pyramid structure management layers will be outnumbered by workers. It balances things automatically.

It is my belief that after the creation of the NLRB this is no longer possible, though people did it before that.

Why would middle management need unionization?

Would a senior programmer be ejected from the union when they are promoted to say a project manager? I'm just not sure you can isolate value producers.

The key question isn't "do they produce value?", it's "can they hire and fire?"

Once people acquire power over resources/people the shift from value creation to value extraction is pretty natural.

> The key question isn't "do they produce value?", it's "can they hire and fire?"

This is traditionally the line that people draw, yes, but I think the reasons for that come from the other end.

That's the thing; the manager who manages the cashiers at the grocery store doesn't have more power than the individual contributor software engineer who writes the software for the registers, not in any reasonable sense. That's not why the the line is traditionally drawn where it is.

The line is traditionally drawn where it is because it is management's job to act as a proxy for the will and interests of the owners, and pretending to do that while being in the same union as the workers would be very difficult, or at the very least, quite awkward.

The power relationship a cashier has with his hiring/firing manager at a grocery store is not materially different to the relationship a software developer has with his hiring/firing manager.

In both cases the managers' job is to keep the workers in line.

>The power relationship a cashier has with his hiring/firing manager at a grocery store is not materially different to the relationship a software developer has with his hiring/firing manager.

I disagree.

>In both cases the managers' job is to keep the workers in line.

While I agree with this part, I think the differences in the pay of the worker makes for a hugely different power dynamic. a period of unemployment is a lot easier to take if you can live on 1/4th of what you get paid.

Right, they are forming professional societies.

(Like SHRM: https://www.shrm.org/ , which just showed a TV advertisement, for some reason)

Fame, fortune from books, speaking fees, directorships at blockchain startups..

I don't think so, because Bitcoin Script is not Turing complete.

I've heard both arguments: (1) bitcoin script has no loops and so isnt turing complete; but (2) no loops is not a real limitation because the logic just be unrolled ahead of time and packed into a transaction.

Ethereum script is said to only be quasi-turing complete because although it has loops, execution is metered by gas fees (functionally equivalent to bitcoin tx size).