4 ms·

FYI, seniority isn't some form of union corruption or malice. It's a fundamental strategy employed to reduce workplace competition which is what gives unions th

FYI, seniority isn't some form of union corruption or malice. It's a fundamental strategy employed to reduce workplace competition which is what gives unions the leverage they need against the employer. Without seniority, you get three problems: 1. The employer can again directly influence employee decisions by promoting those that side with them instead of with the union. So then in case of a strike, he'd say beforehand that he'll only consider a promotion for those who don't participate in the strike. 2. Junior union members do not really have a guarantee that it is worth the effort to join the union if they might end up still in entry level positions after X years. Seniority will affect them negatively in the first few years but then they will be guaranteed the same promotions. 3. Senior members would probably cause lots of issues within the union if they didn't get promoted before the young guys even if it was fair to promote the more skillful young. After all they participated in the union for longer at a significant cost and it's only due to their participation that the skillful young enjoy the workplace benefits they have. This might tear apart the union. Now if you look at this through the "I'm better than anyone else around me" sort of tinted glasses you'll never really get any of this and it's probably not for you. Unions are for people who want to minimize employment risk because they have lots of responsibilities and cannot afford to be highly motivated corporate career climbers.

pdkl95 11y ago
This is a good overview of why these methods are used. Unfortunately, a lot of people in engineering fields seem to assume that these particular tactics are the only way a union can be run. Usually, the reaction to the idea that engineers should really unionise is causes an immediately hostile reaction. A union is what you (the members) want it to be, and a union that only addressed certain topics[1] would probably stop some problems from happening at all. There's no reason to authorize a union to interfere with the more mundane problems unless you want those feature and design the union to have those powers. The key thing to remember - which the usual knee-jerk anti-union rhetoric ignores - is that problems start to grow when too much power accumulates in any one place. Neither labor or capital can be allowed to grow to powerful, as it is the conflict between them that keeps each side restrained. A few decades ago we saw the problems of labor getting too powerful, and before that the problems of capital (business owners) having too much power was obvious. Like any control system, you have to design feedback[2] into the control mechanisms. [1] Issues involving collusion like the recent wage-fixing agreement between Apple/Google/Intel/{...} or the "working recent grads to death" (13 hours/day, 7 days/week) that EA used to require. [2] If only we had a sociological version of a PID controller.
fulafel 11y ago
I'm not sure if there's a specific meaning to "seniority" in US unions, but there aren't strict seniority rules regarding promotions or pay increases in places with high union participation. Eg the highest rates (~70%) in EU are in Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In those countries there are some things you get along the years, and there are pay increases for everyone from collective bargaining but it doesn't generally stop you from overtaking older colleagues in career advancement. See for example http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Denmark/Collective-Bargaining http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relat...

pdkl95 11y ago

This is a good overview of why these methods are used. Unfortunately, a lot of people in engineering fields seem to assume that these particular tactics are the only way a union can be run. Usually, the reaction to the idea that engineers should really unionise is causes an immediately hostile reaction. A union is what you (the members) want it to be, and a union that only addressed certain topics[1] would probably stop some problems from happening at all. There's no reason to authorize a union to interfere with the more mundane problems unless you want those feature and design the union to have those powers. The key thing to remember - which the usual knee-jerk anti-union rhetoric ignores - is that problems start to grow when too much power accumulates in any one place. Neither labor or capital can be allowed to grow to powerful, as it is the conflict between them that keeps each side restrained. A few decades ago we saw the problems of labor getting too powerful, and before that the problems of capital (business owners) having too much power was obvious. Like any control system, you have to design feedback[2] into the control mechanisms. [1] Issues involving collusion like the recent wage-fixing agreement between Apple/Google/Intel/{...} or the "working recent grads to death" (13 hours/day, 7 days/week) that EA used to require. [2] If only we had a sociological version of a PID controller.

fulafel 11y ago

I'm not sure if there's a specific meaning to "seniority" in US unions, but there aren't strict seniority rules regarding promotions or pay increases in places with high union participation. Eg the highest rates (~70%) in EU are in Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In those countries there are some things you get along the years, and there are pay increases for everyone from collective bargaining but it doesn't generally stop you from overtaking older colleagues in career advancement. See for example http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Denmark/Collective-Bargaining http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relat...