4 ms·

>Your pay would be pegged to seniority, not ability to contribute That's pretty much how it works now. I've never had a boss who was able to accurately (or eve

>Your pay would be pegged to seniority, not ability to contribute That's pretty much how it works now. I've never had a boss who was able to accurately (or even non-accurately) gauge my productivity and I'll bet that unless your job is mind-numbing, you haven't either. I've had bosses who have counted SLOC though and stupidly tried to use that to gauge my productivity. Unions usually agree to formalize the existing peg to seniority so that the company doesn't use pay/promotion structure as a means to punish active union members. >You wouldn't be allowed to do anything outside your extremely limited job description. That's someone else's job, don't take it away from them! I'm strangely ok with my bosses not firing my coworker and then dumping all his work on me, which has happened to me. >Find a good way to make your job more efficient? Sorry, you can't use that. It is not in your contract This idea makes no sense to me. Furthermore, at a lot of the companies I've worked at, middle managers haven't given a damn about efficiency and they often purposefully reduced it so that they could increase their headcount (read: their power). >Don't work too hard. Am I supposed to be terrified of a company that makes me go home at a reasonable hour rather than implicitly pressuring me to stay at work until 10pm every night? >The contract says that we are only supposed to solve 1 bug a day. No it doesn't. >You'd have to get some sort of union sponsored certification/significant barriers to entry, Because the union does not care about NEW workers. Which may help separate some of the wheat from the chaff as it does with doctors. Are you in favor of this type of thing or would you prefer it was prevented? http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer-firmware--Bad-design-and-its-consequences http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer... >Collective bargaining means that you won't be able to negotiate on an individual basis. Yes, and that means higher pay overall. Divide and conquer isn't good for you as an individual. >No matter how good at negotiating you are Didn't you just say that you thought pay should be linked to your ability to contribute? Why now are you so keen on "ability to negotiate"? Are you morally opposed to seeing my equally skilled friends earn as much as me because they don't drive a bargain quite as hard as I do? >Don't like the union? Too bad! You are forced to join it. Fuck you, you free rider! So are you pro-free rider? You seem to be saying that individual agreements with the company are "good" but collective agreements with the company (which are used to eliminate said free riders) are "bad". Why are collective agreements intrinsically bad? >It doesn't matter if you believe that the union provides significant negatives It does, which is why unions are run on a democratic basis. On the other hand, did you vote for your boss? Thought not. Unions serve as the only really reliable check on corrupt corporate power running roughshod over workers. Sometimes they are corrupt. That does not mean that eliminating them will improve your situation. And, of course, if you really don't want to work for a unionized workplace you can go and work at a non-unionized workplace.

stale2002 9y ago
" Why are collective agreements intrinsically bad?" Because I should be able to do what I want, instead of being forced to go along with whatever stupid ideas the union chooses to do. It is called freedom of choice. What if I want to negotiate for myself? What if I want to wear multiple hats? What if I want to work without getting a BS certification? If I negotiate, and convince someone to hire me, then I can get all of these things. We can agree and disagree about what makes a work environment good or bad. And thats fine. Just you do your thing, and I will do mine. If you don't like these things, then you can try to get a job that doesn't make you do them. My relationship should be between me and my employer. I will negotiate all the things that I mentioned, and if the situation doesn't work out then I will vote with my feet and go somewhere else. Do not take away my right to free association. Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that. The problem with pro-union people is that they assume that their needs are the same as everyone else's needs. Different people want different things, and this whole "fight for the people" BS gets thrown out the window the moment you try and force me to join your org and force me to go along with stuff I don't agree with. "And, of course, if you really don't want to work for a unionized workplace you can go and work at a non-unionized workplace." Well, instead of doing this thing, I could just use the law to protect me. Forcing people to join unions is, thankfully, illegal in many states. And, thankfully, unions are very unpopular among techies. So I am doing precisely that, and I will continue to fight against them in tech, precisely because I do not want our industry to be turned into one that does not value freedom of choice among employees, and forces different people into associations that they don't agree with.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that. I'm struggling to see what your problem is. If you don't like the idea of democratic control over your workplace and the commensurately higher pay that goes with it you've always been free to go and work somewhere else where they let you "wear many hats". It seems more like that you want to prevent others from doing it: >Forcing people to join unions is, thankfully, illegal in many states. i.e. you're thankful groups of people who negotiate with other groups of people and form voluntary agreements are prevented from doing so.

stale2002 9y ago

" Why are collective agreements intrinsically bad?" Because I should be able to do what I want, instead of being forced to go along with whatever stupid ideas the union chooses to do. It is called freedom of choice. What if I want to negotiate for myself? What if I want to wear multiple hats? What if I want to work without getting a BS certification? If I negotiate, and convince someone to hire me, then I can get all of these things. We can agree and disagree about what makes a work environment good or bad. And thats fine. Just you do your thing, and I will do mine. If you don't like these things, then you can try to get a job that doesn't make you do them. My relationship should be between me and my employer. I will negotiate all the things that I mentioned, and if the situation doesn't work out then I will vote with my feet and go somewhere else. Do not take away my right to free association. Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that. The problem with pro-union people is that they assume that their needs are the same as everyone else's needs. Different people want different things, and this whole "fight for the people" BS gets thrown out the window the moment you try and force me to join your org and force me to go along with stuff I don't agree with. "And, of course, if you really don't want to work for a unionized workplace you can go and work at a non-unionized workplace." Well, instead of doing this thing, I could just use the law to protect me. Forcing people to join unions is, thankfully, illegal in many states. And, thankfully, unions are very unpopular among techies. So I am doing precisely that, and I will continue to fight against them in tech, precisely because I do not want our industry to be turned into one that does not value freedom of choice among employees, and forces different people into associations that they don't agree with.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that. I'm struggling to see what your problem is. If you don't like the idea of democratic control over your workplace and the commensurately higher pay that goes with it you've always been free to go and work somewhere else where they let you "wear many hats". It seems more like that you want to prevent others from doing it: >Forcing people to join unions is, thankfully, illegal in many states. i.e. you're thankful groups of people who negotiate with other groups of people and form voluntary agreements are prevented from doing so.