3 ms·

Yes - that's the major problem with group negotiation, and the complaint here. I'm unclear on whether this is meant as a defense or a criticism of a union syste

• coldtea 9y ago
  A defense. It's not like a system like a union that represents many people could cater to any particular person's whims. At the same time, if it didn't represent many people, it wouldn't have any negotiating power. At the more limited case -- representing only one person and its desires -- a union would just have that individual's own negotiating power. But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union.
  • Bartweiss 9y ago
    > But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union. This is why I wasn't sure it was a defense. We're talking about software here, and the US experience is that without a union you can have not only a good job, but enormous control over your outcomes. You can trade between money, stock, benefits, and time off by changing employers, or even within a single employer. I agree with your initial breakdown: unions cannot offer every configuration an individual might want, but they can't be effective without representing lots of people. But that implies they're only worthwhile when the alternative is that without a union, most people end up unhappy. Adding collective bargaining to a field where individual bargaining works well seems harmful.