13 ms·

I've never been part of a union and really don't know much about them. Could be a dumb question, but could someone describe the pros and cons in layman's terms

by mal10c 8y ago

I've never been part of a union and really don't know much about them. Could be a dumb question, but could someone describe the pros and cons in layman's terms? I usually hear the terms "workers rights", "wadges" and "unions" in the same sentence, so I assume unions are a way to ensure members are all treated the same - in terms of salaries, PTO, etc. If I had an opportunity to join a union, would I accept the wadges that were previously agreed upon by the union/administrative reps? Or, would I have some wiggle room in my salary? For instance, let's say I feel that I'm worth $40/hr, but the union is only paying $30/hr, could I negotiate the higher rate? Sorry for my lack of understanding on this, but I appreciate any helpful comments.

imbur 8y ago
It is possible to get paid above the union negotiated rate, called above scale, or to start out at a higher than entry level pay step. It depends on the specific circumstances and collective bargaining agreement.
nevon 8y ago
I suspect that this may vary depending on your country of residence, industry and union, but what you're describing is at least not how it works in my country and within the unions I've been part of. My situation is such that the union together with the employer negotiate a base agreement. It might detail things like making sure you received compensation for overtime, what the requirements for termination are, rights in regards to parental leave, minimum annual wage adjustments, etc. My country has very little legislation in regards to workers rights, because we've traditionally had very strong unions instead, so workers rights could be mandated through agreements rather than law. To give you an ideal, the standard collective bargaining agreement within my industry is a few hundred pages. If you are not part of such an agreement, it is instead on you to make sure that your employment contract covers all those aspects. The benefit for the employer is that they have to deal with less legislation, don't have to negotiate a complex contract with every employee (i.e. we already agree on the vast majority of issues, and can focus on the few things where I want individual adjustment), and finally, as long as the employer follows the agreement, the workers through their union agree not to go on strike. Now, to your question, just because you have an agreement through your union does not mean that you cannot exceed that agreement. You can certainly negotiate a higher salary, for example. It only ensures the minimum level.
gsnedders 8y ago
It depends a lot on the union and a lot on the culture of the union (and a lot of that culture is largely dictated by country), and on the agreement with the employer. There's plenty of unionised workplaces (especially when it comes to professionals) that have large variation in pay, and there's other examples where pay is based on some formula with no variation (this is vastly more common when it comes to labourers and tradesmen).
wpietri 8y ago
One way to think about it is in terms of economic theory. Negotiations are fairest when both sides have equal power. But you have approximately one job, and a company typically has way more employees. It's more painful to lose a job than to have 1 employee quit. So the negotiation is fundamentally unfair. So when it comes time to negotiate your annual raise, it's not you alone dueling with your boss (and the whole corporate hierarchy backing him up). Instead it's you and all your colleagues getting together, sending in some representatives, and saying, "Profits are way up this year, so we all deserve decent raises. Let's talk numbers." (This is less interesting to tech workers, in that we already have a ton of salary negotiating power due to supply/demand differences. But personally I'd still like to see more collective action to deal with other issues. A good example is the way employees recently forced Google to get out of military contracting. Or imagine how different Uber might have treated employees if they'd had a union that helped keep awful managers in check.)
- rayiner 8y ago
  Is there economic theory supporting unions? Asymmetric negotiating leverage is not generally recognized as something that undermines market outcomes.
  - pron 8y ago
    But you don't care about market outcomes, but about your own personal outcome (and I assume the economic theory alluded to wasn't macroeconomic but micro). The market can converge to fair non-union wages, or it can converge to fair union wages, which would be higher. Capitalists claim that unions reduce overall profit and harm the market, but workers shouldn't care about that (i.e. lower stock performance and higher wages are better for workers, at least in practice, given actual wealth distribution).
    - slavik81 8y ago
      You are forgetting about customers. I own no companies and work for one company, but I am a customer of many. A personal cost/benefit analysis like the one you're describing would have to take that into account.
Osmium 8y ago
Unions (usually) put a floor on your salary, not a ceiling. I'm a member of a union, and my salary is a good 20-30% above the union minimum. I've never had to contact my union (though I've benefited from it indirectly), but my sense is that they're useful as advocates for their members interests, especially in larger organizations. Often, this can even be for simple "common sense" proposals that are not controversial, but are difficult for individual employees to make happen. Navigating the bureaucracy of large organizations is not easy, and unions help with this (by creating an additional bureaucracy admittedly, so they're not a perfect solution).
knuththetruth 8y ago
Variable and performance based pay is entirely possible within a union. Actors and professional athletes are all unionized and have these things. The best way to think about a union is using the collective power of workers to set a floor on wages and labor conditions, not a ceiling. And best of all, they're democratically controlled, so they're members can create whatever structures and rules they think best serve their interests.
tjpaudio 8y ago
Simply put, a union just refers to the formation of a formal group of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. I.e., the workers feel like individually their attempts to negotiate are not working so they get together to discuss rules, compensation, safety conditions, whatever as a group. The questions you are asking likely have different answers for every union out there. The pros are collective bargaining. The cons are variable.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
swebs 8y ago
Pros: Collective bargaining for benefits, legal counseling, unemployment insurance Cons: Union dues to pay for the above, possibility for corruption It's basically like joining an additional, tiny government.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  > possibility for corruption Did we prove 99.99999=1? Not sure if that was a youtube myth or a reality. Whatever the case, union corruption is worse than the petty fee they charge.
Declanomous 8y ago
From my understanding, wage scale is often a point that is negotiated, so it varies from union to union. Some unions have rules where you can get more pay based on performance, holding certain certifications, or experience. Other unions have rules where pay is related to tenure, and employees compensation is directly proportional to their tenure. The concept of white-collar unions is really interesting. I know a lot of white-collar workers think unions would mean that their crappy coworkers would abuse the system to make the same money while doing just enough work to avoid being fired. I can understand the argument behind that, but I think unionization could help certain white-collar workers force their employers to support changes that improve quality of life and reduce burnout and stress. For example, a sysadmin union might be able to dictate only a certain number of on-call nights a month, or prevent companies from calling sysadmins while they are on vacation. A developer union could mandate a certain number of hours a developer could work before getting comp time or paid overtime. A union could give developers who are worried about what they are being asked to do might be illegal or immoral the ability to say no without being punished (think the VW scandal). A lot of white collar fields already have a body performing the role of a defacto union because they have licensing bodies. I can see why techy types don't have a licensing body, since techy types are a bit more rebellious than engineers as a whole, and we haven't had any 'major' disasters to force regulation of the profession. That being said developers are constantly working in environments that hurt their productivity and the quality of their work and at some point we need a way to enforce better working standards on organizations.
Spooky23 8y ago
Usually there is a salary scale, and usually that scale is consistent and favors tenure. People start at a consistent level -- "Bob" doesn't start as a "Developer 2" making $80k, while "Sally" starts as a "Developer 2" at $50k. The biggest "upside" is that there is usually more stability in terms of work rules, benefits and compensation, and when there are changes, you know about them. There are defined work rules, disciplinary procedures, etc. Your health insurance doesn't randomly change every year, etc. The union itself is at least a nominally democratic institution. The downsides are that shitty employees can work the system. And just like how you have bad IT, HR or other teams, some unions suck. Dealing with a shitty union is difficult. In general, if there are a bunch of people around you doing the same things, the company is making money, and you'd like long tenure, a union probably is a net benefit. If you work for a mega-org or .gov, it's essential. If you're in a high-growth business, or a profession where you expect to bounce from employer to employer, it's not a good value. Everyone on HN is a 10x employee making a $500k/year, so it's not a good value in that situation either. ;)
- Kalium 8y ago
  Also, sometimes your union might decide to tank your employer to strengthen their negotiating position with another employer. A shitty union can go really shitty. This isn't a hypothetical worst-case scenario. I mean, it is a worst-case, but it did actually happen to Hostess.
  - Avshalom 8y ago
    Sort of. The union and Hostess had already agreed to a round of salary cuts and decreased benefits. When the management still "couldn't" make it work that they went nuclear.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      If memory serves, there were two unions Hostess was negotiating with. One represented most of Hostess' workers and was negotiating in good faith. The other represented a small percentage of Hostess' workers, and was willing to sacrifice their members at Hostess to gain an advantage in their negotiations with different companies who had more employers. Arguably, this is a reason unions shouldn't get too big. It creates scenarios where some workers get their interests sacrificed, precisely the thing unions exist to forestall.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
I have only been a member in one union, it was during a summer job where the hourly employees were unionized. There was some special deal where I didn't have to pay the annual dues but got a prorated cost. However, I did have to sit though the day long session where the union told everyone how they were there for the members and what that meant in terms of their interaction with the employer. Most of it was around insuring that I knew what things the union had negotiated and that I should not feel bad about demanding the employer honor their commitment when that happened. For example there were two 20 minute breaks (10AM and 2PM), there was 50 minutes for lunch including time to get to and from the lunch area, and if I was asked to work more than 40 hours a week it had to be paid at 1.5x my hourly rate, weekends at 2x my hourly rate, and holidays 3x my hourly rate. There were medical benefits that I pretty much ignored, and a formal grievance process if I felt I was being asked to do something outside my job scope. The big message was that if my manager didn't live up to their obligations, the big union would make sure that the manager was made to understand what they could and could not do. Every other job I've held I was not in a union. The difference in experience was pretty stark. Managers at non-union companies had no problem with intimidating employees to work additional hours to meet an unreasonable deadline that they had set, I've known managers who played head games on their direct reports to instill confusion and obedience, and have known managers who have gotten away with grossly unfair pay discrepancies between people they liked and people they disliked with little to no regard to their performance at the company. Is it all managers? No of course not. And I have been extremely fortunate that if things were ridiculous and I couldn't influence change within the company I could leave and work somewhere else. That is much easier in the technical/engineering world than it is in a more trades oriented type of job. On your question of wages, of the unions I've been in direct contact with, and the ones we've read about their negotiations in the news (Transit, Teachers, SEIU, etc) the wages are negotiated. You get what you get. Although at least some people augment their salary with overtime (for example a member of law enforcement providing security for an event). Unions can also create definitions of when someone can be fired, which would be different for tech workers in California. Most employment in tech is "At Will" which means you can quit for any reason at any time and they can fire you at any time for nearly any reason. Unions often replace 'At Will' with contractual terms which define what it takes to fire someone and what their recourse is. One of the most amazing things about unions I found in my career is that talking about organizing one at a tech company will get you fired faster than having relations with the CEO's spouse. It is a really touchy subject.
dv_dt 8y ago
This is casual observation, but in the US, it seems like unions are much more likely to form when there are fairly egregious labor practices in a company. Though there are practical salary benefits to unions, it seems that safety and/or quality-of-treatment are bigger drivers of union formation. And I think a lot of news organizations are seeing them now, in part because of the decline of the profitability of those businesses leading to harsher labor practices.
Eupolemos 8y ago
Dane here - we have a pretty mature union culture which is about more than just maximizing the salary. Unions actually become a boon for both employer and employee. The way we see it, unions are best used when there is a power discrepancy between employer and employee. In the end, your value as an employee is how much it costs to replace you. Simple as that. So if you are educated in a specialized field, you have bargaining power (and you don't need a union). If you are working in a more generalist area, you have none whatsoever - it is an illusion (exception being if the demographics means 100% employment). What the union does is of course to band generalists together so they have strike power. That sucks for the company. But what the Danish unions tend to do is demand eduction, lifting the generalist work into a more specialized position. You can always get good at a job. This means that the company may have to pay a more expensive salary, but get a much improved worker and/or product. Paying 50% extra for twice the productivity is a good investments, even if you have to pay for some of the education of the former generalist. So rather than just demand more pay, the unions demand more education and higher standards. They also demand better pay, of course - but in the end they are interested in many members working rather than few members getting ridiculous payments. Mature unions are good for the economy. Corrupt or immature unions can be a terrible ball-and-chain for a society.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  Well, that is until China can make the same technology for a fraction of the price... Btw, this doesnt address how unions can benefit things like commodities. From your post, it wouldnt. It can only benefit if you are leading the industry.
  - UweSchmidt 8y ago
    But 'China' (as in 'current boogeyman') has been around for a while now, and so have strong European economies with strong Unions and employee-friendly laws. In itself, your statement does not refute the op.
    - mkirklions 8y ago
      If there is one thing you are underestimating- Change. Things do not stay the same, and while Europe has survived this far, I have watched my company remove Europe from the supply chain and development of products. Everything is made in China or south America.
ufmace 8y ago
It does vary some based on the nature of the workplace and the union. Usually, the best pros of the best unions are: Strong representatives negotiating for better PTO, healthcare, work practices, wages/salaries, etc. Some recourse besides quitting or suing if your manager is treating you badly. The cons can be: Fixed salary ranges and benefits - want more money as a star employee? Want to try to negotiate a different benefits package? Too bad, you get what the union negotiated. Pay and promotions may be based on time in role rather than productivity or skills. It's usually difficult to fire poor workers. Essentially, unions foster an environment of distrust between management and workers, so they generally try to remove any way for management to affect your work. Management evaluation of who is a good and bad worker is not to be trusted, since they are presumed to want to use that power to stop the union. Management is less encouraged to care about giving the workers a fair shake - that's the union's job now, management isn't expected to push for anything but more money for themselves.

by mal10c 8y ago

imbur 8y ago

It is possible to get paid above the union negotiated rate, called above scale, or to start out at a higher than entry level pay step. It depends on the specific circumstances and collective bargaining agreement.

nevon 8y ago

I suspect that this may vary depending on your country of residence, industry and union, but what you're describing is at least not how it works in my country and within the unions I've been part of. My situation is such that the union together with the employer negotiate a base agreement. It might detail things like making sure you received compensation for overtime, what the requirements for termination are, rights in regards to parental leave, minimum annual wage adjustments, etc. My country has very little legislation in regards to workers rights, because we've traditionally had very strong unions instead, so workers rights could be mandated through agreements rather than law. To give you an ideal, the standard collective bargaining agreement within my industry is a few hundred pages. If you are not part of such an agreement, it is instead on you to make sure that your employment contract covers all those aspects. The benefit for the employer is that they have to deal with less legislation, don't have to negotiate a complex contract with every employee (i.e. we already agree on the vast majority of issues, and can focus on the few things where I want individual adjustment), and finally, as long as the employer follows the agreement, the workers through their union agree not to go on strike. Now, to your question, just because you have an agreement through your union does not mean that you cannot exceed that agreement. You can certainly negotiate a higher salary, for example. It only ensures the minimum level.

gsnedders 8y ago

It depends a lot on the union and a lot on the culture of the union (and a lot of that culture is largely dictated by country), and on the agreement with the employer. There's plenty of unionised workplaces (especially when it comes to professionals) that have large variation in pay, and there's other examples where pay is based on some formula with no variation (this is vastly more common when it comes to labourers and tradesmen).

wpietri 8y ago

One way to think about it is in terms of economic theory. Negotiations are fairest when both sides have equal power. But you have approximately one job, and a company typically has way more employees. It's more painful to lose a job than to have 1 employee quit. So the negotiation is fundamentally unfair. So when it comes time to negotiate your annual raise, it's not you alone dueling with your boss (and the whole corporate hierarchy backing him up). Instead it's you and all your colleagues getting together, sending in some representatives, and saying, "Profits are way up this year, so we all deserve decent raises. Let's talk numbers." (This is less interesting to tech workers, in that we already have a ton of salary negotiating power due to supply/demand differences. But personally I'd still like to see more collective action to deal with other issues. A good example is the way employees recently forced Google to get out of military contracting. Or imagine how different Uber might have treated employees if they'd had a union that helped keep awful managers in check.)

rayiner 8y ago
Is there economic theory supporting unions? Asymmetric negotiating leverage is not generally recognized as something that undermines market outcomes.
- pron 8y ago
  But you don't care about market outcomes, but about your own personal outcome (and I assume the economic theory alluded to wasn't macroeconomic but micro). The market can converge to fair non-union wages, or it can converge to fair union wages, which would be higher. Capitalists claim that unions reduce overall profit and harm the market, but workers shouldn't care about that (i.e. lower stock performance and higher wages are better for workers, at least in practice, given actual wealth distribution).
  - slavik81 8y ago
    You are forgetting about customers. I own no companies and work for one company, but I am a customer of many. A personal cost/benefit analysis like the one you're describing would have to take that into account.

Osmium 8y ago

Unions (usually) put a floor on your salary, not a ceiling. I'm a member of a union, and my salary is a good 20-30% above the union minimum. I've never had to contact my union (though I've benefited from it indirectly), but my sense is that they're useful as advocates for their members interests, especially in larger organizations. Often, this can even be for simple "common sense" proposals that are not controversial, but are difficult for individual employees to make happen. Navigating the bureaucracy of large organizations is not easy, and unions help with this (by creating an additional bureaucracy admittedly, so they're not a perfect solution).

knuththetruth 8y ago

Variable and performance based pay is entirely possible within a union. Actors and professional athletes are all unionized and have these things. The best way to think about a union is using the collective power of workers to set a floor on wages and labor conditions, not a ceiling. And best of all, they're democratically controlled, so they're members can create whatever structures and rules they think best serve their interests.

tjpaudio 8y ago

Simply put, a union just refers to the formation of a formal group of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. I.e., the workers feel like individually their attempts to negotiate are not working so they get together to discuss rules, compensation, safety conditions, whatever as a group. The questions you are asking likely have different answers for every union out there. The pros are collective bargaining. The cons are variable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

swebs 8y ago

Pros: Collective bargaining for benefits, legal counseling, unemployment insurance Cons: Union dues to pay for the above, possibility for corruption It's basically like joining an additional, tiny government.

mkirklions 8y ago
> possibility for corruption Did we prove 99.99999=1? Not sure if that was a youtube myth or a reality. Whatever the case, union corruption is worse than the petty fee they charge.

Declanomous 8y ago

From my understanding, wage scale is often a point that is negotiated, so it varies from union to union. Some unions have rules where you can get more pay based on performance, holding certain certifications, or experience. Other unions have rules where pay is related to tenure, and employees compensation is directly proportional to their tenure. The concept of white-collar unions is really interesting. I know a lot of white-collar workers think unions would mean that their crappy coworkers would abuse the system to make the same money while doing just enough work to avoid being fired. I can understand the argument behind that, but I think unionization could help certain white-collar workers force their employers to support changes that improve quality of life and reduce burnout and stress. For example, a sysadmin union might be able to dictate only a certain number of on-call nights a month, or prevent companies from calling sysadmins while they are on vacation. A developer union could mandate a certain number of hours a developer could work before getting comp time or paid overtime. A union could give developers who are worried about what they are being asked to do might be illegal or immoral the ability to say no without being punished (think the VW scandal). A lot of white collar fields already have a body performing the role of a defacto union because they have licensing bodies. I can see why techy types don't have a licensing body, since techy types are a bit more rebellious than engineers as a whole, and we haven't had any 'major' disasters to force regulation of the profession. That being said developers are constantly working in environments that hurt their productivity and the quality of their work and at some point we need a way to enforce better working standards on organizations.

Spooky23 8y ago

Usually there is a salary scale, and usually that scale is consistent and favors tenure. People start at a consistent level -- "Bob" doesn't start as a "Developer 2" making $80k, while "Sally" starts as a "Developer 2" at $50k. The biggest "upside" is that there is usually more stability in terms of work rules, benefits and compensation, and when there are changes, you know about them. There are defined work rules, disciplinary procedures, etc. Your health insurance doesn't randomly change every year, etc. The union itself is at least a nominally democratic institution. The downsides are that shitty employees can work the system. And just like how you have bad IT, HR or other teams, some unions suck. Dealing with a shitty union is difficult. In general, if there are a bunch of people around you doing the same things, the company is making money, and you'd like long tenure, a union probably is a net benefit. If you work for a mega-org or .gov, it's essential. If you're in a high-growth business, or a profession where you expect to bounce from employer to employer, it's not a good value. Everyone on HN is a 10x employee making a $500k/year, so it's not a good value in that situation either. ;)

Kalium 8y ago
Also, sometimes your union might decide to tank your employer to strengthen their negotiating position with another employer. A shitty union can go really shitty. This isn't a hypothetical worst-case scenario. I mean, it is a worst-case, but it did actually happen to Hostess.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  Sort of. The union and Hostess had already agreed to a round of salary cuts and decreased benefits. When the management still "couldn't" make it work that they went nuclear.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    If memory serves, there were two unions Hostess was negotiating with. One represented most of Hostess' workers and was negotiating in good faith. The other represented a small percentage of Hostess' workers, and was willing to sacrifice their members at Hostess to gain an advantage in their negotiations with different companies who had more employers. Arguably, this is a reason unions shouldn't get too big. It creates scenarios where some workers get their interests sacrificed, precisely the thing unions exist to forestall.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

I have only been a member in one union, it was during a summer job where the hourly employees were unionized. There was some special deal where I didn't have to pay the annual dues but got a prorated cost. However, I did have to sit though the day long session where the union told everyone how they were there for the members and what that meant in terms of their interaction with the employer. Most of it was around insuring that I knew what things the union had negotiated and that I should not feel bad about demanding the employer honor their commitment when that happened. For example there were two 20 minute breaks (10AM and 2PM), there was 50 minutes for lunch including time to get to and from the lunch area, and if I was asked to work more than 40 hours a week it had to be paid at 1.5x my hourly rate, weekends at 2x my hourly rate, and holidays 3x my hourly rate. There were medical benefits that I pretty much ignored, and a formal grievance process if I felt I was being asked to do something outside my job scope. The big message was that if my manager didn't live up to their obligations, the big union would make sure that the manager was made to understand what they could and could not do. Every other job I've held I was not in a union. The difference in experience was pretty stark. Managers at non-union companies had no problem with intimidating employees to work additional hours to meet an unreasonable deadline that they had set, I've known managers who played head games on their direct reports to instill confusion and obedience, and have known managers who have gotten away with grossly unfair pay discrepancies between people they liked and people they disliked with little to no regard to their performance at the company. Is it all managers? No of course not. And I have been extremely fortunate that if things were ridiculous and I couldn't influence change within the company I could leave and work somewhere else. That is much easier in the technical/engineering world than it is in a more trades oriented type of job. On your question of wages, of the unions I've been in direct contact with, and the ones we've read about their negotiations in the news (Transit, Teachers, SEIU, etc) the wages are negotiated. You get what you get. Although at least some people augment their salary with overtime (for example a member of law enforcement providing security for an event). Unions can also create definitions of when someone can be fired, which would be different for tech workers in California. Most employment in tech is "At Will" which means you can quit for any reason at any time and they can fire you at any time for nearly any reason. Unions often replace 'At Will' with contractual terms which define what it takes to fire someone and what their recourse is. One of the most amazing things about unions I found in my career is that talking about organizing one at a tech company will get you fired faster than having relations with the CEO's spouse. It is a really touchy subject.

dv_dt 8y ago

This is casual observation, but in the US, it seems like unions are much more likely to form when there are fairly egregious labor practices in a company. Though there are practical salary benefits to unions, it seems that safety and/or quality-of-treatment are bigger drivers of union formation. And I think a lot of news organizations are seeing them now, in part because of the decline of the profitability of those businesses leading to harsher labor practices.

Eupolemos 8y ago

Dane here - we have a pretty mature union culture which is about more than just maximizing the salary. Unions actually become a boon for both employer and employee. The way we see it, unions are best used when there is a power discrepancy between employer and employee. In the end, your value as an employee is how much it costs to replace you. Simple as that. So if you are educated in a specialized field, you have bargaining power (and you don't need a union). If you are working in a more generalist area, you have none whatsoever - it is an illusion (exception being if the demographics means 100% employment). What the union does is of course to band generalists together so they have strike power. That sucks for the company. But what the Danish unions tend to do is demand eduction, lifting the generalist work into a more specialized position. You can always get good at a job. This means that the company may have to pay a more expensive salary, but get a much improved worker and/or product. Paying 50% extra for twice the productivity is a good investments, even if you have to pay for some of the education of the former generalist. So rather than just demand more pay, the unions demand more education and higher standards. They also demand better pay, of course - but in the end they are interested in many members working rather than few members getting ridiculous payments. Mature unions are good for the economy. Corrupt or immature unions can be a terrible ball-and-chain for a society.

mkirklions 8y ago
Well, that is until China can make the same technology for a fraction of the price... Btw, this doesnt address how unions can benefit things like commodities. From your post, it wouldnt. It can only benefit if you are leading the industry.
- UweSchmidt 8y ago
  But 'China' (as in 'current boogeyman') has been around for a while now, and so have strong European economies with strong Unions and employee-friendly laws. In itself, your statement does not refute the op.
  - mkirklions 8y ago
    If there is one thing you are underestimating- Change. Things do not stay the same, and while Europe has survived this far, I have watched my company remove Europe from the supply chain and development of products. Everything is made in China or south America.

ufmace 8y ago

It does vary some based on the nature of the workplace and the union. Usually, the best pros of the best unions are: Strong representatives negotiating for better PTO, healthcare, work practices, wages/salaries, etc. Some recourse besides quitting or suing if your manager is treating you badly. The cons can be: Fixed salary ranges and benefits - want more money as a star employee? Want to try to negotiate a different benefits package? Too bad, you get what the union negotiated. Pay and promotions may be based on time in role rather than productivity or skills. It's usually difficult to fire poor workers. Essentially, unions foster an environment of distrust between management and workers, so they generally try to remove any way for management to affect your work. Management evaluation of who is a good and bad worker is not to be trusted, since they are presumed to want to use that power to stop the union. Management is less encouraged to care about giving the workers a fair shake - that's the union's job now, management isn't expected to push for anything but more money for themselves.