4 ms·

1) Lots of unions and guilds don't operate like this; maybe you get more based on seniority, education, performance reviews, by hitting targets, or some other m

by patmcc 8y ago

1) Lots of unions and guilds don't operate like this; maybe you get more based on seniority, education, performance reviews, by hitting targets, or some other measure. Maybe the guild (think of the hollywood ones; writers and actors guilds) sets a minimum pay but you're able to negotiate for more. Union=same salaries is far too simplistic, there are lots of ways this can be negotiated. 2) Same is true for non-union workplaces - you don't like how a place is run I guess you're going to be unhappy there. With a union (that you can take part in, vote for your leaders, vote on your contract, etc.) maybe you can change that. 3) Sure, if your union/leadership is corrupt. Vote the bastards out then. With no union...the company just keeps that money that would have been used to bribe a union official. Not clear to me that's better for the worker. 4) Maybe. Maybe the union attracts better employees, improves retention, etc. and leads to a better and more profitable workplace. Maybe the whole industry gets unionized so it's an even playing field and the owners of all companies lose (and workers gain). I certainly think it's possible unions reduce the total amount of wealth generated from a system. But so what? I think society would be better of if, for example, Walmart made $90b instead of $100b and the workers gained $9b. (Numbers completely made up, of course).

legostormtroopr 8y ago
I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. I've also never heard of a union that supported performance pay, because by the law of average most of their members will be under average, and they wouldn't want to irritate them.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Any union worth a damn should always fight any performance based pay because it goes contrary to their interests.
  - legostormtroopr 8y ago
    Except they don't.
- bsder 8y ago
  > I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. Much like a defense attorney a union must defend everyone--even the crappy ones. Because most of the time, the employee really isn't that crappy and simply annoyed management by doing something silly like--oh, demanding the safety equipment necessary to do a task and told management to pound sand when they didn't provide it. Yeah, seen that one in person. It is up to management to make the case that the shitty employee actually is so. And, if they can't, well the employee really isn't that bad then. For example, everybody bitches about the crappy teachers, but I have seen numerous cases where the school superintendent never even tries to make the case because that would affect his ability to get his next job. Why does nobody ever complain about the superintendent not doing HIS job and putting together the case to fire the teacher? > I've also never heard of a union that supported performance pay Not true. However, the union almost always demands that the performance criteria be objective or that the union gets to determine who falls into which categories. Funnily, management never seems to want to agree to "performance pay" that they can't hand out arbitrarily.
- patmcc 8y ago
  >>I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. What unions almost always do is require management to follow the procedures in place in the negotiated contract. A well negotiated contract lays out what underperforming is, what qualifies as appropriate notice, etc. People find it hard to say "your performance is not great in these ways, you need to improve in these ways" and then follow up over weeks or months. That's often what union negotiated contracts require. Employers, obviously, would prefer to be able to say on a Friday "hey you're fired go home" and pay no severance.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  I have yet to see a company without "underperforming" employees that have been around for ages and payed more than "over performing" new hire despite having never worked in a union shop.
- hpcjoe 8y ago
  In grad school, I taught recitation and lab sections of physics courses. Some of my students were local school district teachers. Two of them I remember. These two, in different years, had one thing in common. Both were functionally illiterate. Neither one could read at the level one would need to in order to take the non-calculus version of physics. Math was simply beyond them. I asked my advising professor what I should do about this, as it was obvious that the right thing to do was to report this, get the person some help, and get them out of the classroom. I was told to drop it. That the teachers union was simply too powerful, and would protect their own. That if I made noise, it would hurt the university, this program, etc. That I should find a way to pass them. Yeah. That.
- Frondo 8y ago
  Screen Actors Guild. now you've seen one with performance pay...can you change your tune the next time around on the next union-related thread?
conanbatt 8y ago
> Same is true for non-union workplaces - you don't like how a place is run I guess you're going to be unhappy there. With a union (that you can take part in, vote for your leaders, vote on your contract, etc.) maybe you can change that. You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. > Sure, if your union/leadership is corrupt. Vote the bastards out then. With no union...the company just keeps that money that would have been used to bribe a union official. Not clear to me that's better for the worker. If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. Also justifying the bribes is pure robbery. You should be ashamed of thinking that.
- patmcc 8y ago
  >>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc >>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? >>Also justifying the bribes is pure robbery. You should be ashamed of thinking that. Not at all what I said. I said owners keeping 100 rather than keeping 95 and bribing with 5 is no better for the worker; both situations are shitty. But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members.
  - hpcjoe 8y ago
    >>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. >Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc No, the point the parent was making is that there is a well understood and accepted link between increased unionization and increased unemployment. >>>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. > That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? It's quite true. Here in Michigan, until we regained our sanity recently and went right to work, there were closed union shops. You could get hired if and only if you were a member of the union. Which you couldn't get into without being hired. The entry fee into the union ranged depending upon the union, but it was most definitely a pay for play scam. So if you were poor, and couldn't afford the entry fee ... how would you get in? How is this not a monopoly? On those union elections ... Do you believe for a moment that the elections were either free, or fair? Do you not believe that there were corrupting outside influences? This new master became rent seeking, drove costs up, quality down, caused higher unemployment by driving costs up, and eventually drove much of the work to lower wage locales. Yes, this is the reality of what unions have wrought. As for this > But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members. um ... no. The people in power in their rent seeking ways have a habit of building up a support system of similarly minded folks. Trickle down. Bribes paid supported large union machines that existed for the sole purpose of keeping their officials in power. These elections are rarely ever free, and are most certainly never fair. There are entrenched interests that wish to not rock the boat, as that introduces uncertainty. Be this from management, external groups that want to dip into union coffers, etc.

by patmcc 8y ago

legostormtroopr 8y ago

I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. I've also never heard of a union that supported performance pay, because by the law of average most of their members will be under average, and they wouldn't want to irritate them.

conanbatt 8y ago
Any union worth a damn should always fight any performance based pay because it goes contrary to their interests.
- legostormtroopr 8y ago
  Except they don't.
bsder 8y ago
> I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. Much like a defense attorney a union must defend everyone--even the crappy ones. Because most of the time, the employee really isn't that crappy and simply annoyed management by doing something silly like--oh, demanding the safety equipment necessary to do a task and told management to pound sand when they didn't provide it. Yeah, seen that one in person. It is up to management to make the case that the shitty employee actually is so. And, if they can't, well the employee really isn't that bad then. For example, everybody bitches about the crappy teachers, but I have seen numerous cases where the school superintendent never even tries to make the case because that would affect his ability to get his next job. Why does nobody ever complain about the superintendent not doing HIS job and putting together the case to fire the teacher? > I've also never heard of a union that supported performance pay Not true. However, the union almost always demands that the performance criteria be objective or that the union gets to determine who falls into which categories. Funnily, management never seems to want to agree to "performance pay" that they can't hand out arbitrarily.
patmcc 8y ago
>>I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. What unions almost always do is require management to follow the procedures in place in the negotiated contract. A well negotiated contract lays out what underperforming is, what qualifies as appropriate notice, etc. People find it hard to say "your performance is not great in these ways, you need to improve in these ways" and then follow up over weeks or months. That's often what union negotiated contracts require. Employers, obviously, would prefer to be able to say on a Friday "hey you're fired go home" and pay no severance.
Avshalom 8y ago
I have yet to see a company without "underperforming" employees that have been around for ages and payed more than "over performing" new hire despite having never worked in a union shop.
hpcjoe 8y ago
In grad school, I taught recitation and lab sections of physics courses. Some of my students were local school district teachers. Two of them I remember. These two, in different years, had one thing in common. Both were functionally illiterate. Neither one could read at the level one would need to in order to take the non-calculus version of physics. Math was simply beyond them. I asked my advising professor what I should do about this, as it was obvious that the right thing to do was to report this, get the person some help, and get them out of the classroom. I was told to drop it. That the teachers union was simply too powerful, and would protect their own. That if I made noise, it would hurt the university, this program, etc. That I should find a way to pass them. Yeah. That.
Frondo 8y ago
Screen Actors Guild. now you've seen one with performance pay...can you change your tune the next time around on the next union-related thread?

conanbatt 8y ago

> Same is true for non-union workplaces - you don't like how a place is run I guess you're going to be unhappy there. With a union (that you can take part in, vote for your leaders, vote on your contract, etc.) maybe you can change that. You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. > Sure, if your union/leadership is corrupt. Vote the bastards out then. With no union...the company just keeps that money that would have been used to bribe a union official. Not clear to me that's better for the worker. If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. Also justifying the bribes is pure robbery. You should be ashamed of thinking that.

patmcc 8y ago
>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc >>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? >>Also justifying the bribes is pure robbery. You should be ashamed of thinking that. Not at all what I said. I said owners keeping 100 rather than keeping 95 and bribing with 5 is no better for the worker; both situations are shitty. But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members.
- hpcjoe 8y ago
  >>>You will find interesting that there is a link between high unionization and unemployment. >Yes, and there's a link between high unionization and higher wages/better benefits/better working conditions. Of course there are trade-offs. Look at the history of labour movements in the west. Why do you think we have weekends, overtime pay, etc No, the point the parent was making is that there is a well understood and accepted link between increased unionization and increased unemployment. >>>If you dont vote for the union, you dont get hired or get fired. You as a worker now are subject to the whims of a new master, one that is worse that the previous one. > That's completely untrue - if you vote against unionization you don't get fired. The union (almost always) doesn't choose who gets hired or gets fired; they often offer protection against undue termination. You may (depending on jurisdiction) be required to join/pay dues. Also, unions have elections - you have a regular chance to choose who negotiates on your behalf. How exactly is the "new master" worse then the previous one? It's quite true. Here in Michigan, until we regained our sanity recently and went right to work, there were closed union shops. You could get hired if and only if you were a member of the union. Which you couldn't get into without being hired. The entry fee into the union ranged depending upon the union, but it was most definitely a pay for play scam. So if you were poor, and couldn't afford the entry fee ... how would you get in? How is this not a monopoly? On those union elections ... Do you believe for a moment that the elections were either free, or fair? Do you not believe that there were corrupting outside influences? This new master became rent seeking, drove costs up, quality down, caused higher unemployment by driving costs up, and eventually drove much of the work to lower wage locales. Yes, this is the reality of what unions have wrought. As for this > But when the union leadership is being bribed they can be voted out by the union members. um ... no. The people in power in their rent seeking ways have a habit of building up a support system of similarly minded folks. Trickle down. Bribes paid supported large union machines that existed for the sole purpose of keeping their officials in power. These elections are rarely ever free, and are most certainly never fair. There are entrenched interests that wish to not rock the boat, as that introduces uncertainty. Be this from management, external groups that want to dip into union coffers, etc.