3 ms·

That kind of obstancance isn't a sign of being an adult.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
Unions are by their very nature levelling mechanisms, the only real situation they can be of any use is in non-competitive and relatively low skilled labor markets. Anybody who wants to develop their skill set and advance their own careers would want to have nothing to do with unions. If a union negotiates a contract for me, they're not actually doing it for me, they're doing it for everybody, which will mean that I walk away with compensation equal to the average value of all people in the union. If I negotiate compensation for myself, then I can get employer to pay me what I'm actually worth, and none of my salary will be used to subsidise other less ambitious/competent union members.
- MereInterest 8y ago
  That's a very optimistic view, and does not take into account the vast discrepancy in leverage between an employee and an employer.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled. That discrepancy can only arise when labor supply greatly outstrips demand. In such cases, you could make an argument that the disadvantages of the levelling mechanism are outweighed by the protection that unions provide. However, no matter where unions exist, they will always restrict individual contributors ability to advance their own careers, as well as their ability to seek remuneration appropriate for the value of their contributions.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled" That is flat out not true.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        It absolutely is true. Employers cannot possibly have a disproportionate amount of leverage in competitive labor markets. what high-skilled markets do you believe are non-competitive? It’s certianly not software engineering, employers compete relentlessly for talent in this market.

Unions are by their very nature levelling mechanisms, the only real situation they can be of any use is in non-competitive and relatively low skilled labor markets. Anybody who wants to develop their skill set and advance their own careers would want to have nothing to do with unions. If a union negotiates a contract for me, they're not actually doing it for me, they're doing it for everybody, which will mean that I walk away with compensation equal to the average value of all people in the union. If I negotiate compensation for myself, then I can get employer to pay me what I'm actually worth, and none of my salary will be used to subsidise other less ambitious/competent union members.

MereInterest 8y ago
That's a very optimistic view, and does not take into account the vast discrepancy in leverage between an employee and an employer.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled. That discrepancy can only arise when labor supply greatly outstrips demand. In such cases, you could make an argument that the disadvantages of the levelling mechanism are outweighed by the protection that unions provide. However, no matter where unions exist, they will always restrict individual contributors ability to advance their own careers, as well as their ability to seek remuneration appropriate for the value of their contributions.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "That leverage only exists in non-competitive labor markets, which are almost exclusively low-skilled" That is flat out not true.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      It absolutely is true. Employers cannot possibly have a disproportionate amount of leverage in competitive labor markets. what high-skilled markets do you believe are non-competitive? It’s certianly not software engineering, employers compete relentlessly for talent in this market.