3 ms·
|Unionisation may help By restricting the supply of talent, thus artificially driving up wages, but at the same time keeping a lot of people from being able to
by r_smart 8y ago
|Unionisation may help
By restricting the supply of talent, thus artificially driving up wages, but at the same time keeping a lot of people from being able to pursue their dream.
- merpnderp 8y agoA lot of people from pursuing their dream who would be willing to do it for less. That's always the crux of unions, is the people left at zero wages who were willing to do the exact same work for less wages than the current person with the job.
- pmyteh 8y agoOnly if union membership is both required and restricted. In each of my workplaces, union membership has been optional and open to anyone who works there. It's weaker bargaining-wise than a closed shop with entry requirements, but we've still been able to collectively negotiate to better outcomes (the current round is UCU's dispute with the universities and their pension fund over proposed changes to the pension scheme, which we look to be fighting off).
- r_smart 8y agoFair enough. I'm used to union arrangements where membership is required for the given profession, which is pretty common in the US. There's been a movement to right to work, but even then, the non-union employees are forced to abide by the union negotiated contract, which is bullshit.
- vkou 8y ago> There's been a movement to right to work By which you mean, there's been a movement by employers towards the right to work for less. > but even then, the non-union employees are forced to abide by the union negotiated contract, which is bullshit. What's bullshit is that non-union employees get the same benefits that a union fought for, without having to do any work to get them.
- r_smart 8y ago|By which you mean, there's been a movement by employers towards the right to work for less. Unions can keep people out of professions in a lot of places in the US. Right to work makes it so union membership isn't mandatory. Surely if the union is so awesome, voluntary membership would work just fine. |What's bullshit is that non-union employees get the same benefits that a union fought for, without having to do any work to get them. Take it up with the union leadership, not me pal. They're the ones agitating for this stuff.
- ahelwer 8y agoUnions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor, not by putting a stranglehold on new hiring.
- bobthepanda 8y agoYou also don’t need a union to put a stranglehold on labor supply. See: doctors
- r_smart 8y agoI guess you could say it's not a union, but it's pretty much the same thing. At least, it's pulling the same levers to get desired outcomes.
- chrisseaton 8y ago> Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor, not by putting a stranglehold on new hiring. How do you think they magically achieve this? Surprise - it's by threatening to restrict supply (not working for the company if they don't agree to the union's terms.)
- ahelwer 8y agoThreatening to strike is much different from restricting the people who can work for the union?
- chrisseaton 8y agoIn both cases you could be happy with the offered compensation but be forced to not work for the company anyway.
- r_smart 8y agoYes, they're different things. They're also the two basic tools in the union toolkit for driving up wages.