5 ms·
Depends on the nature of the work and variability of worker skills, along with the union structure. For work where the skills of the workers are mostly consist
by derekp7 7y ago
Depends on the nature of the work and variability of worker skills, along with the union structure. For work where the skills of the workers are mostly consistent, or where skills can be easily grouped into buckets based on training and seniority, unions work out really good for the employees.
For highly variable skill work, and where skill levels are difficult to track (at least in a non-gameable way), you can have lower skilled (or lower performing) employees that drag down higher performers, due to union rules requiring things like seniority-based pay brackets. So people that are really good at convincing their management that they are really good, and work in industries where there is high competition for their specialty, those are the ones that tend to be more anti-union for their line of work.
- makotech222 7y agoThis is misinformation. Unions are democratically led. They can have whatever rules they want regarding skill and pay. The point is that they reach a consensus and then negotiate as a single unit against their employer.
- 1123581321 7y agoThe commenter was describing what actually happens in unions. It’s technically correct to say unions are democratically led thus possible to change for the better, but it is incorrect to imply they are democratic so are likely to change. And so to point to union voting rules as a way to assuage concerns about common union practices is misleading.
- s17n 7y agoAthletes and actors are unionized.