4 ms·

Individuals, even stellar performing ones, also have significantly less bargaining power than the collective bargaining power of either a union or the employer.

Individuals, even stellar performing ones, also have significantly less bargaining power than the collective bargaining power of either a union or the employer. There are plenty of companies that know this, and it is the primary source of their antagonism towards unions.

notahacker 5y ago
This depends heavily on the industry. If you're a stellar technician specialised in fixing stuff in the only employer in the only industry in town, sure, the company knows you need that job even more than they need you and so you're poorly paid just like all the other technicians. If you're a stellar software developer and your bosses know it, not so much. You can, individually, take your 10x-more-productive skillset to loads of other high paying companies, and that gives you a much better individual negotiating position than "everyone deserves a raise", especially since your colleagues won't go on strike to help you get a new top salary band at a large multiple of what they're earning even if you really deserve it.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  This is true whether not not the company you work at is unionized. Ultimately what you appear to be saying that the union is valuable since you'll get paid more until you leave.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    No, I'm saying that if you are an above average employee in $role an industry where there is already competitive pressure to offer good wages, a union fixing your wage at the level it is able to negotiate for the average employee in $role will mean you earn less. Until you leave, obviously.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Companies, generally speaking, already have guidelines around what wages they will pay. So to get significantly better pay you need to leave anyway (how often do you get counteroffers that meet or exceed the competitors offer). Blaming a union for the thing the company already does seems odd.
      - notahacker 5y ago
        Companies have guidelines. Wage bargaining arrangements negotiated between companies and unions have binding guarantees. One is obviously easier for a company to ignore if it's in their interests to incentivise a staff member than another. Also, company wage setting guidelines are more likely to prioritise "retain and reward the staff we think are best" in the first place. (Obviously unions prioritising things like reducing wage inequality or rewarding the union leaders' core constituency are good for other people's wages instead.) Seems far odder to insist that as companies have some sort of guidelines, unions can take credit for but accept no blame for any of the changes they negotiate whilst formalising them.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > unions can take credit for but accept no blame for any of the changes they negotiate whilst formalising them. Good thing no one said that then! > One is obviously easier for a company to ignore if it's in their interests to incentivise a staff member than another. But in this situation, the offer you're getting is going to be no better than what the other company offers, so if your current company can't match, you don't lose anything.
        notahacker 5y ago
        > But in this situation, the offer you're getting is going to be no better than what the other company offers, so if your current company can't match, you don't lose anything What a strange comment?! Perceived high achievers and high potential talents receive well above company average salaries or salary rises all the time in competitive industries like software, without waiting to see whether that person starts interviewing at other companies and what that offer is! They can't receive well above company average pay offers if the company's collective bargaining arrangement doesn't allow them to offer anything other than the standard union-agreed pay rate even the below average workers get. So they earn less. If a company is willing to pay a person more than they're willing to pay their average and below average staff, but a union rule forces them to pay everyone with that job description the same, that person is obviously earning less money, not more money. I'm genuinely amazed a concept so simple can generate so many objections

notahacker 5y ago

This depends heavily on the industry. If you're a stellar technician specialised in fixing stuff in the only employer in the only industry in town, sure, the company knows you need that job even more than they need you and so you're poorly paid just like all the other technicians. If you're a stellar software developer and your bosses know it, not so much. You can, individually, take your 10x-more-productive skillset to loads of other high paying companies, and that gives you a much better individual negotiating position than "everyone deserves a raise", especially since your colleagues won't go on strike to help you get a new top salary band at a large multiple of what they're earning even if you really deserve it.

joshuamorton 5y ago
This is true whether not not the company you work at is unionized. Ultimately what you appear to be saying that the union is valuable since you'll get paid more until you leave.
- notahacker 5y ago
  No, I'm saying that if you are an above average employee in $role an industry where there is already competitive pressure to offer good wages, a union fixing your wage at the level it is able to negotiate for the average employee in $role will mean you earn less. Until you leave, obviously.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Companies, generally speaking, already have guidelines around what wages they will pay. So to get significantly better pay you need to leave anyway (how often do you get counteroffers that meet or exceed the competitors offer). Blaming a union for the thing the company already does seems odd.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      Companies have guidelines. Wage bargaining arrangements negotiated between companies and unions have binding guarantees. One is obviously easier for a company to ignore if it's in their interests to incentivise a staff member than another. Also, company wage setting guidelines are more likely to prioritise "retain and reward the staff we think are best" in the first place. (Obviously unions prioritising things like reducing wage inequality or rewarding the union leaders' core constituency are good for other people's wages instead.) Seems far odder to insist that as companies have some sort of guidelines, unions can take credit for but accept no blame for any of the changes they negotiate whilst formalising them.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > unions can take credit for but accept no blame for any of the changes they negotiate whilst formalising them. Good thing no one said that then! > One is obviously easier for a company to ignore if it's in their interests to incentivise a staff member than another. But in this situation, the offer you're getting is going to be no better than what the other company offers, so if your current company can't match, you don't lose anything.
        notahacker 5y ago
        > But in this situation, the offer you're getting is going to be no better than what the other company offers, so if your current company can't match, you don't lose anything What a strange comment?! Perceived high achievers and high potential talents receive well above company average salaries or salary rises all the time in competitive industries like software, without waiting to see whether that person starts interviewing at other companies and what that offer is! They can't receive well above company average pay offers if the company's collective bargaining arrangement doesn't allow them to offer anything other than the standard union-agreed pay rate even the below average workers get. So they earn less. If a company is willing to pay a person more than they're willing to pay their average and below average staff, but a union rule forces them to pay everyone with that job description the same, that person is obviously earning less money, not more money. I'm genuinely amazed a concept so simple can generate so many objections