4 ms·
If you're top of your field you benefit more by being judged as an individual not a part of a union. Unions are only a major benefit for work where you can't e
by whywhywhywhy 5y ago
If you're top of your field you benefit more by being judged as an individual not a part of a union.
Unions are only a major benefit for work where you can't excel and talent and skill are less of a differentiator.
- aylmao 5y agoThere's problems with this argument. Here are three: 1. It disproportionally affects those who have no other option. There's hero stories of pregnant woman outperforming up until the day they deliver, but this is hard to achieve and there's even a factor of "luck" involved. Some pregnancies are more tranquil, others are riddled with visits to the doctor, morning sickness, aches, pains, allergies, sleep problems, emotional swings, rashes, etc. It's hard to be "top of your field" when there's another human growing inside you. 2. This argument assumes skills are perfectly measured and employee benefits are based solely on skills. Even in the most objective companies there's subjectivity and politics. Not everyone has the skills or time to bargain. Not everyone shares hobbies or values with the boss, and wants to create a close relationship with them. 3. If the base compensation for all employees in a field rises, the compensation for out-performers will likely rise too. One can't assume "only" benefits those who "can't excel" at their job.