6 ms·

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

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
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > but a union rule forces them to pay everyone with that job description the same Why would we advocate for this though? You keep making the claim that unions would advocate for more and more restrictive policies. First it was guidelines, now it's strictly regimented salaries with no room for performance based pay at all. You're generating objections because you keep changing your argument. Yes, paying everyone exactly the same is probably not a good idea. But no one is advocating for this, so who cares?
        notahacker 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
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > but a union rule forces them to pay everyone with that job description the same Why would we advocate for this though? You keep making the claim that unions would advocate for more and more restrictive policies. First it was guidelines, now it's strictly regimented salaries with no room for performance based pay at all. You're generating objections because you keep changing your argument. Yes, paying everyone exactly the same is probably not a good idea. But no one is advocating for this, so who cares?
        notahacker 5y ago