3 ms·

>>Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better withou

by kamaal 2y ago

>>Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile. You are arguing against the very idea of a Union. The whole point of a union is people sticking together for long to tend to each other's interests. Why should a union reward someone known to be a grifter?

pc86 2y ago
Who is a grifter in this scenario? I have no interest in rewarding Adam just because he happened to be born 3 years before Bob.
- kamaal 2y ago
  If Adam was there with the Union for 3 more years, then union obviously rewards Adam more than Bob. The word 'Union' itself means a association of people with a purpose of taking care of each other. You are free to not be a part of such an arrangement. But that doesn't mean that the association is wrong, or its members shouldn't look after each other, or they are wrong to do so. In fact you are free to do whatever you want, and they are free to what they want. Its just history shows that if you can win big individually(outlier) you are not likely to love unions. But very few people can be outliers so for the bulk of the human race unions work just fine. You tend to do well on the average on the longer run.
creer 2y ago
The people with stake in the game (seniority, been together longer) can stick together and continue to drive what they think has worked for them (seniority). I haven't needed to mention skill or effort or initiative one bit here. While the newcomers have little stake in the game, perhaps don't even vote, vote in dispersed order, etc.
itsoktocry 2y ago
>The whole point of a union is people sticking together for long to tend to each other's interests. I spent almost a decade doing union labour in Canada (auto industry). The idea that they "stick together" any more than any other group is not my experience. During one of our negotiations, the company proposed making everyone hired after a certain start date a "temporary employee" (no benefits, lower pay, can be laid off or recalled with 24h notice). This would affect 25% of the employees. In return, the company offered a bigger signing bonus: $2500 vs the usual $1000. The union leadership recommended voting against the contract; the fact they even brought it to the table is crazy. And the union membership voted it in anyway. Screwed over fellow workers for $1500 a head. It was that easy. Us "temporary workers" were now working beside people making 30% more money, doing the same job but facing more uncertainty. We were gradually laid off over a couple years, all in the name of "corporate viability". I had spent years hearing about "solidarity", but the second an extra paycheque was on the table no one cared about their "union brother". Joke's on that union, I guess: the plant closed during the 2008 financial crisis and everyone lost their job. Hope that $1500 lasted!

by kamaal 2y ago

pc86 2y ago

Who is a grifter in this scenario? I have no interest in rewarding Adam just because he happened to be born 3 years before Bob.

kamaal 2y ago
If Adam was there with the Union for 3 more years, then union obviously rewards Adam more than Bob. The word 'Union' itself means a association of people with a purpose of taking care of each other. You are free to not be a part of such an arrangement. But that doesn't mean that the association is wrong, or its members shouldn't look after each other, or they are wrong to do so. In fact you are free to do whatever you want, and they are free to what they want. Its just history shows that if you can win big individually(outlier) you are not likely to love unions. But very few people can be outliers so for the bulk of the human race unions work just fine. You tend to do well on the average on the longer run.

creer 2y ago

The people with stake in the game (seniority, been together longer) can stick together and continue to drive what they think has worked for them (seniority). I haven't needed to mention skill or effort or initiative one bit here. While the newcomers have little stake in the game, perhaps don't even vote, vote in dispersed order, etc.

itsoktocry 2y ago

>The whole point of a union is people sticking together for long to tend to each other's interests. I spent almost a decade doing union labour in Canada (auto industry). The idea that they "stick together" any more than any other group is not my experience. During one of our negotiations, the company proposed making everyone hired after a certain start date a "temporary employee" (no benefits, lower pay, can be laid off or recalled with 24h notice). This would affect 25% of the employees. In return, the company offered a bigger signing bonus: $2500 vs the usual $1000. The union leadership recommended voting against the contract; the fact they even brought it to the table is crazy. And the union membership voted it in anyway. Screwed over fellow workers for $1500 a head. It was that easy. Us "temporary workers" were now working beside people making 30% more money, doing the same job but facing more uncertainty. We were gradually laid off over a couple years, all in the name of "corporate viability". I had spent years hearing about "solidarity", but the second an extra paycheque was on the table no one cared about their "union brother". Joke's on that union, I guess: the plant closed during the 2008 financial crisis and everyone lost their job. Hope that $1500 lasted!