3 ms·
The thing is, it used to be standard for full-time employees to get a full stock share, but that was bargained away --- anyone know the rationale?
by WillAdams 2y ago
The thing is, it used to be standard for full-time employees to get a full stock share, but that was bargained away --- anyone know the rationale?
- maxk42 2y agoI do not know the rationale, but this is the flip side of collective bargaining: if someone makes a bad deal on my behalf I can no longer deal directly with my employer.
- nielsbot 2y agoHard for me to imagine any cases where the union does a worse deal on your behalf than you did yourself. Maybe you're talking about only compensation? Unions bargain for more than just compensation: better healthcare, parental leave, more sick days, caps on hours worked, etc. In aggregate unions exist to get a bigger share of a company's profits for its workers. (Instead of executives and investors) But if you have examples, I'd love to read about them.
- nielsbot 2y agoBargained away? Which union did that and for what company?
- WillAdams 2y agoWhen I started at Amazon full-time employees got a stock unit (once vested), when I came back, that was no longer an option.
- nielsbot 2y agoThat’s because of the lack of a union. Companies can’t just remove benefits that are in a union-bargained contract. (Assuming that would have been one.)