4 ms·

Are you going to force people to join?

debacle 14y ago
No, I wouldn't see any reason to. Having a union that endorses members will create a professional body that is superior to non-unioned workers, making being part of the union a clear advantage.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  I'm not following how being a member of a union would make me any better than a non-union worker; thus I am not seeing the clear advantage of membership being a positive endorsement to me. "Having a union that endorses members" doesn't lead directly to the creation of "a professional body that is superior to non-unioned workers". IT/IS workers are usually considered "superior" (and thus more marketable) based on the degree of their knowledge and the effectiveness of their problem solving skills, to which membership in a collective bargaining society adds neither. Perhaps rather than forcing people to join, you want to force employers to exclude non-members? So that rather than being "under management's thumb" I can be under the "union's protection"?
  - padraigm 14y ago
    I think your parent's point was that if the union can guarantee that its members are high-quality, it will have a lot of leverage to negotiate with employers. A union taking that approach doesn't need to stipulate that employers only employ union workers or anything like that; it simply says "all of the best people work for us - if you want to hire them, you have to agree to our terms (re. salary, benefits, working conditions, etc).
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      "Having a union that endorses members will create a professional body that is superior to non-unioned workers" looks (to me) like an assertion that the value is in the union endorsement (and that it thus create the professional body), as opposed to the workers themselves. As I've asserted, information workers are valued for their knowledge and problem solving skills, so unless this hypothetical union were going to certify people as having certain knowledge and problem solving skills and include/exclude members based on that certification (or give them a grading level), it will be meaningless as a value indicator to any employer. If I think the level they give me is too low, I won't be likely to stay associated with them. If employers think they rate people too high, they'll avoid them also. If the "professional" union is just a middleman, I'd prefer not to have it, and I'm fairly certain sure employers wouldn't either. Of course, professional bodies (outside of trade organizations) exist like this, but they are called consulting companies.

No, I wouldn't see any reason to. Having a union that endorses members will create a professional body that is superior to non-unioned workers, making being part of the union a clear advantage.

sageikosa 14y ago
I'm not following how being a member of a union would make me any better than a non-union worker; thus I am not seeing the clear advantage of membership being a positive endorsement to me. "Having a union that endorses members" doesn't lead directly to the creation of "a professional body that is superior to non-unioned workers". IT/IS workers are usually considered "superior" (and thus more marketable) based on the degree of their knowledge and the effectiveness of their problem solving skills, to which membership in a collective bargaining society adds neither. Perhaps rather than forcing people to join, you want to force employers to exclude non-members? So that rather than being "under management's thumb" I can be under the "union's protection"?
- padraigm 14y ago
  I think your parent's point was that if the union can guarantee that its members are high-quality, it will have a lot of leverage to negotiate with employers. A union taking that approach doesn't need to stipulate that employers only employ union workers or anything like that; it simply says "all of the best people work for us - if you want to hire them, you have to agree to our terms (re. salary, benefits, working conditions, etc).
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    "Having a union that endorses members will create a professional body that is superior to non-unioned workers" looks (to me) like an assertion that the value is in the union endorsement (and that it thus create the professional body), as opposed to the workers themselves. As I've asserted, information workers are valued for their knowledge and problem solving skills, so unless this hypothetical union were going to certify people as having certain knowledge and problem solving skills and include/exclude members based on that certification (or give them a grading level), it will be meaningless as a value indicator to any employer. If I think the level they give me is too low, I won't be likely to stay associated with them. If employers think they rate people too high, they'll avoid them also. If the "professional" union is just a middleman, I'd prefer not to have it, and I'm fairly certain sure employers wouldn't either. Of course, professional bodies (outside of trade organizations) exist like this, but they are called consulting companies.