6 ms·

Right to work and its ilk have a very expressed intention of neutering unionization efforts. Keep in mind, that with a proper front for labor to negotiate with

Right to work and its ilk have a very expressed intention of neutering unionization efforts. Keep in mind, that with a proper front for labor to negotiate with firms, compensation is kept at a fair market level. We haven't seen compensation increases in most occupations in 30 years. You, as a worker, are owed a much larger compensation that should be what the market would bear if you were able to negotiate on a much fairer plane with your employer. As IT workers, we are a huge revenue drain compared to other workers on the books, despite any claims to how much 'worth' we might bring to a company. Ideally, for them, those wages will go down. The industry has shown time and again that it will defy the law to keep our pay low and below its true market value.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
Why is collective negotiation fair but non-collective unfair? That feels like a faulty premise.
- Retra 12y ago
  The business negotiates collectively whether you do or not.
- task_queue 12y ago
  You're missing the point. When you are an individual negotiating with a well-lawyered, well-moneyed organization who holds power (your ability to make a living) over you, that is not a negotiation. It is reminiscent of Hobson's choice. A negotiation happens when both sides have a fairer footing in terms of what they have to offer and lose. When a union goes to negotiate with a corporation, their relationship is on an equal footing. This allows for better negotiations in terms of compensation, working conditions, benefits and what not. It is the check and balance that the inequal relationship between a sole worker and a corporation needs.
  - ams6110 12y ago
    You say this as if you get one shot to negotiate with one employer. There are hundreds of employers. Many are in competition with each other, directly if not indirectly. When the union negotiates, they are not representing YOUR interests. They are representing the collective interest of the union. The deal they get will be the minimally acceptible deal that a majority of the membership will accept. You are still not in control.
    - task_queue 12y ago
      As tech workers, we enjoy the libations of a free market working somewhat close to its ideal, except when it doesn't. The industry colludes to depress our wages as a whole (Apple/Google anti-poaching agreement and outsourcing). The industry lobbies to enact legislation that brings our wages down (H1B). The entire system tries to prevent unionization through legislation. If we look at industries that haven't experienced our continued boom, we can see what the future has in store for us as a whole. Depressed wages that haven't increased, decreased to no benefits and a transition from salaried employee to contract work, jobs dissolved by automation and not many options for finding work. We need a front to negotiate with the industry as whole as we are already on the chopping block.
      - mhuffman 12y ago
        All employees from a cashier at McDonald's to the (currently) highly lucrative world of tech workers have the ability to make themselves more valuable to the company for which they work. This can be as simple as always being punctual and available to work and actively learning as much about your job and work environment as possible, to coming up with new ways to save or make the company money. Reality, however, dictates that not everyone can be truly irreplaceable, no matter how hard they try, and that is what takes away bargaining power. The solution to this is not easy and involves learning a new (and hopefully more valuable) skills, or looking for work elsewhere, and I acknowledge that this can be hard in depressed areas of the country. Many are unable or unwilling to do that sort of thing and think that they should not have to. However, just because there is no extra industry in your area should not mean that the existing ones should be muscled by unions to make up the difference. And it is very un-realistic to expect that. Many of the items that you pointed out are (I would argue) directly because of union influence over the years -- automation aside. An employment contract is an agreement between the company and the employee. If the employee is (relatively) unskilled or (relatively) easily replaceable, then the company has more negotiation power because it has the money. I have still not heard a good argument in this entire discussion thread as to why that is evil (it is just assumed to be) and why more is not expected of the employee in the negotiation. It just seems very fashionable, right now, to think of companies as inherently evil.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    Perhaps we're considering different scenarios. Hobson's choice may possibly apply to unskilled or low skilled jobs. So anything that pays less than $50,000/year in the US. Above $50k individuals absolutely have the ability to negotiate. And to do so strongly from a position of power. Good help is hard to find. When you're in the 6 figure range negotiating with huge corporations is the best. Small shops are tight on cash. There's not a lot of wiggle room. For huge corporations there's a lot of room to negotiate. Salary, bonuses, paid time off, and more. It's not crazy to negotiate 50% more compensation than their median offer for a given position.
    - Apocryphon 12y ago
      Doesn't scandals such as the Non-poaching case between Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, etc. reveal that even high-skilled workers aren't immune to the tricks of corporate management?
      - ptaipale 12y ago
        Well, the point about that scandal was that what Apple, Google and others were doing was illegal.
        pgeorgi 12y ago
        But since you can't jail a corporation, all it boils down for Apple, Google and others is a simple financial cost/benefit calculation. And I'm not sure if the class action lawsuit tipped the scale towards not doing such things yet.
    - Retra 12y ago
      What you are worth is not an absolute measure. You would be worth more if you had more power to negotiate your value. If you have more power when you earn more and the people hiring you are incentivized to minimize your earnings, you create a down-ward spiral of value. Why'd you pick $50,000? If I make $40K and with a union I'd make $60K, then obviously I've lost negotiating power.
hawkice 12y ago
> Right to work and its ilk have a very expressed intention of neutering unionization efforts. So, I know very little about Right to Work legislation (essentially I know what the topic being discussed is from the first paragraph of Wikipedia). Without scrying after the motives of those in favor or against, what is the actual concrete problem with Right to Work legislation? What is the concrete benefit? I think it's fair to say a good default is "people can negotiate anything they want", but negotiating monopoly supply of workers seems like it has the potential to be a useful exception (as are most monopoly situations). Like many policy issues, it seems like it'd come down to the details. [Edit: to wit, one question I'd like answered is whether union monopoly supply effects only employers with large numbers of employees or also employers looking to hire only a couple people. I think it is the former, but if, by whatever means, it is all firms, that might be worth stopping.]
- task_queue 12y ago
  A union negotiates a contract with an employer. The employer freely enters that contract, and by signing that contract is giving the written intention of following through with that contract. That contract is mutually beneficial. As employer, you are provided with a pool of selected professionals. As a worker, you are provided with fairer compensation and benefits. Right to work comes in and says those contracts do not have to be honored by the employer and they can break that contract because the law says so. Anyone they employ now enjoys the benefits of that the union spent time and money on negotiating, but the worker does not have to pay dues to enjoy that privilege. Without the union, those privileges wouldn't exist. Any "rational actor" can see that the rational decision is to enjoy the benefits a union brings to the table, without having to pay dues. The counter to this is the argument of freedom of association, saying employers can hire who they want. This sidesteps the fact that employers made the free decision to entire such contracts and chose to stand by its stipulations. Unions do not hold a monopoly on workers. Workers are free to entire and exit contracts with unions or negotiate on their lonesome. Employers have a variety of unions and individuals to pick their employees from.
  - topkai22 12y ago
    Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is totally wrong under US law. According Wikipedia, in the U.S., once a union is certified at an employer that union is the only entity that can "negotiate conditions of employment." That means that employees are at best highly restricted in their ability to negotiate individually with a unionized employer.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mhuffman 12y ago
> Keep in mind, that with a proper front for labor to negotiate with firms, compensation is kept at a fair market level. I have only seen unions bring about a high level of pay for mediocrity, while overpaying for low-skill jobs and underpaying for high-skill jobs. Go to many union firms and the janitors and the engineers make within a few dollars per hour of each other. You can recruit janitors off of the street, and their pay (while I argue , should be livable) should reflect that. You can not do the same for engineers or anyone that needs any amount of expertise or training. However, since unions run on mob mentality, if the engineers want a raise, they have to convince everyone that they all deserve more money. Are you a rock star, saving or making the company big bucks? Too bad bitch, bonuses are out -- can't show favoritism! Are you super lazy and only want to do the very basic minimum of your job requirements and not a bit more? Congratulations, unions are for you! I have never been impressed with a union firm. All of the things that they truly helped with (no child labor, OSHA, minimum wage) are all law now anyway.
- task_queue 12y ago
  You have a caricature of unions in your mind that does not match reality. If you excel, you are given the options for up negotiating your pay. You are given the option to negotiate your bonuses, supplementary pay, time off and what not. If you're a "rockstar", congratulations! Your union has raised the bottom from which you can up negotiate your compensation. Your union will also advocate for things you, as a rockstar super employee, never will be able to. Like your benefits, working conditions and base pay. If the engineers want to raise base pay, they're in an engineering union. They have no one to convince, but have the clout to make it happen. If the engineers at firm X want a raise, they can negotiate with their employer for compensation with the added bonus of a higher base pay to negotiate from. They also have the added benefit of having the union advocate on their behalf if they choose. You haven't worked with a good union. Good unions are known for their quality and skilled professionals, just like good companies are for their products.
  - mhuffman 12y ago
    I have worked at three companies for the Teamsters, and can say unequivocally that they all held me back professionally while keeping people that should not have a job employed. I have never been able to, nor do I personally know any union workers that can negotiate an individual bonus. > If you're a "rockstar", congratulations! Your union has raised the bottom from which you can up negotiate your compensation. Your union will also advocate for things you, as a rockstar super employee, never will be able to. Like your benefits, working conditions and base pay. No they will use my "rockstar" work to negotiate better benefits for all of the employees, as those with more seniority than me enjoy the better benefits and protections even within the union, do to my "rockstar" status. Why should that be? > You haven't worked with a good union. Good unions are known for their quality and skilled professionals, just like good companies are for their products. You seem to know a lot about me, somehow. Show me any modern American union, and I can promise you I will show you how they are holding back their company and better employees for the sake of the mediocrity. I live in an area of the country that still has plenty of unions, and I have witnessed it time and again, as an employee and an observer.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Why is collective negotiation fair but non-collective unfair? That feels like a faulty premise.

Retra 12y ago
The business negotiates collectively whether you do or not.
task_queue 12y ago
You're missing the point. When you are an individual negotiating with a well-lawyered, well-moneyed organization who holds power (your ability to make a living) over you, that is not a negotiation. It is reminiscent of Hobson's choice. A negotiation happens when both sides have a fairer footing in terms of what they have to offer and lose. When a union goes to negotiate with a corporation, their relationship is on an equal footing. This allows for better negotiations in terms of compensation, working conditions, benefits and what not. It is the check and balance that the inequal relationship between a sole worker and a corporation needs.
- ams6110 12y ago
  You say this as if you get one shot to negotiate with one employer. There are hundreds of employers. Many are in competition with each other, directly if not indirectly. When the union negotiates, they are not representing YOUR interests. They are representing the collective interest of the union. The deal they get will be the minimally acceptible deal that a majority of the membership will accept. You are still not in control.
  - task_queue 12y ago
    As tech workers, we enjoy the libations of a free market working somewhat close to its ideal, except when it doesn't. The industry colludes to depress our wages as a whole (Apple/Google anti-poaching agreement and outsourcing). The industry lobbies to enact legislation that brings our wages down (H1B). The entire system tries to prevent unionization through legislation. If we look at industries that haven't experienced our continued boom, we can see what the future has in store for us as a whole. Depressed wages that haven't increased, decreased to no benefits and a transition from salaried employee to contract work, jobs dissolved by automation and not many options for finding work. We need a front to negotiate with the industry as whole as we are already on the chopping block.
    - mhuffman 12y ago
      All employees from a cashier at McDonald's to the (currently) highly lucrative world of tech workers have the ability to make themselves more valuable to the company for which they work. This can be as simple as always being punctual and available to work and actively learning as much about your job and work environment as possible, to coming up with new ways to save or make the company money. Reality, however, dictates that not everyone can be truly irreplaceable, no matter how hard they try, and that is what takes away bargaining power. The solution to this is not easy and involves learning a new (and hopefully more valuable) skills, or looking for work elsewhere, and I acknowledge that this can be hard in depressed areas of the country. Many are unable or unwilling to do that sort of thing and think that they should not have to. However, just because there is no extra industry in your area should not mean that the existing ones should be muscled by unions to make up the difference. And it is very un-realistic to expect that. Many of the items that you pointed out are (I would argue) directly because of union influence over the years -- automation aside. An employment contract is an agreement between the company and the employee. If the employee is (relatively) unskilled or (relatively) easily replaceable, then the company has more negotiation power because it has the money. I have still not heard a good argument in this entire discussion thread as to why that is evil (it is just assumed to be) and why more is not expected of the employee in the negotiation. It just seems very fashionable, right now, to think of companies as inherently evil.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  Perhaps we're considering different scenarios. Hobson's choice may possibly apply to unskilled or low skilled jobs. So anything that pays less than $50,000/year in the US. Above $50k individuals absolutely have the ability to negotiate. And to do so strongly from a position of power. Good help is hard to find. When you're in the 6 figure range negotiating with huge corporations is the best. Small shops are tight on cash. There's not a lot of wiggle room. For huge corporations there's a lot of room to negotiate. Salary, bonuses, paid time off, and more. It's not crazy to negotiate 50% more compensation than their median offer for a given position.
  - Apocryphon 12y ago
    Doesn't scandals such as the Non-poaching case between Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, etc. reveal that even high-skilled workers aren't immune to the tricks of corporate management?
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      Well, the point about that scandal was that what Apple, Google and others were doing was illegal.
      - pgeorgi 12y ago
        But since you can't jail a corporation, all it boils down for Apple, Google and others is a simple financial cost/benefit calculation. And I'm not sure if the class action lawsuit tipped the scale towards not doing such things yet.
  - Retra 12y ago
    What you are worth is not an absolute measure. You would be worth more if you had more power to negotiate your value. If you have more power when you earn more and the people hiring you are incentivized to minimize your earnings, you create a down-ward spiral of value. Why'd you pick $50,000? If I make $40K and with a union I'd make $60K, then obviously I've lost negotiating power.

hawkice 12y ago

> Right to work and its ilk have a very expressed intention of neutering unionization efforts. So, I know very little about Right to Work legislation (essentially I know what the topic being discussed is from the first paragraph of Wikipedia). Without scrying after the motives of those in favor or against, what is the actual concrete problem with Right to Work legislation? What is the concrete benefit? I think it's fair to say a good default is "people can negotiate anything they want", but negotiating monopoly supply of workers seems like it has the potential to be a useful exception (as are most monopoly situations). Like many policy issues, it seems like it'd come down to the details. [Edit: to wit, one question I'd like answered is whether union monopoly supply effects only employers with large numbers of employees or also employers looking to hire only a couple people. I think it is the former, but if, by whatever means, it is all firms, that might be worth stopping.]

task_queue 12y ago
A union negotiates a contract with an employer. The employer freely enters that contract, and by signing that contract is giving the written intention of following through with that contract. That contract is mutually beneficial. As employer, you are provided with a pool of selected professionals. As a worker, you are provided with fairer compensation and benefits. Right to work comes in and says those contracts do not have to be honored by the employer and they can break that contract because the law says so. Anyone they employ now enjoys the benefits of that the union spent time and money on negotiating, but the worker does not have to pay dues to enjoy that privilege. Without the union, those privileges wouldn't exist. Any "rational actor" can see that the rational decision is to enjoy the benefits a union brings to the table, without having to pay dues. The counter to this is the argument of freedom of association, saying employers can hire who they want. This sidesteps the fact that employers made the free decision to entire such contracts and chose to stand by its stipulations. Unions do not hold a monopoly on workers. Workers are free to entire and exit contracts with unions or negotiate on their lonesome. Employers have a variety of unions and individuals to pick their employees from.
- topkai22 12y ago
  Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is totally wrong under US law. According Wikipedia, in the U.S., once a union is certified at an employer that union is the only entity that can "negotiate conditions of employment." That means that employees are at best highly restricted in their ability to negotiate individually with a unionized employer.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mhuffman 12y ago

> Keep in mind, that with a proper front for labor to negotiate with firms, compensation is kept at a fair market level. I have only seen unions bring about a high level of pay for mediocrity, while overpaying for low-skill jobs and underpaying for high-skill jobs. Go to many union firms and the janitors and the engineers make within a few dollars per hour of each other. You can recruit janitors off of the street, and their pay (while I argue , should be livable) should reflect that. You can not do the same for engineers or anyone that needs any amount of expertise or training. However, since unions run on mob mentality, if the engineers want a raise, they have to convince everyone that they all deserve more money. Are you a rock star, saving or making the company big bucks? Too bad bitch, bonuses are out -- can't show favoritism! Are you super lazy and only want to do the very basic minimum of your job requirements and not a bit more? Congratulations, unions are for you! I have never been impressed with a union firm. All of the things that they truly helped with (no child labor, OSHA, minimum wage) are all law now anyway.

task_queue 12y ago
You have a caricature of unions in your mind that does not match reality. If you excel, you are given the options for up negotiating your pay. You are given the option to negotiate your bonuses, supplementary pay, time off and what not. If you're a "rockstar", congratulations! Your union has raised the bottom from which you can up negotiate your compensation. Your union will also advocate for things you, as a rockstar super employee, never will be able to. Like your benefits, working conditions and base pay. If the engineers want to raise base pay, they're in an engineering union. They have no one to convince, but have the clout to make it happen. If the engineers at firm X want a raise, they can negotiate with their employer for compensation with the added bonus of a higher base pay to negotiate from. They also have the added benefit of having the union advocate on their behalf if they choose. You haven't worked with a good union. Good unions are known for their quality and skilled professionals, just like good companies are for their products.
- mhuffman 12y ago
  I have worked at three companies for the Teamsters, and can say unequivocally that they all held me back professionally while keeping people that should not have a job employed. I have never been able to, nor do I personally know any union workers that can negotiate an individual bonus. > If you're a "rockstar", congratulations! Your union has raised the bottom from which you can up negotiate your compensation. Your union will also advocate for things you, as a rockstar super employee, never will be able to. Like your benefits, working conditions and base pay. No they will use my "rockstar" work to negotiate better benefits for all of the employees, as those with more seniority than me enjoy the better benefits and protections even within the union, do to my "rockstar" status. Why should that be? > You haven't worked with a good union. Good unions are known for their quality and skilled professionals, just like good companies are for their products. You seem to know a lot about me, somehow. Show me any modern American union, and I can promise you I will show you how they are holding back their company and better employees for the sake of the mediocrity. I live in an area of the country that still has plenty of unions, and I have witnessed it time and again, as an employee and an observer.