5 ms·

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)

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.
    - task_queue 12y ago
      There was no evil implied. I am stating facts about how the industry works against labor. "Being irreplaceable" is a pipe dream. If you've found yourself in an irreplaceable role in a company, you've got incompetent management. If all you have to offer is your skill and time, you can be replaced. The point is that in negotiations, you are at a disadvantage solely because you are an individual. Your class states that employers expect to pay you between X dollars and Y dollars with some wiggle room. As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years. If you excel, you still have a higher base from which to negotiate from. > 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. No one is muscled into anything. Employers freely choose to enter contracts with unions. The issue is that some employers do not want to make good on the stipulations they agreed to. It's unrealistic to think that labor should remain divided to be conquered, as the tides in the past pushed for organized labor until it was neutered by legislation. >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. Things that are negotiable on a individual level are left up to the employee to suss out of their employer. Bonuses, supplementary pay, extra time off are usually up to you to negotiate. Items that are negotiable on a class level are left to unions. Base pay for employees, working conditions, employee benefits etc are not individually negotiable. No organization is going to bend over backwards for one employee at the bottom of the totem pole. It takes a group of people (the corporation) to provide those basic niceties and it takes a group of people (the union) to advocate and use its weight in negotiation to ensure their members are provided with them.
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.

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.
  - task_queue 12y ago
    There was no evil implied. I am stating facts about how the industry works against labor. "Being irreplaceable" is a pipe dream. If you've found yourself in an irreplaceable role in a company, you've got incompetent management. If all you have to offer is your skill and time, you can be replaced. The point is that in negotiations, you are at a disadvantage solely because you are an individual. Your class states that employers expect to pay you between X dollars and Y dollars with some wiggle room. As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years. If you excel, you still have a higher base from which to negotiate from. > 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. No one is muscled into anything. Employers freely choose to enter contracts with unions. The issue is that some employers do not want to make good on the stipulations they agreed to. It's unrealistic to think that labor should remain divided to be conquered, as the tides in the past pushed for organized labor until it was neutered by legislation. >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. Things that are negotiable on a individual level are left up to the employee to suss out of their employer. Bonuses, supplementary pay, extra time off are usually up to you to negotiate. Items that are negotiable on a class level are left to unions. Base pay for employees, working conditions, employee benefits etc are not individually negotiable. No organization is going to bend over backwards for one employee at the bottom of the totem pole. It takes a group of people (the corporation) to provide those basic niceties and it takes a group of people (the union) to advocate and use its weight in negotiation to ensure their members are provided with them.

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.