3 ms·

To bring a counterpoint, it does not match mine (but I do not live in the USA). My salary is actually higher that the minimum (established by collective agreem

by chronid 12y ago

To bring a counterpoint, it does not match mine (but I do not live in the USA). My salary is actually higher that the minimum (established by collective agreement) for my job. The union just negotiates the lower bound. If your company values you more than that, they can always pay you more. Or promote you. Nothing stops them to do so.

ptaipale 12y ago
I guess this depends on local legislation. It is possible that in some places the law/collective agreement says that you cannot pay more.
maxharris 12y ago
Nothing stops them to do so. Except the fact that at any given moment, the company only has $X to pay you from, and the union makes it so that they have some amount less: $X - n.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  For some reason, this logic never seems to apply upper management salaries - irrespective of competence or achievement. Here's the reality - the C-suite is already informally unionised. There's no explicit union structure, but there's a very cosy network of personal relationships, social signals, and ethical assumptions which relies on rhetoric like "We should pay talent what it's worth" to make sure that executive-level comp only shrinks in exceptional and rare cases. Unionisation may not be the most perfect balance to that, but it's much better than any alternative which amounts to "Eh, let's just do nothing."
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    This is because upper management has an imbalance of power, agreed. But it seems to me that unionisation ultimately gives management additional power - when the management can re-direct employees to the bureaucracy of the union structure - where the union has negotiated protection for their own upper management - rather than manage with them as individuals with individual circumstances.
    - Apocryphon 12y ago
      But they don't already manage them as individuals as individual circumstances. They manage them as interchangeable pieces who have weakly singular leverage.

by chronid 12y ago

ptaipale 12y ago

I guess this depends on local legislation. It is possible that in some places the law/collective agreement says that you cannot pay more.

maxharris 12y ago

Nothing stops them to do so. Except the fact that at any given moment, the company only has $X to pay you from, and the union makes it so that they have some amount less: $X - n.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
For some reason, this logic never seems to apply upper management salaries - irrespective of competence or achievement. Here's the reality - the C-suite is already informally unionised. There's no explicit union structure, but there's a very cosy network of personal relationships, social signals, and ethical assumptions which relies on rhetoric like "We should pay talent what it's worth" to make sure that executive-level comp only shrinks in exceptional and rare cases. Unionisation may not be the most perfect balance to that, but it's much better than any alternative which amounts to "Eh, let's just do nothing."
- learnstats2 12y ago
  This is because upper management has an imbalance of power, agreed. But it seems to me that unionisation ultimately gives management additional power - when the management can re-direct employees to the bureaucracy of the union structure - where the union has negotiated protection for their own upper management - rather than manage with them as individuals with individual circumstances.
  - Apocryphon 12y ago
    But they don't already manage them as individuals as individual circumstances. They manage them as interchangeable pieces who have weakly singular leverage.