6 ms·

>These days I reside in a country which has unions everywhere - including in engineering disciplines. And everyone who wants to increase their salary runs away

>These days I reside in a country which has unions everywhere - including in engineering disciplines. And everyone who wants to increase their salary runs away from union and unionized workplaces as far away and as quickly away as possible. Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm >It CAN happen? Why hasn't it, except for guilds (which you rightfully group with business owners)? I can tell you why it didn't happen in unions I'm familiar with: The union representatives who negotiate on behalf of the employees and the people who can score a >$200k salary are mutually exclusive groups. In fact, they negotiators are usually those who wouldn't score more than the prevailing average in an industry. Why are union members usually people with low salaries? Simple. Only the least skilled are desperate enough to form unions. They have to do it in a sense. Software engineers are complacent with their super high salaries, not knowing that their 120k annual salary is based off work that generates 1 million in monthly revenue. Thanks to the lack of unions, if you try to negotiate a more than fair 500k annual salary the company will shoot you down. Due to another idiot SE in the world who thinks he's only worth 120k, you're easily replaced without a union backing you up. >At which point, they are happy to sign an agreement for just 5% than the prevailing average - and they do so in the name of the more capable employees as well. There's no need to negotiate upper limits on pay. There also should be no need to end individual negotiations. If unions aren't currently structured in a way that benefits the employee then the structure of what we consider to be a union should be changed. >Other things that happen is stuff like management requesting the union to agree that "no employee will be paid higher than their manager". Which union officials always agree to (for various reasons), and which causes your most productive employees - those who are at the top of their fields but not anywhere near the top of the managerial ladder - to abandon ship. why does this need to be agreed too? There's no need for this to be agreed to at all. No upper limits to salary. Who wants that? Union members should vote for what they want. Union officials should be held accountable every decision they make. Only lower limits on salary should be negotiated with the union and employer. The actual salary should be a separate negotiation between employee and employer. IF unions aren't structured that way then they should be. The government shouldn't decide on some arbitrary hierarchy for a union that ends up not benefiting people. People acting together in organized groups generally don't want to fuck themselves over with stupid things like upper limits to salary and ending all individual negotiations with the employer.

beagle3 11y ago
I see. You're arguing that some theoretical, immaculate, incorruptible organization that represents employees selflessly (with no regards to the negotiator's own status, for example) would be better than what we have now. Well, yes. But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. > Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm No, but they do negotiate higher salaries for people who can't find a better job, at the expense of lower salaries for the top earners. > There's no need to negotiate upper limits on pay. There also should be no need to end individual negotiations. If unions aren't currently structured in a way that benefits the employee then the structure of what we consider to be a union should be changed. Oh, but there is a need - the corporate's need, of course - which the corporate demands and enforces, and the union representatives usually agree one way or the other - often legally bribed. You imply that all the bargaining power is with the employees, and that is simply not the case. > IF unions aren't structured that way then they should be. The government shouldn't decide on some arbitrary hierarchy for a union that ends up not benefiting people. People acting together in organized groups generally don't want to fuck themselves over with stupid things like upper limits to salary and ending all individual negotiations with the employer. Try to reconcile this statement with all the things your government does that fuck you over, which surely yourself (and a large group, some of it well organized) does not want. When you've reconciled it, you might have some insight about why you are wrong, or about how to set the right kind of union/government -- if it's the latter, I'll vote for you. But the former is overwhelmingly more likely.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  > But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. So you agree, but you think this is an ideal not worth fighting for because the probability of success is way to low. I can't argue with that since that's an opinion. From my perspective though, we have a better chance making these "ideal" unions happen then we have of stopping the polar ice caps from completely melting. Higher pay is something we all want. And by "all" I mean the 99%. If 99% of people can't fight for something they want then we can't do anything.

beagle3 11y ago

I see. You're arguing that some theoretical, immaculate, incorruptible organization that represents employees selflessly (with no regards to the negotiator's own status, for example) would be better than what we have now. Well, yes. But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. > Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm No, but they do negotiate higher salaries for people who can't find a better job, at the expense of lower salaries for the top earners. > There's no need to negotiate upper limits on pay. There also should be no need to end individual negotiations. If unions aren't currently structured in a way that benefits the employee then the structure of what we consider to be a union should be changed. Oh, but there is a need - the corporate's need, of course - which the corporate demands and enforces, and the union representatives usually agree one way or the other - often legally bribed. You imply that all the bargaining power is with the employees, and that is simply not the case. > IF unions aren't structured that way then they should be. The government shouldn't decide on some arbitrary hierarchy for a union that ends up not benefiting people. People acting together in organized groups generally don't want to fuck themselves over with stupid things like upper limits to salary and ending all individual negotiations with the employer. Try to reconcile this statement with all the things your government does that fuck you over, which surely yourself (and a large group, some of it well organized) does not want. When you've reconciled it, you might have some insight about why you are wrong, or about how to set the right kind of union/government -- if it's the latter, I'll vote for you. But the former is overwhelmingly more likely.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
> But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. So you agree, but you think this is an ideal not worth fighting for because the probability of success is way to low. I can't argue with that since that's an opinion. From my perspective though, we have a better chance making these "ideal" unions happen then we have of stopping the polar ice caps from completely melting. Higher pay is something we all want. And by "all" I mean the 99%. If 99% of people can't fight for something they want then we can't do anything.