3 ms·

"Unions give skilled labor immensely greater negotiation leverage, as the alternative for employers would be hiring lower skilled workers." Most higher-skilled

"Unions give skilled labor immensely greater negotiation leverage, as the alternative for employers would be hiring lower skilled workers." Most higher-skilled employees want to maximize their pay. A union isn't the way to do it. Why? Because if you get a raise, everyone in your position also has to get a raise. Why would I even want to try any harder if I know I will be limited by other people in my company? We would still have startups, but the days would be over for 2 guys in a garage starting a successful company. Because of the regulations involved, the only people that would be able to start a company already would need to have lots of money. IE: big companies. But big companies would love the idea because it prevents competition.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Most higher-skilled employees want to maximize their pay. A union isn't the way to do it. Why? Because if you get a raise, everyone in your position also has to get a raise. That's not correct. Union contracts do not universally (or even normally) require all people in the same position to get the same pay. They may require objective criteria or standardized processes and established ranges for compensation for certain positions, but that's not the same thing at all.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "They may require objective criteria or standardized processes and established ranges for compensation for certain positions, but that's not the same thing at all." In theory, you might be correct. But practice is much different. My Uncle wanted to get a raise. He couldn't just ask for one. He had to go to the Union board who then had to talk to company management to not only give him a raise, but everyone else in his department that had the same position. This is what I'm talking about. It creates other problems as well. In Denmark, for instance, youth and lower-skilled people just aren't being hired. Why? Because it takes a literal court case with the union and the company to fire someone. So, companies don't want to take risks on employees that they don't think will work out in the end. The sad thing is that unions will destroy competition and then the same people that fought to get the unions in place will then start crying about busting up the same monopolies that they created. Just like how unions fought for a $15/hour wage increase, but they are exempt. They fought for government-run healthcare, but yet again, they are also exempt from the dues. I guess I'm tired of seeing people blindly giving all of their power away to the many greedy organizations that call themselves unions.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In theory, you might be correct. But practice is much different. I'm quite familiar with real union IT positions that exist now (and are even more bureaucratically limited than the minimum for union positions, because they are also public sector positions), and they don't require this "everyone in a given title in a department must have the same wage". > My Uncle wanted to get a raise. He couldn't just ask for one. He had to go to the Union board who then had to talk to company management to not only give him a raise, but everyone else in his department that had the same position. This is what I'm talking about. Sure, there may be some union contracts, for some type of jobs, which require everyone in a firm with the same classification to be paid exactly the same. And, yes, union contracts as a rule prohibit individually-negotiated compensation, even where (as they usually do) they permit individual variations in compensation (usually, with defined criteria and processes.) That's kind of the whole point of collective bargaining.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Most higher-skilled employees want to maximize their pay. A union isn't the way to do it. Why? Because if you get a raise, everyone in your position also has to get a raise. That's not correct. Union contracts do not universally (or even normally) require all people in the same position to get the same pay. They may require objective criteria or standardized processes and established ranges for compensation for certain positions, but that's not the same thing at all.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"They may require objective criteria or standardized processes and established ranges for compensation for certain positions, but that's not the same thing at all." In theory, you might be correct. But practice is much different. My Uncle wanted to get a raise. He couldn't just ask for one. He had to go to the Union board who then had to talk to company management to not only give him a raise, but everyone else in his department that had the same position. This is what I'm talking about. It creates other problems as well. In Denmark, for instance, youth and lower-skilled people just aren't being hired. Why? Because it takes a literal court case with the union and the company to fire someone. So, companies don't want to take risks on employees that they don't think will work out in the end. The sad thing is that unions will destroy competition and then the same people that fought to get the unions in place will then start crying about busting up the same monopolies that they created. Just like how unions fought for a $15/hour wage increase, but they are exempt. They fought for government-run healthcare, but yet again, they are also exempt from the dues. I guess I'm tired of seeing people blindly giving all of their power away to the many greedy organizations that call themselves unions.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > In theory, you might be correct. But practice is much different. I'm quite familiar with real union IT positions that exist now (and are even more bureaucratically limited than the minimum for union positions, because they are also public sector positions), and they don't require this "everyone in a given title in a department must have the same wage". > My Uncle wanted to get a raise. He couldn't just ask for one. He had to go to the Union board who then had to talk to company management to not only give him a raise, but everyone else in his department that had the same position. This is what I'm talking about. Sure, there may be some union contracts, for some type of jobs, which require everyone in a firm with the same classification to be paid exactly the same. And, yes, union contracts as a rule prohibit individually-negotiated compensation, even where (as they usually do) they permit individual variations in compensation (usually, with defined criteria and processes.) That's kind of the whole point of collective bargaining.