I can't see how unions are good for anybody. They certainly seem to have crippled GM for a long time. If the workers force the company into unreasonable levels of benefits, it falters and they eventually lose their jobs.
I'm all for fair play and sensible regulations, but if the company can't forbid the workers from quitting, I don't see how it's fair that the workers can forbid the company from hiring someone else.
I much prefer being on my own for negotiations. I intend to be one of the best workers; why tie my fate to the average? And why tie the company to me if they can find a better employee?
GM crippled themselves with terribly designed automobiles that no one wanted to purchase.
Power and information asymmetry are the rule when you are negotiating with your boss independently. He knows what the other employees at your company make. You do not.
That's a funny statement, given that GM, even in their crippled state, is the 1st or 2nd largest seller of autos in the world (Toyota and GM have traded places a few times this year, I think?). For terribly designed autos that nobody wanted to purchase, SALES obviously wasn't a big problem for them.
I find it sad that this comment gets downvotes, and disappointed in the HNers who did so. This comment is not trolling or pointless, but rather is well spoken and makes an excellent counter to a pro-union argument. A comment should never be buried just because you disagree with someone's values.
Starting your "excellent counter" argument with the words, "I can't see how unions are good for anybody," is Newt Gingrich level debating. If not that, it at least portrays a lack of imagination.
So because GMs sucked, there is no such thing as success and they aren't "good for anybody." What was the GM CEO's salary doing during this crippling period?
Many things that are decided today based upon merit or by management discretion become tenure based. That is good and bad.
The good:
- Your contract will require things to be done in a fair and equitable way, per the contract.
- Your pay will be more predictable.
- Benefits will probably be better.
- You will have an advocate in the event of a dispute.
The bad:
- Your contract will require things to be done in a fair and equitable way, per the contract.
- Everyone has an incentive to stick around.
- Certain types of people are very good at manipulating systems to their benefit. (This is present in all organizations, but the dynamic is different with a union)
I've worked in union positions in the past. IMO, the best thing about it is that there are no secrets with regard to compensation.
The main "good" bullet point that I think we're missing in tech isn't so much the pay as some sort of collective advocacy on onerous contract provisions. If you're very much in demand, you can cross out parts of your employment contract individually, but it's often hard to individually negotiate those kinds of variances, while lots of people negotiating together could probably get a more reasonable deal.
The alternative is to negotiate really collectively at the government level and outright ban the onerous contract provisions, like California's done with many forms of noncompetes.
And now you have two bosses and two problems. I recommend watching "Waiting For Superman" to see how the teacher's union impedes innovation in education.
