If I negotiate a contract with a child for them to work for me, it is illegal because we realize the power difference between the average child and average adult is bad enough to justify banning child labor. Yet the power difference between trained negotiators and the average job seeker is as big a gap.
Precisely, and that job seeker may be completely oblivious to the fact that the employer may be offering 100 but actually pays 200 to all workers on similar positions within the company filled by less qualified people, and may have some urgency trying to fill the job opening.
As the job seeker falls victim tho the information asymmetry, he proceeds to get screwed over and receive half of what he would otherwise get.
I do like the trend towards enabling anonymous wage transparency here.
Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control.
E.g. A $15/hour worker considering a union weighs the possibilities: a raise of wages to $20/hour or a reduction to $0/hour because there are no jobs at all.
That's the complicated calculation. Union representation can negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement to raise wages but a union can't guarantee the existence of the jobs[1] to pay those wages. Many employees know this which is why they reject unions. UAW has tried to unionize workers at Toyota in Kentucky for decades and failed. Nissan workers in Mississippi just rejected a union vote last month. FedEx Freight drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania recently voted and decertified their union in July 2017 after voting for it in 2014.
Some workers genuinely feel a union will make their economic lives worse. The unions' promises of better wages mean nothing if the plant closes and workers weigh that possibility when rejecting union representation. What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers?
[1] examples:
Seattle union can't stop Boeing from locating the new 787 Dreamliner factory in South Carolina with no unions.
Steelworkers union in Indianapolis doesn't stop Rexnard from eliminating $25/hour jobs which cost more than $3/hour jobs in Mexico.
Nabisco (Oreo cookies, etc) moves production to Mexico instead of keeping the higher wage union jobs in Chicago.
The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens.
If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem.
A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages. The odds of a negotiation between a candidate and a HR representative benefiting the candidate are fare more favorable to the candidate if he has at his side someone who is informed about the company's hiring practices and salaries and has a vested interest in improving salaries paid by the company to his fellow colleagues. If a job seeker goes into a negotiation room alone then this information asymmetry alone is bound to screw him over during negotiations. The presence of a union representative is very effective at mitigating this problem.
I think you're oversimplifying again. Many workers who vote "no" and reject union representation believe that unions create problems for workers including the problem of jobs being moved elsewhere.
Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues and the possibility of not having jobs? Many workers don't see the logic in paying more money to make their lives worse. E.g. Why pay my Bakers union rep to play hardball with Nabisco management for high wages of $26/hour so that I end up getting $0/hour? The theoretical "win" of $26/hr becomes a real-world "loss" of no job which pays $0/hour.
There are interesting game theory dynamics of "workers vs unions vs management" that your comment ignores. Each party has different leverage and different ultimatums. A bakers union is in a more precarious economic situation than a teachers union.
>A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages.
Yes, I already stipulated that. Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs.
It seems you're not aware of the reasons for workers to deliberately reject unions.
You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary.
> Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues
That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself, and it represents only your own imagination.
> Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs.
That's your strawman. You somehow made up this argument that having someone at your side helping you out on your negotiation will somehow force a company to stop hire people to fill the positions they've just opened. Meanwhile, agents are a thing, and having third-party help in your negotiations didn't brought the end to western civilization.
Well, the Seattle union is "closed shop" at Boeing which makes union membership mandatory for employment.
>That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself,
The GM union dues are ~$957.[1] The Ford amount is ~$693. The estimated union dues were ~$800 for Nissan workers who voted "no" to union representation. For all 3 examples, the union dues are not static -- they are expected to increase.
We can use the lower $693 figure if you wish. Can you see that many workers don't agree with you that $693 is "no impact"?
https://bigthreeauto.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php...
Somehow, you've turned a blind eye to the fact that your own source states that the US national average for union dues are $377 per year.
Let that sink in for a minute. The average union within the US receives only $377 per year.
That's about $32 a month.
So, the median wage for workers in the United States is around $3400 per month. And somehow a $32/month fee is made out to be a deal breaker?
Is that what's stopping you from being repeatedly screwed over by employers who spend more on professional services dedicated to screw employees over than adjusting salaries?
Yes, it is _if_ workers believe it makes their economic situation worse.
I'm stating that workers weigh the balance of both the positives and the negatives of union representation. You are only stating one side: the positives.
Yes, even $377 can be too much money to pay especially if it has the unwanted effect of incentivizing the company to move somewhere else. Since workers are concerned about this bad outcome, you can't just handwave it away as if their fears are just imaginary.
Some unions are so hawkish that they impose hiring blacklists on affected employers, making membership mandatory instead of voluntary. Additionally, in the rank and file, there's a common fear of union corruption.
That hypothetical problem is anecdotal, and assumes that a job seeker has no say in how he is represented.
Meanwhile, the whole world is packed with examples of how unions do in fact work for the interests of their associates. For instance, there are companies in Sweden that inform job seekers right at the start of the job application process that they should contact union representatives to help them during the hiring process. This offer is presented to anyone, whether they pay union quotas or not, and anyone decides if they even want to contact the union or not.
Do you believe this is a draconian measure imposed by unions on unsuspecting job seekers, or that this is remotely against the best interest of any worker?
A union is what you make it out to be. Right now, workers are getting screwed over to the point where HN receives a constant scream of posts on how workers should improve their negotiation skills. Hell, if that's so important then why isn't everyone doing the smart thing to do and delegate that activity to a dedicated third-party representing the worker's best interests and specialized in negotiating job offers and working conditions? It's simply stupid to assume that everyone can pick up an O'Reilly-type book on negotiating job offers and suddenly be able to go head-to-head with a professional negotiator paid to drive down your wage.
If it's anecdotal - that is, it happened at least once, so there's an anecdote of when it happened - then it's not hypothetical.
And, in fact, it's not hypothetical. It happens. It has happened. Instances have been cited in this thread. It may not be the statistically most likely outcome, but it does happen.
>The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens.
Iow, not the one who negotiates wins, but the one who has time on their hands. If workforce "feels" too expensive, average capital can just sit on deposit and wait for new ideas. If worker's salary feels too low, she cannot just sit and wait or requalify for new job quickly. This asymmetry pushes workers down on their wages without a chance to negotiate, because there is nobody to blame. Investments are diversifiable, professions aren't.
While capitalism shown world-wide success, it forces everyone to follow only one life style, otherwise you're wasted. Personally, I'm pretty fine with how I live due to the path chosen from the start and personal interests, but I don't like what all this does to "regular" profession workers. People are almost punished for what they liked to do, or simply for the fact they aren't interested in business, aka someone else's sky-high profit wars.
Otoh, while theoretical basic income program could buy time for workers, it would also demotivate capital builders more. It seems like pretty thin balance there, if it exists at all.
The workers don't want to unionize. The reason?
Well, as it turns out...there are jobs there now that weren't there before. Those jobs could have gone somewhere where the union existed...but didn't.
So the people there...pretty happy to have quality jobs from a great company. A company that adds jobs continuously even through a recession...and the union forces a strike every 7 years or so costing the company about $1 billion every time.
Union negotiating power is based almost entirely on it's ability to hold the company hostage. It's the job of executives to look out for the best interest of the company and that, just like infrastructure planning, means redundancy.
It's the same approach as tax policies or raising minimum wage...it only works if the people involved have no other options.
Well aside from these studies that correlate unions with better wages for the economy as a whole?
The key to almost every politically oriented study I've seen isn't what the study includes, but what it leaves out.
I see this in education a lot where bad teachers that parents try to avoid end up making the same as the amazing teachers that parents beg to have. The bad teachers don't get removed so new teachers are prevented from getting a job at that school.
incompetent employers might be good political actors in the company and make more than good employees just fine without unions.
unions just help the good, and bad, employees don't have to waste too much time every month fighting for raises.
Just because regular business profits are several layers removed from a regular employee does not mean that there's no link to performance as well, but business usually does not like to share( raise salary ) to not set a precedent.
I for one would love to have an professional agent that looked after me in return for good career progression. Even the rock starts among us know that it takes skill and luck to get paid what we are really worth
This is a disingenuous comment. Having a professional negotiation negotiating with a HR representative on behalf of the worker does not force a company to move their offices abroad.
Moreover, moving a company somewhere else entails a heavy cost that more often than not the company is unable to pay.
I don't understand why people assume that the worker force has to bend over repeatedly and perpetually, particularly when we are faced with stagnant wages in a time of low unemployment. This clearly shows that the job market is being manipulated to serve the interests of these corporations, in a time where high-skilled workers remain peddling for cash and without any job security.
We don't exactly have a legal framework to prevent companies from doing this either
At first I was going to correct you and say "bend over backwards" - then I realized you got it exactly right. Some of the high-skilled workers - on hn no less - will say "I'm better off negotiating the angle at which I bend for myself"
I mean I know factories in India which have buildings with asbestos roofs.
China has grizzly videos of workers moving metal scaffolding and then accidentally getting electrocuted as it moves into exposed high voltage cable.
And that is still a step up from the misery there was before.
I don't see how you can afford environmental protections, worker safety, when instead for a small fraction of the cost you can just send the request to a contractor, and then say "Oh we didn't know the conditions in the factory were bad. We thought those quaint third world concepts were just rumors! Oh those poor souls!".
And how much would your company be forced to pay and abdicate to relocate their headquarters to that asbestos-packed hell-hole?
Do the company's middle and upper management tolerate the idea of moving to a different continent and be forced to live with inhumane infrastructures setup by inhumane and careless middle and upper management types?
Not every job is a factory job or involves low-skilled grunt work. Not all companies are willing to lift the proverbial anchor and relocate to a different continent just because a job seeker has a trade union representative with him during negotiations.
No matter how you cut it there's less overhead in those countries.
Depending on the nature of the good and the scale it's almost impossible to have the price of the good be competitive when it gets to the first world.
At high volume it's easy to amortize the cost cost of teaching a factory in overseas how to make for example a high quality forging that a first world supplier could produce properly the first time without asking questions.
If you're gonna need to make a different forging every year then you might want a supplier closer to home that you don't have to hand hold.
If you're making something with less safety/environmental overhead than the steel forging then that tips things less in favor of off-shoring.
This is a silly, self-defeating argument.
Wages aren't determined by "worth". Wages are dictated through negotiations, and they are set based on the worker's negotiating power. If a worker is incapable of negotiating, nor does he have negotiating power over their company's representatives, then he is bound to get the raw end of the deal.
This is precisely where unions and worker's commissions play a central role in the problem. When an isolated worker tries to negotiate with the company, more often than not he faces professional negotiators skilled in cutting down salary expenses. The odds are, from the start, stacked against the worker's interests. This problem is mitigated with the help of an organized worker force, as they can provide professional services negotiating job offers and leverage more power over the company's representatives. Therefore are able to get much better deals than the average worker acting alone.