Re:Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contrac...
by skissane on Saturday September 21, 2019 @09:22PM
(#21039029)
> I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees"
What is “good for employees” or “bad for employees” may not be the same for all employees. A policy which favours the interests of one group of employees may disadvantage another. Which group of employees’ interests will a union prioritise?
For example, suppose management has budgeted enough for a 2% across the board pay rise. Management has two basic choices about how to distribute this:
Option 1) Everyone gets 2%
Option 2) Above-average performers get more than 2%, every one else gets 0%
If you are an above-average performer, Option 2 is best for you, whereas if you are not, then you will be better off with Option 1. Which of those two options will the union advocate for?
What is “good for employees” or “bad for employees” may not be the same for all employees. A policy which favours the interests of one group of employees may disadvantage another. Which group of employees’ interests will a union prioritise?
For example, suppose management has budgeted enough for a 2% across the board pay rise. Management has two basic choices about how to distribute this:
Option 1) Everyone gets 2%
Option 2) Above-average performers get more than 2%, every one else gets 0%
If you are an above-average performer, Option 2 is best for you, whereas if you are not, then you will be better off with Option 1. Which of those two options will the union advocate for?