|
I don't think it's likely that total compensation or total labor costs would go down in that case, I'd be interested to hear why you think they would. It would probably lead to flattening of wage disparities within companies but that would involve salaries below the mean being raised. Labor as a whole would have more bargaining power than before.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Eldragon posted:The number of people who overestimate their worth and abilities probably exceeds the number of people getting sweetheart deals. Well, this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that efficient markets thrive best on secrecy, insider information, chokepoints, and a ban on open price discovery. Points for creativity and originality I guess 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Telling people how much you make in my workplace will get you fired. They told us that on day 1, since we were hired in at a higher rate than other people doing essentially the same job. They were very up front about how they didn't want fairness in the workplace when it came to wages. The bolded part is extremely precious and a common tactic in enforcing the "oh god please don't talk about wages, whatever you do!" culture at companies. Nobody ever gets told, "You get paid less than other people. Deal with it. Don't mention it to anyone." Everyone gets told they're getting a good deal and make more than other people. That's how the nuts and bolts of the scam work. People doing hiring are reverse sales people. Usually sales is about making the prices go up while making the customer feel really good about it. Hiring is that process in reverse. The numbers are supposed to go down while the employee is pleased as punch about it. Recently there's a new twist on it, though! The job market sucks so much poo poo that a lot of people have the added pressure to settle negotiation on their wages prematurely because they have expensive hobbies like Eating and Paying Rent. edit: After re-reading your post I can't tell if you actually bought that line from your bosses. So I apologize if you saw through it, and I've misunderstood. I'll leave this here as a record of how stupid I am as a form of penance. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Telling people how much you make in my workplace will get you fired. They told us that on day 1, since we were hired in at a higher rate than other people doing essentially the same job. They were very up front about how they didn't want fairness in the workplace when it came to wages. I once worked for HP as a contractor and was told the same thing. I was hired along with about 10 other people who were all paid the exact same pay, except for me. I was paid 3 bux less an hour, even though I had years more experience than nearly everyone else. I was the only female in the department.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Labor spontaneously organizing to bargain for better wages and benefits is extremely rare, so it seems to me that a top-down approach is better to even the playing field. My proposal is this: what if a law made it mandatory that every employee's compensation was openly available to all other employees? From the CEO to the Janitor - wages, salaries, bonus structures, benefits, and perks are plainly listed out. There is a huge cultural taboo (at least in the U.S.) about discussing pay, especially with coworkers, and a law telling us that we should discuss it, especially with the specter of employer disapproval seems pointless. One correction: employees discussing wages is already protected by law, and retaliation against employees due to such discussions is already prohibited. That actually gives a hint toward the problem with your proposal, which is that it doesn't actually do anything nor does it empower employees to do anything. You're not going to solve unfair pay just by shouting "hey, employees, look at how unfair your wages are". People already know pay rates differ from person to person, the question is how to change that. Mirthless posted:Telling people how much you make in my workplace will get you fired. They told us that on day 1, since we were hired in at a higher rate than other people doing essentially the same job. They were very up front about how they didn't want fairness in the workplace when it came to wages. They can tell you that all they want, but it's illegal for them to actually do it. They're just counting on the fact that you don't know that. Most workers don't know their rights, so employers can run roughshod over them with nothing but empty threats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Why do you think it would happen this way, rather than compressing the top of the pay band because employers "want to preserve an appearance of fairness" or whatever? Did you miss the part where most of the major tech companies were already doing this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They can tell you that all they want, but it's illegal for them to actually do it. They're just counting on the fact that you don't know that. Most workers don't know their rights, so employers can run roughshod over them with nothing but empty threats. They can actually do that in Oklahoma. ErIog posted:The bolded part is extremely precious and a common tactic in enforcing the "oh god please don't talk about wages, whatever you do!" culture at companies. Nobody ever gets told, "You get paid less than other people. Deal with it. Don't mention it to anyone." Everyone gets told they're getting a good deal and make more than other people. That's how the nuts and bolts of the scam work. To be fair it was actually true, (people are going to talk in private about it eventually, ban it all you want) but I know it works both ways. They fired a guy around the time I got hired for complaining that we were getting paid more than him despite him having 3 years more experience. HP is a really lovely company to work for as far as wages go. I like my benefits, but making what I make for my level of experience with a company as big and profitable as they are is bullshit. Don't work for these people. Zwiftef posted:Did you miss the part where most of the major tech companies were already doing this? I can't speak for anybody else but HP is #1 (or 2, depending on who you ask) in enterprise services and anyone who isn't at the upper end of their workforce is either having their jobs being replaced with contractor positions (that pay barely above minimum wage) or have had their salaries permanently frozen. I am ineligible for a pay raise. Forever. This is pretty much the standard across their helpdesk and deskside support positions. If you want to make a decent wage in IT you need to be a developer or have some serious certifications, and even then from what I've seen in my workplace you are getting dicked around constantly. I imagine the west coast environment is very different, but it would be. But there's a lot more of us in the industry than the people in California, Washington and New York, and my experience has been less than stellar. Wage stagnation is very much a thing in this industry. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:They can actually do that in Oklahoma. Really? They shouldn't be able to; regardless of what Oklahoma law says, federal law prohibits it and that takes precedence. I suppose if they're small enough, federal labor law wouldn't apply to them, but I think HP's just a bit over that line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Really? They shouldn't be able to; regardless of what Oklahoma law says, federal law prohibits it and that takes precedence. I suppose if they're small enough, federal labor law wouldn't apply to them, but I think HP's just a bit over that line. What would I do if I got fired? I don't have the money to afford the kind of legal representation required to battle so-called at will employment. Beyond that, I don't see what is legally protected about talking about my wages with others. "Employment at will" is a bitch. Pay reform has to come in the form of hard federal legislation. States and corporations will never do it on their own. There's nothing in it for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:What would I do if I got fired? I don't have the money to afford the kind of legal representation required to battle so-called at will employment. Beyond that, I don't see what is legally protected about talking about my wages with others. "Employment at will" is a bitch. You would submit a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, which would then sue the employer on your behalf for free. The case takes some time, so if you actually get fired you're going to have to find another job in the meantime, but if you win the usual damages are retroactive back pay (as if you had never been fired and continued working there at the same salary the entire time) times three, which is just threatening enough to keep most companies in line. It's as legally protected as anything can be, covered under employees' right to collectively organize, which exists even in non-union states and includes many other little-known protections such as the right to complain about work to your coworkers. That's right - your boss cannot legally fire you for bitching about working conditions in the breakroom, as long as no customers are in earshot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Ah yes, the famed "get yourself blackballed from your entire industry" remedy
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
How would you operationalize this in the States? An online public database with name, job role, and total compensation? I can see it working for public sector jobs since there're standards in terms of pay scale (GS whatever) and promotion by age/seniority but there's such a variety of job titles across companies and industries that having it associated by job title seems meaningless. For my company alone, there're a bunch of people with the generic title "Business Associate" ranging from MBA fresh graduates to 10+ seniors starting at $150K base to $500K. Do you just lump them together?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
cafel posted:Because they need to retain their best talent. If they're not paying their most effective employees what they're worth than those employees can always find a company with more effective management that will pay them that much. That's assuming things work the way they work now, which they won't necessarily. If a supposedly stellar employee wants to jump ship to another company for a raise, that company can point to the pay database and say "sorry, this information is public and hiring you at X wage would be problematic." where before they might have met her requirement and stayed quiet about it. icantfindaname posted:I don't think it's likely that total compensation or total labor costs would go down in that case, I'd be interested to hear why you think they would. It would probably lead to flattening of wage disparities within companies but that would involve salaries below the mean being raised. Labor as a whole would have more bargaining power than before. I think as a whole you'd see more squashing the top down toward the bottom than the bottom toward the top. Labor as a whole would be more constrained than it is now, because employers would be more reluctant to negotiate and employee expectations would be anchored by the public data. You'd get more pay equality but mostly because a lot of people would be making less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's assuming things work the way they work now, which they won't necessarily. If a supposedly stellar employee wants to jump ship to another company for a raise, that company can point to the pay database and say "sorry, this information is public and hiring you at X wage would be problematic." where before they might have met her requirement and stayed quiet about it. While I don't necessarily completely disagree with what you're saying I think using a woman as an example in this case is incredibly disingenuous because the current system of wage secrecy hurts women more than anyone else. For every one woman in the situation you cited, there is a hundred more being disenfranchised who don't know it and won't know it as long as wages remain secret.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:While I don't necessarily completely disagree with what you're saying I think using a woman as an example in this case is incredibly disingenuous because the current system of wage secrecy hurts women more than anyone else. For every one woman in the situation you cited, there is a hundred more being disenfranchised who don't know it and won't know it as long as wages remain secret. I don't think wage secrecy is directly responsible for hurting anyone. After all, the reason we have Congressional efforts to solve gender pay disparities is because even when women find out they're being paid less, there's absolutely nothing they can do about it. Companies don't try to block pay discussion because they fear all the employees coming to them and asking for raises, they do it to prevent the lower-paid employees from becoming resentful toward the higher-paid employees (leading to drama and efficiency losses) and to prevent the lower employees from going "hey, all our wages suck, there's no real upward mobility here, let's unionize and fight for better wages for our job title". And coincidentally, while it's by no means perfect, unions have invented pretty much the only pay system that doesn't pay women less than equally-experienced men in the same jobs, though it's not a popular pay system among under-30s with repressed libertarian feelings and delusions of grandeur.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
It's hardly just libertarians who dislike a system where pay and job title are based almost entirely on seniority. The decline of unions also seems to be in large part from the changing to an information economy- those jobs seem naturally harder and make less sense to unionize than factory work. This stems from factory work comprising of jobs that are in large part similar- it's a lot less likely to have large differences in output and worth in a factory job when compared to something like Microsoft. People (particularly young) are also much more accustomed to switching jobs many times through their career- another reason why people would be antagonistic to unions, which focus on seniority. And often times it's not a job security thing, younger people just plain don't want to be stuck doing the same thing or stuck at the same company. It should be no surprise that even democrats are becoming increasingly antagonistic to unions given that new dems are often young professionals who, rather than suffering from "illusions of grandeur" tend to be well educated and compensated and have little to gain from unions, and in many cases would actually lose out. Of course unions still make a lot of sense in some industries, and should be promoted there, but they aren't a one size fits all solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
enbot posted:It's hardly just libertarians who dislike a system where pay and job title are based almost entirely on seniority. The decline of unions also seems to be in large part from the changing to an information economy- those jobs seem naturally harder and make less sense to unionize than factory work. This stems from factory work comprising of jobs that are in large part similar- it's a lot less likely to have large differences in output and worth in a factory job when compared to something like Microsoft. Why are information jobs less sensible to unionize? The only real reason I've heard (besides "some workers just suck so much compared to my brilliant and flawless skill that I'd be making three times what they do for the the same job if not for BIG UNIONS") is that information workers see themselves as superior to other workers and believe that unions are only for the poor, uneducated lower workers - basically, a status thing. Which would explain quite well why low-status information fields (like teaching) were able to unionize. The reason young people switch jobs so often is precisely because companies don't reward seniority and in fact encourage job-switching by offering higher salaries for a position to new employees than to people promoted from inside. If you go ten years without switching jobs, you'll find your pay lagging significantly behind the market value for what you ended up doing. So young people have to switch jobs every few years in order for their salary to keep up with their responsibilities. It's not just something they do because they like it. Even the well-compensated still have plenty to gain from unions, and if all the young workers are well-educated and well-compensated then I don't see how they could possibly lose out by forming a union. Maybe if they're all just waiting for a chance to double-cross and abandon their fellow workers at the first opportunity, throwing the union under the bus in order to get the raise they feel they deserve? I dunno. I feel like anti-union arguments get awfully close to "welfare queens" rhetoric sometimes, in that they both acknowledge the ideas might possibly be solid if not for a vast and entirely fictional army of lazy incompetents who'd milk the systems for all they're worth and drag down us motivated hardworking
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I'd say teaching is a better candidate for unionization because measurable outputs don't correspond to inputs in any real sense, not because it's low-status. When you can measure the outputs, and they have a strong connection to the skill of the employee, and especially if there's a high variance in utility between a highly-skilled and a low-skilled worker in the same position, unionization starts becoming less tempting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's assuming things work the way they work now, which they won't necessarily. If a supposedly stellar employee wants to jump ship to another company for a raise, that company can point to the pay database and say "sorry, this information is public and hiring you at X wage would be problematic." where before they might have met her requirement and stayed quiet about it. This picture you paint is of an incredibly bleak universe in which all management is completely incompetent and unable to effectively and efficiently deal with their workforce. The companies that have a rewarding environment and are able to tell their employees that no, they're not going to give them that raise because it's unreasonable and if they don't like it they're free to find employment elsewhere, will be able to lure away potentially more qualified employees with offers of better wages. I mean, given today's overcrowded labor market it's not as if the employees have a ton of leverage to enforce unreasonable demands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd say teaching is a better candidate for unionization because measurable outputs don't correspond to inputs in any real sense, not because it's low-status. When you can measure the outputs, and they have a strong connection to the skill of the employee, and especially if there's a high variance in utility between a highly-skilled and a low-skilled worker in the same position, unionization starts becoming less tempting. When the outputs are measurable and vary considerably, that is in fact where unionization is most important, since the union can rely on those metrics to incorporate performance into payscales. The reason strict seniority payscales are so common in union jobs is because they typically want to eliminate subjectivity from pay and firing decisions as much as possible (because it leads to bias and unfair treatment) but the fields don't have any objective measures that can be used and have enough variance to be worth counting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:When the outputs are measurable and vary considerably, that is in fact where unionization is most important, since the union can rely on those metrics to incorporate performance into payscales. Or the employer can do the same thing, since it's in their best interest to pay their top performers well in order to retain them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Or the employer can do the same thing, since it's in their best interest to pay their top performers well in order to retain them. Unless those top performers are female, black, Hispanic, or even Asian, in which case they'll get inferior pay, typically because employers won't rely solely on the objective data and will instead add subjective factors which function mainly as a way to express their subconscious biases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Or the employer can do the same thing, since it's in their best interest to pay their top performers well in order to retain them. The employer is not looking to pay their top performers well. They are simply looking to pay them the minimum amount which will keep them around. Unions and employees are looking to be paid as much as possible, to the point that any more and it wouldn't be worth it to retain them. Sometimes these numbers naturally line up very well and sometimes they don't and having a union around to support you can be beneficial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that efficient markets thrive best on secrecy, insider information, chokepoints, and a ban on open price discovery. I'm not necessarily arguing the market is most efficient with secrecy. Only that many people let emotion rather than logic rule their decision making, giving people specific numbers will only fuel those emotions. Main Paineframe posted:Why are information jobs less sensible to unionize? The only real reason I've heard (besides "some workers just suck so much compared to my brilliant and flawless skill that I'd be making three times what they do for the the same job if not for BIG UNIONS") is that information workers see themselves as superior to other workers and believe that unions are only for the poor, uneducated lower workers - basically, a status thing. Which would explain quite well why low-status information fields (like teaching) were able to unionize. I think it has more to do with the job market is very different now than it was when unions were at their peak. The modern "information worker" has a much lower unemployment rate, more job stability, higher pay, and institutional knowledge that is hard to replace. In short, things are going much better for educated workers now than for blue collar workers. Unions start to look like a better deal when employees are pissed off and have nowhere to go; for the most part information workers aren't pissed off enough, its easy for them to jump ship to a new job. Furthermore, gains like weekends, paid time off, medical benefits, and paid overtime, are standard benefits today in any workplace, and owe their existence to unions. In the meantime, unions did themselves no favors between their prime and today. Open alliances with political parties, years of corruption, etc. Essentially they became "part of the problem". Warning, Anecdote ahead: I was a teamsters union member in high school, and I must admit, it didn't leave a good impression. I'm not against being in a union today, but it would have to be structured very differently than what I experienced in the past. (Short version of being a teamsters member: "Got a problem? Get hosed")
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I think the #1 reason there isn't a push to unionize among hourly IT positions is because most of them can be shipped to India, Costa Rica or Romania tomorrow, and the only thing it's going to upset in the grand scheme of things is the sensibility of the jingoist racists who work for you or your client. Automation, simplification of computer systems and "the cloud" have made helpdesk and to a lesser extent deskside support into a job where you teach people how to navigate menus. Everybody wants better pay but hourly IT jobs probably won't exist at all inside of ten years and those of us who haven't had the chance to jump to salary yet aren't in any rush to speed up the process. Our #1 most common customer comment on surveys is "thank god somebody speaks english". When that's the only advantage we have over people who work for half (or less!) of what we do, how much longer can that gravy train possibly last? Mirthless fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:I think the #1 reason there isn't a push to unionize among hourly IT positions is because most of them can be shipped to India, Costa Rica or Romania tomorrow, and the only thing it's going to upset in the grand scheme of things is the sensibility of the jingoist racists who work for you or your client. Automation, simplification of computer systems and "the cloud" have made helpdesk and to a lesser extent deskside support into a job where you teach people how to navigate menus. Everybody wants better pay but hourly IT jobs probably won't exist at all inside of ten years and those of us who haven't had the chance to jump to salary yet aren't in any rush to speed up the process. Isn't the point of unions unskilled laborers who can easily be replaced organizing for job security and that kinda poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why are information jobs less sensible to unionize? A big reason why it wouldn't work so well is the low levels of capital needed to start a competitive company, and the short lifetime of the average tech company. If you can watch a company rise and fall within 5-10 years, promises of a 30 year tenure and retirement package don't really mean much. Also, since it's so dependent on talent, you can have massive betrayals like that recent controversy on Secret.ly: A woman was part of 5 co-founders, and Google paid her cofounders ~$5mm each to break up the company and come work for Google. She didn't get an offer as she was a designer, and only received 10k and no Google employment. Even if there is some tentative agreement for seniority-based pay, talented people can jump ship to higher pay and screw over the rest of their colleagues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Isn't the point of unions unskilled laborers who can easily be replaced organizing for job security and that kinda poo poo? Unions provide job security by making employers think twice before trying to fire people. They can't prevent a business from closing shop and moving someplace else. In manufacturing, unions do enough to prevent employers from doing poo poo like firing employees so they can re-hire somebody cheaper into the position, and the cost of opening up a new shop somewhere else is prohibitive enough that the company is going to be very hesitant to not just work with the union. An IT company can get a new datacenter or callcenter online and a full workforce in a few months if they use an existing building, and it'll pay for itself in a few months in savings. I support unions 100%, but it is really not an exaggeration to say that widespread unionization in IT would completely obliterate the field at the level that could actually unionize.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
on the left posted:A big reason why it wouldn't work so well is the low levels of capital needed to start a competitive company, and the short lifetime of the average tech company. If you can watch a company rise and fall within 5-10 years, promises of a 30 year tenure and retirement package don't really mean much. White collar unions don't have to fight for the same exact specific things as blue collar unions. The point of a union isn't to fight for big retirement packages and seniority-based pay, it's to fight for better working conditions and fair treatment of workers - the latter of which is particularly needed in the tech industry. The few women in the tech industry get treated like poo poo. A tech union would adjust to the needs of tech workers, rather than giving 30-year pensions to workers whose bosses will sell or destroy the company within five years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
I wouldn't count on a union that protects a minority in the industry. I would expect that since most of the people voting on industry issues as a union will be men, the discourse and voting will be focused on men and will gladly ignore women's issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Isn't the point of unions unskilled laborers who can easily be replaced organizing for job security and that kinda poo poo? There's a lot of specialized labor that are unionized though (electricians, for example).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Our #1 most common customer comment on surveys is "thank god somebody speaks english". When that's the only advantage we have over people who work for half (or less!) of what we do, how much longer can that gravy train possibly last? Possibly forever? Even if off-shored employees start speaking perfect English, people will realize that they still suck at their jobs. It's easier to say "they can't speak English," than "they suck at fixing problems because they're following a lovely script and don't know anything." but the latter is the main problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
With call centers shifting from India to the Philippines, I've found the accent thing to be less of an issue. Anyway, just give it another couple years, real wages should go low enough in the South than we can onshore call centers again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:With call centers shifting from India to the Philippines, I've found the accent thing to be less of an issue. We're hiring on our new contract positions at like 8.50 an hour. It's criminal. The company we contract for pays HP 30 dollars per call. Our average call time including ticket wrap is 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
You guys are idiots and white collar workers are unionized in a buttload of western european nations. A professor pal of mine is a social scientist in germany and her contract is a union one. However, that is a situation where a corporatist model is basically forced on employers and employees to make them play nice together by the state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:You guys are idiots and white collar workers are unionized in a buttload of western european nations. A professor pal of mine is a social scientist in germany and her contract is a union one. However, that is a situation where a corporatist model is basically forced on employers and employees to make them play nice together by the state. I don't understand why their arn't more unions like that in america.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I don't understand why their arn't more unions like that in america. Well public sector workers are mostly unionized, although they've been under constant attack for decades, have less presence than in other countries, and have less presence in red states. Private sector manufacturing was fairly heavily unionized but those companies started 'offshoring' early on to the South which had/has poo poo labor laws in order to break unions, and then started offshoring for real later on to do the same. White collar office workers were generally treated well by corporations during the heyday of unions but were generally not actually unionized, and corporations hosed them over without much resistance when it became viable to do so. Service industry jobs have never had unions and have basically always been poo poo jobs for poo poo wages. So basically the only decent jobs left are professionals and semi-professionals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I don't understand why their arn't more unions like that in america. Anti-union rhetoric, propaganda, and misinformation has been engrained deeply enough into our culture over the past generation that the population has basically lost interest in unionizing - white collar workers regard lovely working conditions as a chance to impress their bosses by showing how dedicated and hardworking they are, convincing themselves that enduring 80-hour weeks with no overtime or bonus pay for an indefinite period will impress capital into giving them a gigantic raise because they, as well-educated white males, think the world is a perfect meritocracy that rewards hard work above all else. No one wants to complain or advocate for change because they think doing so will just demonstrate to your boss that you aren't hard-working or dedicated enough to move up the ladder and become a megarich captain of industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's assuming things work the way they work now, which they won't necessarily. If a supposedly stellar employee wants to jump ship to another company for a raise, that company can point to the pay database and say "sorry, this information is public and hiring you at X wage would be problematic." where before they might have met her requirement and stayed quiet about it. If this were true, open salary data would already be a widespread thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well in the public sector, federal workers are explicitly banned from having unions by law. News to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 08:39
|
|