funny that. The union contract where I work does support performance-based rewards.
No no, clearly you are lying, it's been proved by all the highly paid developers here with no actual experience of working with unions or unionised labour that this is impossible.
Noting inherent to the concept of collective bargaining makes performance based pay impossible
Perhaps - But I've never once seen it practiced in any unionized environment I've experienced. Salaries and benefits are 100% bound to your seniority and your band. All of your brothers and sisters are exactly equivalent to you. My wife is a manager in a unionized environment. She had an excellent administrator - She couldn't promote her or pay her more. She couldn't even give her an extra hour of vacation. The excellent employee was rewarded exactly the same as her lazy-slacker union peer.
Congratulations, your wife has managed to find work in the only organisation on the planet where the workers are more powerful than their employer.
Parents and children do not need consumer choice when it comes to schools. Everyone should get the same standard of education, same as for health.
Yes, that's socialist. Well, I'm not from the US, so it's not illegal here.
And home schooling? Oh, please, the religious and political extremists who are in favour of that should be rounded up and put to some useful community work instead.
Why would you want a Union? My observation is that Unions drag everything to the mediocre. It drags down the top performers and brings up the dead wood. If i'm a top performer I can do better for myself on my own. I guess if I'm a bottom feeder I'm interested, but probably too lazy to to care.
Once you leave school and see some of the real world, you will find out that being good at maths exams doesn't ensure that you will become a highly paid professional superstar. You are not a precious snowflake. People get knocked down by life all the time, which is why it is always dangerous to assume you will be the knocker and not the knockee.
Organized labor is the only way to ensure a balance of power. Unfortunately, its authority is just as corruptible as all other authority. No more, no less.
It is not difficult to require democratic accountability in unions. The fact that in the US you view them as semi-legitimate arms of organised crime is the fault of your society and your warped view of anything that is anti-Capitalist, not unions themselves.
I'm in the UK I was even told that the proportion of cases settled before escalating is significantly higher from the moment that the employee says they'll call their union representative to attend the disciplinary hearing.
The classic disciplinary hearing (when no unions are involved) involves a young, not particularly bright worker being hauled up before her boss with an HR person and maybe an "independent" member of staff from finance or whatever present to ensure no actual violence is used, and the boss achieving exactly what he wanted with no repercussions, i.e. the ability to sack someone he perceives as being trouble. In countries like the UK, you can't fire at will, and it is necessary to follow a not particularly onerous sequence of events in order to sack someone.
Unions ensure that even the weaker employees get a fair hearing and that all relevant laws are adhered to. They can also monitor the psychological and verbal bullying that would otherwise be used.
Unlike a lot of other people on slashdot I have actually been involved with these things, and I can assure you they are a lot more professional and pleasant when unions are involved.
Tell that to my friend who has a small business that is not union. He's gotten threats to his family and rocks through the window. I don't care if you are a corporate titan or a union member, you are no better than a common terrorist if you resort to such measures.
When you say he is "not union", do you mean he has refused his workers the ability to join a union, sacked people who have joined a union, or he just happens to employ people who aren't in a union?
There is a big difference, and morally (I don't know about legally in the US) if you are denying your employees basic human rights, it serves you right if people get annoyed with you.
The right reform is to simply end the government protection of the unions
If you don't allow unions to be legal, the ordinary workers will just organise themselves illegally, and you'll be much more likely to have a violent revolution at some point. The compromise achieved by Capitalism with Socialism by allowing workers' rights, as well as (amongst others) health and safety, working hours and child labour legislation, has led to the mixed economies of the West avoiding outright revolutions as in Russia.
It is the job of unions to stand up for all their members, weak or strong.
And the idea that they can prevent someone genuinely incompetent from being sacked (even in "socialist" countries in the EU or wherever) is just nonsense. All they can do is ensure that employers stick to the legal process in getting rid of someone. Well, how fucking evil can you get?
They kept child labor in the mines but made more money for the children's parents and for the union bosses.
You forgot to say that it was the unions who were responsible for slavery and the 2008 financial crisis too. Back to revisionist-libertarian history school for you, lad.
You do not need an organization to demand decent treatment individually, you just need to not be a complete moron.
It's a fuck of a lot easier to demand things when you have something like a union to equalize the huge power imbalance between yourself and your employer.
quote>
A big problem that I see with white collar office workers is that, traditionally, unions have had to be willing to bust the heads of scabs and besiege workplaces with picket lines to survive (among other things).
That will have been in the days when traditionally employers employed private armies and private detectives to beat up, frame and murder union oganisers?
Didn't you learn at school that you have to stand up to bullies?
If you're that much of a fucking precious genius snowflake, leave and set yourself up as a consultant and earn 10 or 20 times what you're earning now then, and let the plebs get on with their boring unionised adequate work.
No one on slashdot is a mere IT worker. We are all rockstar programmers who commute from our hundred-million dollar yachts by private helicopter to glamourous assignments around the world, accompanied by our supermodel girlfriends and ninja bodyguards.
You don't need a union when you're one of the bosses.
Working your arse off to get a few million in the bank doesn't make you exceptional, it makes you someone who doesn't mind working their arse off to get a few million in the bank.
Because programmers don't *need* unions. Often there is a surplus of open positions. When there is a surplus of open positions then you have a position to negotiate.
Really? There are no unemployed programmers, no CS graduates who can only get work as helpdesk drones, and all companies that employ programmers are making huge profits and sharing it out with their staff? Really?
Here's a reality check. The programming job that someone gets paid $200K+ for in California can be done just as well by someone in India or China earning less a twentieth of that. So I wouldn't get too fucking smug if I were you. Programming jobs are almost uniquely fungible, especially once poorer countries get a decent internet infrastructure.
Indeed, it's lucky that employers don't have totally disproportionate power when it comes to work-related negotiations, isn't it?
I know, I know, you're a superstar in your field and can command whatever salary and conditions you feel like asking for. Most people can't. It is the classic libertarian lie which leads to unions being branded as evil socialist intrusions into the glorious purity of free markets.
As usual, the experience of the 0.1% says nothing about the reality of what happens to the other 99.9%
I can speak from a position of knowledge, since I am now an IT worker for a state government agency. The only reason I am in the union is because the union voided the contract under which I used to work, threatened me and told me I had to join the union or I would lose my job (this was in 2010, when the unemployment rate was well over 9% in my state). So rather than face unemployment, foreclosure and poverty, I accepted the union job and immediately took a $1,800/month pay cut.
Yes, because obviously it is the union you sign your employment contract with, not your employer. And the whole point of unions is to get worse pay and conditions for their members.
You appear to be posting from some alternate universe where black is white and day is night.
it's pretty easy to be skeptical and pretty hard to volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb (by being the first voice in your field supporting a union) and endanger your career in the process
If supporting the idea of a union endangers your career you are either in the wrong career or the wrong fucking country.
Slashdot Mirror
funny that. The union contract where I work does support performance-based rewards.
No no, clearly you are lying, it's been proved by all the highly paid developers here with no actual experience of working with unions or unionised labour that this is impossible.
Goddam commies with their facts...
Noting inherent to the concept of collective bargaining makes performance based pay impossible
Perhaps - But I've never once seen it practiced in any unionized environment I've experienced. Salaries and benefits are 100% bound to your seniority and your band. All of your brothers and sisters are exactly equivalent to you. My wife is a manager in a unionized environment. She had an excellent administrator - She couldn't promote her or pay her more. She couldn't even give her an extra hour of vacation. The excellent employee was rewarded exactly the same as her lazy-slacker union peer.
Congratulations, your wife has managed to find work in the only organisation on the planet where the workers are more powerful than their employer.
Fascinating anecdote, bro.
Parents and children do not need consumer choice when it comes to schools. Everyone should get the same standard of education, same as for health.
Yes, that's socialist. Well, I'm not from the US, so it's not illegal here.
And home schooling? Oh, please, the religious and political extremists who are in favour of that should be rounded up and put to some useful community work instead.
Why would you want a Union? My observation is that Unions drag everything to the mediocre. It drags down the top performers and brings up the dead wood. If i'm a top performer I can do better for myself on my own. I guess if I'm a bottom feeder I'm interested, but probably too lazy to to care.
Once you leave school and see some of the real world, you will find out that being good at maths exams doesn't ensure that you will become a highly paid professional superstar. You are not a precious snowflake. People get knocked down by life all the time, which is why it is always dangerous to assume you will be the knocker and not the knockee.
Organized labor is the only way to ensure a balance of power. Unfortunately, its authority is just as corruptible as all other authority. No more, no less.
It is not difficult to require democratic accountability in unions. The fact that in the US you view them as semi-legitimate arms of organised crime is the fault of your society and your warped view of anything that is anti-Capitalist, not unions themselves.
I'm in the UK I was even told that the proportion of cases settled before escalating is significantly higher from the moment that the employee says they'll call their union representative to attend the disciplinary hearing.
The classic disciplinary hearing (when no unions are involved) involves a young, not particularly bright worker being hauled up before her boss with an HR person and maybe an "independent" member of staff from finance or whatever present to ensure no actual violence is used, and the boss achieving exactly what he wanted with no repercussions, i.e. the ability to sack someone he perceives as being trouble. In countries like the UK, you can't fire at will, and it is necessary to follow a not particularly onerous sequence of events in order to sack someone.
Unions ensure that even the weaker employees get a fair hearing and that all relevant laws are adhered to. They can also monitor the psychological and verbal bullying that would otherwise be used.
Unlike a lot of other people on slashdot I have actually been involved with these things, and I can assure you they are a lot more professional and pleasant when unions are involved.
If you work for a company that treats its employees badly and or doesn't follow the law, then it's time to look for a new company to work for.
Says yet another right winger who has done Economics 101 and thinks the Free Market actually exists.
Tell that to my friend who has a small business that is not union. He's gotten threats to his family and rocks through the window. I don't care if you are a corporate titan or a union member, you are no better than a common terrorist if you resort to such measures.
When you say he is "not union", do you mean he has refused his workers the ability to join a union, sacked people who have joined a union, or he just happens to employ people who aren't in a union?
There is a big difference, and morally (I don't know about legally in the US) if you are denying your employees basic human rights, it serves you right if people get annoyed with you.
The right reform is to simply end the government protection of the unions
If you don't allow unions to be legal, the ordinary workers will just organise themselves illegally, and you'll be much more likely to have a violent revolution at some point. The compromise achieved by Capitalism with Socialism by allowing workers' rights, as well as (amongst others) health and safety, working hours and child labour legislation, has led to the mixed economies of the West avoiding outright revolutions as in Russia.
It is the job of unions to stand up for all their members, weak or strong. And the idea that they can prevent someone genuinely incompetent from being sacked (even in "socialist" countries in the EU or wherever) is just nonsense. All they can do is ensure that employers stick to the legal process in getting rid of someone. Well, how fucking evil can you get?
They kept child labor in the mines but made more money for the children's parents and for the union bosses.
You forgot to say that it was the unions who were responsible for slavery and the 2008 financial crisis too. Back to revisionist-libertarian history school for you, lad.
You do not need an organization to demand decent treatment individually, you just need to not be a complete moron.
It's a fuck of a lot easier to demand things when you have something like a union to equalize the huge power imbalance between yourself and your employer.
I know a lot of developers and none has ever claimed to want a union.
I know a lot of developers who can see the benefits of a union and many of them have been posting in this very fucking thread.
Stupid generalizations are stupid.
My skills aren't interchangeable
That's what every over-paid lawyer, CEO or investment banker says too.
That will have been in the days when traditionally employers employed private armies and private detectives to beat up, frame and murder union oganisers?
Didn't you learn at school that you have to stand up to bullies?
Wow, sensible advice from Mitt Romney. WTF is happening to the world?
If you're that much of a fucking precious genius snowflake, leave and set yourself up as a consultant and earn 10 or 20 times what you're earning now then, and let the plebs get on with their boring unionised adequate work.
No one on slashdot is a mere IT worker. We are all rockstar programmers who commute from our hundred-million dollar yachts by private helicopter to glamourous assignments around the world, accompanied by our supermodel girlfriends and ninja bodyguards.
You don't need a union when you're one of the bosses.
there is no exceptional-ism
Working your arse off to get a few million in the bank doesn't make you exceptional, it makes you someone who doesn't mind working their arse off to get a few million in the bank.
BFD.
I've negotiated for myself for my entire career
Slashdot rule of posting number one: if it applies to me, it applies equally to everybody.
Slashdot rule of posting number two: if rule one doesn't apply, there's something fucking wrong with you, because I'm OK.
Because programmers don't *need* unions. Often there is a surplus of open positions. When there is a surplus of open positions then you have a position to negotiate.
Really? There are no unemployed programmers, no CS graduates who can only get work as helpdesk drones, and all companies that employ programmers are making huge profits and sharing it out with their staff? Really?
Here's a reality check. The programming job that someone gets paid $200K+ for in California can be done just as well by someone in India or China earning less a twentieth of that. So I wouldn't get too fucking smug if I were you. Programming jobs are almost uniquely fungible, especially once poorer countries get a decent internet infrastructure.
Indeed, it's lucky that employers don't have totally disproportionate power when it comes to work-related negotiations, isn't it?
I know, I know, you're a superstar in your field and can command whatever salary and conditions you feel like asking for. Most people can't. It is the classic libertarian lie which leads to unions being branded as evil socialist intrusions into the glorious purity of free markets.
As usual, the experience of the 0.1% says nothing about the reality of what happens to the other 99.9%
I can speak from a position of knowledge, since I am now an IT worker for a state government agency. The only reason I am in the union is because the union voided the contract under which I used to work, threatened me and told me I had to join the union or I would lose my job (this was in 2010, when the unemployment rate was well over 9% in my state). So rather than face unemployment, foreclosure and poverty, I accepted the union job and immediately took a $1,800/month pay cut.
Yes, because obviously it is the union you sign your employment contract with, not your employer. And the whole point of unions is to get worse pay and conditions for their members.
You appear to be posting from some alternate universe where black is white and day is night.
it's pretty easy to be skeptical and pretty hard to volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb (by being the first voice in your field supporting a union) and endanger your career in the process
If supporting the idea of a union endangers your career you are either in the wrong career or the wrong fucking country.
Maintaining as high as possible a concentration of clueful posters and interested readers should be Slashdot's main mission.
YMBNH.