All employees from a cashier at McDonald's to the (currently) highly lucrative world of tech workers have the ability to make themselves more valuable to the company for which they work. This can be as simple as always being punctual and available to work and actively learning as much about your job and work environment as possible, to coming up with new ways to save or make the company money.

Reality, however, dictates that not everyone can be truly irreplaceable, no matter how hard they try, and that is what takes away bargaining power. The solution to this is not easy and involves learning a new (and hopefully more valuable) skills, or looking for work elsewhere, and I acknowledge that this can be hard in depressed areas of the country. Many are unable or unwilling to do that sort of thing and think that they should not have to.

However, just because there is no extra industry in your area should not mean that the existing ones should be muscled by unions to make up the difference. And it is very un-realistic to expect that.

Many of the items that you pointed out are (I would argue) directly because of union influence over the years -- automation aside.

An employment contract is an agreement between the company and the employee. If the employee is (relatively) unskilled or (relatively) easily replaceable, then the company has more negotiation power because it has the money.

I have still not heard a good argument in this entire discussion thread as to why that is evil (it is just assumed to be) and why more is not expected of the employee in the negotiation. It just seems very fashionable, right now, to think of companies as inherently evil.

There was no evil implied. I am stating facts about how the industry works against labor.

"Being irreplaceable" is a pipe dream. If you've found yourself in an irreplaceable role in a company, you've got incompetent management. If all you have to offer is your skill and time, you can be replaced.

The point is that in negotiations, you are at a disadvantage solely because you are an individual. Your class states that employers expect to pay you between X dollars and Y dollars with some wiggle room.

As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years.

If you excel, you still have a higher base from which to negotiate from.

> However, just because there is no extra industry in your area should not mean that the existing ones should be muscled by unions to make up the difference. And it is very un-realistic to expect that.

No one is muscled into anything. Employers freely choose to enter contracts with unions. The issue is that some employers do not want to make good on the stipulations they agreed to.

It's unrealistic to think that labor should remain divided to be conquered, as the tides in the past pushed for organized labor until it was neutered by legislation.

>I have still not heard a good argument in this entire discussion thread as to why that is evil (it is just assumed to be) and why more is not expected of the employee in the negotiation. It just seems very fashionable, right now, to think of companies as inherently evil.

Things that are negotiable on a individual level are left up to the employee to suss out of their employer. Bonuses, supplementary pay, extra time off are usually up to you to negotiate.

Items that are negotiable on a class level are left to unions. Base pay for employees, working conditions, employee benefits etc are not individually negotiable. No organization is going to bend over backwards for one employee at the bottom of the totem pole.

It takes a group of people (the corporation) to provide those basic niceties and it takes a group of people (the union) to advocate and use its weight in negotiation to ensure their members are provided with them.

> "Being irreplaceable" is a pipe dream.

Agreed, I should have written "harder to replace than hiring and training a replacement". If you need a concrete example, Linus Torvalds is more difficult to replace for the Linux Foundation, than the anonymous cashier at Burger King. Do you not agree that different people can have different value to a company?

> As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years. If you excel, you still have a higher base from which to negotiate from.

>No one is muscled into anything. Employers freely choose to enter contracts with unions. The issue is that some employers do not want to make good on the stipulations they agreed to.

Collective bargaining is the definition of muscling, as your other alternative is losing your entire workforce, even those happy with their work and pay. Most companies are terrified of becoming unionized because of the new and often unwarranted demands that will be made as a collective, just because of that threat.

>As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years.

Do you imagine that unions would agree to the reverse? If the total profits have declined for a sector, do you imagine they would agree to a wage deduction? The "collective bargaining" aspect of modern unions is only there as a threat to ever increase benefits to the employees whether they are warranted or not.

> Things that are negotiable on a individual level are left up to the employee to suss out of their employer. Bonuses, supplementary pay, extra time off are usually up to you to negotiate.

As they should be. You are an individual with an individual value to a company. Your pay and benefits should reflect what you are bringing to the table, not what someone else is bringing to the relationship.

Unions are the loss of that autonomy in exchange for seniority, often over ability, no chance of individual excellence within the company, instead, even though the union has raised your floor, they have created a ceiling for you as well, less collaboration, each cog can only do one function after all, holding back your company as a whole if automation or new technology is available that may replace some of the workers, etc.

> Items that are negotiable on a class level are left to unions. Base pay for employees, working conditions, employee benefits etc are not individually negotiable. No organization is going to bend over backwards for one employee at the bottom of the totem pole.

Base pay and working conditions are law now, and are not going to revert. If they did, I would be for unions, that is what they are good for.

> It takes a group of people (the corporation) to provide those basic niceties and it takes a group of people (the union) to advocate and use its weight in negotiation to ensure their members are provided with them.

Does it? You can't think of any companies that offer good salary and benefits with no union? None?

I am for more legal protection of employees. Class and regional minimum salaries (and wages) for different types of jobs, national health insurance, living wage guarantees and unemployment guarantees, retirement guarantees, etc.

Labor unions are not for those types of legislations, as it would completely remove any legitimate role they might have.

I am very for the thought of labor unions, but practically, they hold back a business and any skilled or ambitions employees, for the sake of those that might not be as skilled or ambitious or otherwise should be worried about job security.

> Do you not agree that different people can have different value to a company?

I agree with that point. My point is that to management, you are a worker. You are an expense that is to be maximized for profit. That end will always be sought. You are stuck within the bounds of what they expect to pay someone for your role + wiggle room.

>Collective bargaining is the definition of muscling, as your other alternative is losing your entire workforce, even those happy with their work and pay. Most companies are terrified of becoming unionized because of the new and often unwarranted demands that will be made as a collective, just because of that threat.

Collective bargaining is legally protected and a contract stipulation employers agree to.

Employers can just as easily engage in manager lockout and prevent employees from working if they feel the bargain isn't worth it.

>Do you imagine that unions would agree to the reverse? If the total profits have declined for a sector, do you imagine they would agree to a wage deduction? The "collective bargaining" aspect of modern unions is only there as a threat to ever increase benefits to the employees whether they are warranted or not.

To quote bsder:

"Many of the steelworkers unions in the early 80's went out of their way to try to get people retired so that the younger people would still have jobs. They also worked very hard to get people transferred to other sites to reach the point where they could retire even if it meant sacrificing some salary.

Or, for something more recent, many of the unions involved with Hostess took several rounds of cuts before finally standing up and taking a hard line that eventually led to the bankruptcy. And, it looks like Hostess is going to be better off because of it."

>Base pay and working conditions are law now, and are not going to revert. If they did, I would be for unions, that is what they are good for.

Minimum wage is law, standards are set up for most work places. Industry specific laws are in place, but they do not cover all industry specific workplace needs.

Tomorrow, if Keyboard X comes out, and is proven to prevent CTS, you can bet that unions would advocate for making them available.

> Does it? You can't think of any companies that offer good salary and benefits with no union? None?

Of course I can. Do you think those niceties will last forever and for everyone? They are an expense to be cut as soon as possible.

> I am for more legal protection of employees. Class and regional minimum salaries (and wages) for different types of jobs, national health insurance, living wage guarantees and unemployment guarantees, retirement guarantees, etc.

Unions have been the vehicle for enacting legislation to provide these things at the national level. Industry will lobby against provisions if it will affect the bottom line.

Having a dozen programmers call your representative won't change much in the face of lobbyists.

We clearly disagree on many points about unions, and can go back and forth all day with examples to support either side.

The hostess example is a good one, as they would not take a reasonable salary after the market turned, over 18,000 people lost their jobs, and now they get to re-emerge with no unions...I guess that is what you mean by better off.

However, I would just like to point out, that companies do not go to people's houses and foist unfair job offers on them. There is a reason that companies have an advantage on negotiation in general, that is because there are not many companies, but there are many potential employees. It is the burden of the potential employee to stand out and demonstrate his or her value in that situation. Why should you have a job instead of someone else? Why should you make more? Why should you make less?

In reality, they are good at getting floor-sweepers $32 an hour, while limiting other workers with ambition through seniority and contract prices for "classes" of people. They are good at getting employees to only do the minimum amount to fulfill their work obligation and be a slave to that corporation. After all, where else are you going to get those benefits and wages with no training or skills?

In my opinion, unions have destroyed industry in America and led to the wealth disparity that we now have to deal with, by encouraging industry to seek cheaper labor in other countries that do not have unions.

I already agree that unions helped American in the early part of last century, but have been an albatross since.

If unions only petitioned for labor laws to protect all employees, not just union employees, and if union used collective bargaining to set a base wage (with each person's individual wages depended on his or her ability and work ethic), I would be all for them.