The Glade 4.0

Same old argument. Anyone who trusts the corporate bosses to do right by their employees has no clue. Anyone who expects the employees to take it lying down is also a fool. Unions are necessary, but a better eye does need to be kept on them.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

There's nothing wrong with unions. They serve an important function. What's wrong is special protection for them. Their only power should come from numbers.

This.

I truly think that's hyperbole. Are you supposed to trust "corporate bosses"? No, of course not. You're supposed to make yourself a valuable commodity that the "corporate bosses" so they will not not want to get rid of you. If they feel you're expendable, you haven't made a case for your value or they're just dumb and they'll pay for it later.

Thirded.

You're ignoring the impact of asymmetric bargaining power, Ienan. The cost to a company of losing one good worker is miniscule compared to the cost to that worker of losing his job; hence, the company can drive a much harder bargain than he can in salary negotiations. And hell, if you work for a big company, you're probably not having salary negotiations anyway (at least not beyond some small tweaks around the margins). It's not worth Walmart's time to negotiate with individual employees; they just say what their wage rate is, and each employee either takes it or leaves it. If the employees were unionized, however, Walmart would be negotiating with the employees as a group, making it worth Walmart's time and to come to the negotiating table because although losing one employee is no big deal, losing all of them would be. In short, no more asymmetric bargaining power.

Right, because when a corporation acts in a sociopathic manner to maximize shareholder profits, that's perfectly fine, but if a union does it, no that's awful and we need to get rid of them.

I truly think that's hyperbole. Are you supposed to trust "corporate bosses"? No, of course not. You're supposed to make yourself a valuable commodity that the "corporate bosses" so they will not not want to get rid of you. If they feel you're expendable, you haven't made a case for your value or they're just dumb and they'll pay for it later. It's like the story a guy at work tells me about one of his former workplaces. One guy, the manager, on a production line (during the day) keeps it running at a normal pace but goes into his office and reads a newspaper unless a problem happened. Another guy, the night manager, runs the production line at an elevated speed and stays on the line with his reports. The second manager ends up getting about 15-20 more palettes out every night. Which guy has created value for himself? Funny enough, the first manager when learning about it says it's unfair because he "shouldn't be working the line." But the second manager is the guy who's created value for his "corporate bosses" thus not having to worry about trusting them. They'll either see that value he brings, let him go, or he'll quit. But I surely wouldn't let that night manager go before the day manager, who does less work.

You're ignoring the impact of asymmetric bargaining power, Ienan. The cost to a company of losing one good worker is miniscule compared to the cost to that worker of losing his job; hence, the company can drive a much harder bargain than he can in salary negotiations. And hell, if you work for a big company, you're probably not having salary negotiations anyway (at least not beyond some small tweaks around the margins). It's not worth Walmart's time to negotiate with individual employees; they just say what their wage rate is, and each employee either takes it or leaves it. If the employees were unionized, however, Walmart would be negotiating with the employees as a group, making it worth Walmart's time and to come to the negotiating table because although losing one employee is no big deal, losing all of them would be. In short, no more asymmetric bargaining power.

So whats your point?...My God - life isn't ever going to be everyone perfectly balanced on all aspects of interactions. Thats why we have this thing called right of association, agreements, and contracts.

My point is that when negotiating those contracts, the outcome is determined by bargaining power, and that although being a high-quality worker does increase one's bargaining power in an employment context, the asymmetry vis-a-vis a large company is so vast that it doesn't really matter. Try walking into Walmart and negotiating a lower price on something because you've been such a good customer over the years. Not gonna work. Same deal when a cashier tries to negotiate a higher wage because they've been such a good employee.

My point is that when negotiating those contracts, the outcome is determined by bargaining power, and that although being a high-quality worker does increase one's bargaining power in an employment context, the asymmetry vis-a-vis a large company is so vast that it doesn't really matter. Try walking into Walmart and negotiating a lower price on something because you've been such a good customer over the years. Not gonna work. Same deal when a cashier tries to negotiate a higher wage because they've been such a good employee.

Then she can find another job where her abilities are appreciated. An organization shouldn't be forcing a company to do the appreciating if it doesn't want to.

Why not? The company tries to pay you as little as it can get away with, that's just good business. Why shouldn't you do whatever you can in order to get them to pay you the most you can get?

In 2009 Boeing announced plans to build a new plant to meet demand for its new 787 Dreamliner. Though its union contract didn't require it, Boeing executives negotiated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to build the plane at its existing plant in Washington state. The talks broke down because the union wanted, among other things, a seat on Boeing's board and a promise that Boeing would build all future airplanes in Puget Sound.

So Boeing management did what it judged to be best for its shareholders and customers and looked elsewhere. In October 2009, the company settled on South Carolina, which, like the 21 other right-to-work states, has friendlier labor laws than Washington. As Boeing chief Jim McNerney noted on a conference call at the time, the company couldn't have "strikes happening every three to four years." The union has shut down Boeing's commercial aircraft production line four times since 1989, and a 58-day strike in 2008 cost the company $1.8 billion.

This reasonable business decision created more than 1,000 jobs and has brought around $2 billion of investment to South Carolina. The aerospace workers in Puget Sound remain among the best paid in America, but the union nonetheless asked the NLRB to stop Boeing's plans before the company starts to assemble planes in North Charleston this July.

The company's final contract proposal included a pay raise of 11% over the life of the contract, as well as a boosting of pensions by 14% to $80 a month for each year of service. Under the proposed contract, the average union member would earn roughly $65,000 a year before overtime that averages $10,000 a year or more.

The union said it wanted pay raises of at least 13% and a larger pension amount. It also wants Boeing to abandon plans to have workers take on a greater share of health-care costs.

You as a person, yes. You should do everything you can to make yourself more valuable so that you can earn more money or whatever. But banding together and trying to get the government to intercede? No.

Forget about trying to get the government involved. Do you object to people "banding together" to negotiate a group contract?

Such as? How big is "big enough"? Again, I'll state that there are employees that successfully negotiate unscheduled raises at large corporations up to and including Wal-Mart.

What are you really proposing? That unions are necessary for low-skill, low-wage employees? That low-skill jobs should pay more than their market value determines? That Wal-Mart employees aren't paid fairly?