8 ms·

I dunno... I was a victim of this wage-fixing scheme, as were all of my coworkers at the time. And I don't know of a single one who would have preferred to have

I dunno... I was a victim of this wage-fixing scheme, as were all of my coworkers at the time. And I don't know of a single one who would have preferred to have a union collectively negotiating wages. The whole scheme was that the companies stopped their recruiters from cold-calling each others' employees. That kept wages down by reducing the opportunities for people to get a better salary by moving between companies (or threatening to). If wages were collectively negotiated, those opportunities would not exist in the first place.

freeone3000 7y ago
Collective bargaining does not necessarily include collective negotiation of wages.
- djrogers 7y ago
  Can you point to an example of a large US union that doesn't collectively bargain wage scales?
  - Herrin 7y ago
    The Screen Actors Guild, and the players unions for most professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc). They recognize that their members have different levels of talent, and allow the stars to make more, while still ensuring basic rights for every member.
    - bearmcbearsly 7y ago
      And how's that working out for them? The median SAG/AFTRA member makes less than $1,000 per year from acting. And the pro sports players associations are tiny -- they exclude the much larger group of athletes who try to make a living playing sports but don't make the big leagues.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        Lesser leagues also have unions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 And those that don't, want them: https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-minor-league-baseball-union-phpa https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-min... https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionization-efforts-project-spearhead-leslie-smith https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionizatio...
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        SAG/AFTRA is a large union that represents actors in TV/film, as well as actors in theater, who generally make diddly squat because not many people watch theater performances in the US. By way of comparison, the rate for a single background-role (i.e., as an extra) in a commercial at SAG rates is more than 3x the non-SAG rate for the same time. ($630 vs $200). If you live in a city like LA or NY, you could make a living wage working (as a background actor) just 45 days a year.
        makomk 7y ago
        SAG's hourly rates are great on paper - well above market, in fact. The net result of this is that your typical SAG member who doesn't have the power to demand higher rates anyway based on their own reputation ends up with almost no work because so few productions can afford to hire them, which is why their actual income is so low. The way SAG maintains its power despite this is by requiring productions that want to hire more in-demand actors to only employ SAG actors, forcing everyone to sign up to SAG and commit to waiting tables rather than acting most of the time. If you cast your mind back to the video game voice actor strike a few years ago, for example, you may recall that one of the justifications for that was that they needed more money because many of them were only getting something like one day's work a month on average. Mostly because no-one outside of the big triple-AAA games could afford to hire union voice actors. Back in the day, a lot of video game and anime voice acting was apparently done by union members under pseudonyms so the union didn't find out; that's probably harder to get away with these days.
        7y ago
    - jdminhbg 7y ago
      > the players unions for most professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc) This is wrong. The major sports unions all collectively bargain minimum salaries, and in some cases maximum salaries as well.
    - aidenn0 7y ago
      SAG and all the professional sports unions do set minimum pay scale. In the case of the NBA, the maximum pay is set well below open-market levels.
      - Phillipharryt 7y ago
        Presumably a maximum pay is set with the intention of allowing that money to go elsewhere in the sport? The NBA knows stars will get paid very well, but they want to ensure not all the money is spent on them so that lesser known players are fairly compensated as well. It seems a smart idea especially because an instituted max is still allowing stars to be paid 8 figures a year.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        IMO, the maximum pay/salary caps are set to promote competition across the league. As an entertainment product provided by a monopoly supplier, that's exactly the right thing to do. As a (clearly hypothetical if you'd ever met me) top talented employee under such a scheme, it's terribly counter-productive to my individual situation.
    - Igelau 7y ago
      You can't get a job in a SAG affiliated production until enough SAG members are hired, but you can't become a SAG member until you've been in a SAG affiliated production. I'm not an actor, but on the outside that Catch 22 stinks of Old Boy Network tactics.
piva00 7y ago
Why do you think that strong unions will fight for collective negotiation of wages? Sweden has one of the strongest union system in the world and at the same time is one of the most entrepreneurial nations with high wages and lots of billionaires, salaries are lower than the US but they are still negotiated and not fixed by the union. The minimum wage for a specific job might be but apart from that I'm free to negotiate my salary. At the same time I have more days of vacation than the minimum 25 because of collective bargaining. I have requirements for minimum amount of natural light by my desk while at the same time can negotiate bonuses, shares, stock options or whatever because those aren't regulated by a collective agreement. Kollektivavtal[0] are one of the backbone of how Swedish entrepreneurship works, to help society as whole and to give power to the weak link of the chain, it's an interesting model and one of the reasons why I chose to live here. One of the ways it work is that by covering so many people the few companies that aren't covered by a collective agreement are naturally forced by the labour market to match the minimum, be it wages or benefits. Because unemployment is low people can shop around if there are better places to work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_agreement
- bobbytran 7y ago
  It's very difficult to actually grow a company in a country like Sweden because of the regulations and taxes you are required to pay after a certain amount of employees.
  - Frost1x 7y ago
    Perhaps that's a good thing.
    - nine_k 7y ago
      So goes the Sweden's GDP and tax base. BTW Ikea is no more operating primarily from Sweden, partly because of these reasons.
      - piva00 7y ago
prawn 7y ago
I'm not familiar with union laws, but couldn't those workers form a union that did exactly what they wanted and none of what they didn't want?
- nine_k 7y ago
  Why can't we have any other organization to which we delegate our power, but which then does exactly what we want it to do? Because with the power comes an opinion on how to best wield it — maybe entirely for the good of the community, but often not limited by that. People why strive to be in control most often have their own axe to grind, too. But a larger problem is the "they want". "They" are many people, and their opinions on a particular topic are "mostly aligned" at best. This is not a single opinion or want. This is why any collective action of this sort can be "mostly satisfactory" for the participants at best, and often quite disliked by some minor fraction of them.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  Because it results in a parasite effect. The union uses its power to negotiate a pay rise for its members. The business then gives the pay rise to all the employees. Each employee thinks “Well I would have got the benefit if I was a union member or not, so I’ll stop paying my union fees”
- stale2002 7y ago
  > did exactly what they wanted and none of what they didn't want? Unfortunately, many workers want to do horrible things, such as to make it illegal for someone to work in engineering of they don't have a CS degree, or if they came out of a bootcamp, or the like. Workers voting to put up barriers to entry, and keep out the competition, is both rational, democratic, common in unions, and also a completely horrible thing to do.

freeone3000 7y ago

Collective bargaining does not necessarily include collective negotiation of wages.

djrogers 7y ago
Can you point to an example of a large US union that doesn't collectively bargain wage scales?
- Herrin 7y ago
  The Screen Actors Guild, and the players unions for most professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc). They recognize that their members have different levels of talent, and allow the stars to make more, while still ensuring basic rights for every member.
  - bearmcbearsly 7y ago
    And how's that working out for them? The median SAG/AFTRA member makes less than $1,000 per year from acting. And the pro sports players associations are tiny -- they exclude the much larger group of athletes who try to make a living playing sports but don't make the big leagues.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      Lesser leagues also have unions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 And those that don't, want them: https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-minor-league-baseball-union-phpa https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-min... https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionization-efforts-project-spearhead-leslie-smith https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionizatio...
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      SAG/AFTRA is a large union that represents actors in TV/film, as well as actors in theater, who generally make diddly squat because not many people watch theater performances in the US. By way of comparison, the rate for a single background-role (i.e., as an extra) in a commercial at SAG rates is more than 3x the non-SAG rate for the same time. ($630 vs $200). If you live in a city like LA or NY, you could make a living wage working (as a background actor) just 45 days a year.
      - makomk 7y ago
        SAG's hourly rates are great on paper - well above market, in fact. The net result of this is that your typical SAG member who doesn't have the power to demand higher rates anyway based on their own reputation ends up with almost no work because so few productions can afford to hire them, which is why their actual income is so low. The way SAG maintains its power despite this is by requiring productions that want to hire more in-demand actors to only employ SAG actors, forcing everyone to sign up to SAG and commit to waiting tables rather than acting most of the time. If you cast your mind back to the video game voice actor strike a few years ago, for example, you may recall that one of the justifications for that was that they needed more money because many of them were only getting something like one day's work a month on average. Mostly because no-one outside of the big triple-AAA games could afford to hire union voice actors. Back in the day, a lot of video game and anime voice acting was apparently done by union members under pseudonyms so the union didn't find out; that's probably harder to get away with these days.
        7y ago
  - jdminhbg 7y ago
    > the players unions for most professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc) This is wrong. The major sports unions all collectively bargain minimum salaries, and in some cases maximum salaries as well.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    SAG and all the professional sports unions do set minimum pay scale. In the case of the NBA, the maximum pay is set well below open-market levels.
    - Phillipharryt 7y ago
      Presumably a maximum pay is set with the intention of allowing that money to go elsewhere in the sport? The NBA knows stars will get paid very well, but they want to ensure not all the money is spent on them so that lesser known players are fairly compensated as well. It seems a smart idea especially because an instituted max is still allowing stars to be paid 8 figures a year.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        IMO, the maximum pay/salary caps are set to promote competition across the league. As an entertainment product provided by a monopoly supplier, that's exactly the right thing to do. As a (clearly hypothetical if you'd ever met me) top talented employee under such a scheme, it's terribly counter-productive to my individual situation.
  - Igelau 7y ago
    You can't get a job in a SAG affiliated production until enough SAG members are hired, but you can't become a SAG member until you've been in a SAG affiliated production. I'm not an actor, but on the outside that Catch 22 stinks of Old Boy Network tactics.

piva00 7y ago

Why do you think that strong unions will fight for collective negotiation of wages? Sweden has one of the strongest union system in the world and at the same time is one of the most entrepreneurial nations with high wages and lots of billionaires, salaries are lower than the US but they are still negotiated and not fixed by the union. The minimum wage for a specific job might be but apart from that I'm free to negotiate my salary. At the same time I have more days of vacation than the minimum 25 because of collective bargaining. I have requirements for minimum amount of natural light by my desk while at the same time can negotiate bonuses, shares, stock options or whatever because those aren't regulated by a collective agreement. Kollektivavtal[0] are one of the backbone of how Swedish entrepreneurship works, to help society as whole and to give power to the weak link of the chain, it's an interesting model and one of the reasons why I chose to live here. One of the ways it work is that by covering so many people the few companies that aren't covered by a collective agreement are naturally forced by the labour market to match the minimum, be it wages or benefits. Because unemployment is low people can shop around if there are better places to work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_agreement

bobbytran 7y ago
It's very difficult to actually grow a company in a country like Sweden because of the regulations and taxes you are required to pay after a certain amount of employees.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  Perhaps that's a good thing.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    So goes the Sweden's GDP and tax base. BTW Ikea is no more operating primarily from Sweden, partly because of these reasons.
    - piva00 7y ago

prawn 7y ago

I'm not familiar with union laws, but couldn't those workers form a union that did exactly what they wanted and none of what they didn't want?

nine_k 7y ago
Why can't we have any other organization to which we delegate our power, but which then does exactly what we want it to do? Because with the power comes an opinion on how to best wield it — maybe entirely for the good of the community, but often not limited by that. People why strive to be in control most often have their own axe to grind, too. But a larger problem is the "they want". "They" are many people, and their opinions on a particular topic are "mostly aligned" at best. This is not a single opinion or want. This is why any collective action of this sort can be "mostly satisfactory" for the participants at best, and often quite disliked by some minor fraction of them.
qtplatypus 7y ago
Because it results in a parasite effect. The union uses its power to negotiate a pay rise for its members. The business then gives the pay rise to all the employees. Each employee thinks “Well I would have got the benefit if I was a union member or not, so I’ll stop paying my union fees”
stale2002 7y ago
> did exactly what they wanted and none of what they didn't want? Unfortunately, many workers want to do horrible things, such as to make it illegal for someone to work in engineering of they don't have a CS degree, or if they came out of a bootcamp, or the like. Workers voting to put up barriers to entry, and keep out the competition, is both rational, democratic, common in unions, and also a completely horrible thing to do.