Hacker News Reader

Comment by xapata | Hacker News Reader

Do you think you'd have more of what you want if bargaining with your employer as an individual?

Yes, unions works kinda like price fixing but across the entire country. The thing is that the union tells everyone what your expected salary is given certain experience, so this salary will always be the starting point in any negotiation. If you are a strong candidate you might get a few percent more and vice versa for weak candidates. This is how it worked where I came from at least.

Yes. Unions protect workers in commodity markets. Software development is _not_ a commodity. Anyone with valuable skills should be able to negotiate a better deal with potential employers than the industry average that the union represents.

Then why can't you negotiate a better deal separately from the union?

If it's truly not a commodity market, then a firm could gain a competitive advantage by refusing to negotiate with the union and hiring non-union employees.

You must not be familiar with how unions work, which is understandable. A union employer can ONLY hire union employees to do the class of job the union provides. The employer does not have the option to hire non-union workers for those roles as long as the union contract is in effect. This enforced depending on the jurisdiction either in contracts or by government regulations.

No, that's a closed shop, which has been illegal in the US since 1947. The usual arrangement in the US is a "union shop", where new non-union employees can be hired, but must join the union. In "right to work" states (mostly the ones that used to have slavery), union shops are prohibited.

> non-union employees can be hired, but must join the union

That amounts to the same thing.

> "union shop", where new non-union employees can be hired, but must join the union

This retains the problem that you have to join the union, and therefore are immediately subject to the union's negotiated rules on seniority, pay scale, benefits, etc. It's better than a closed shop, but doesn't solve the problem at hand here.

Even so, the 2nd point still holds -- if the union discourages good employees and employees truly are not commodity, then the non-union shop should put the union shop out of business.

This varies significantly depending on where you are. In Norway, for example, there are 3 main IT unions (and some specialty ones - I think there's one main union for IT workers in finance, for example). Depending on the employer, one or more of the unions may engage in collective bargaining for things like pay structures, yearly raises, and such.

My employer doesn't do yearly bargaining with the union - in part, probably, because employees haven't demanded it. The last time the unions had major discussions was when our employer wanted us to sign new contracts, and the unions negotiated to make sure we weren't going to be prevented from doing things outside of work. Generally speaking, the only reason union members bring in the union these days is if they're being terminated, and the union helps make sure it was done properly and works to get the worker the best package possible.

Yes. There is of course still a negotiation of benefits on top of the standard contract, I'm not paid minimum wage. If I could remove some benefits I don't need from my own, personal contract this would give me leverage to get something else in return. A slightly higher wage if nothing else.

Possibly although in my experience in the US the flexibility to change benefits is limited. I have choice in things like health plans but that's mostly about how much I want to pay on top of an employer contribution. Most of the disability, life insurance, etc. benefits aren't negotiable afaik (and are probably much better deals from the company anyway).

It depends on the employer. If you're under 35, and in decent health, you're likely better off getting disability and life insurance on your own. Your premiums will be lower than from a group plan, which usually takes some average demographics to determine the group premiums. If your employer is paying the premiums, you're better off if you can decline the benefit, get yourself a lower premium plan, and pocket the difference.

Conversely, if you're older, or have health issues, those group plans can be a steal of a deal.

That may be true although, to the broader point, I've never seen those sorts of benefits be optional (albeit across a fairly small sample size). Employers get a good deal precisely because there's going to be a lot of adverse selection with these sorts of things. Healthy single 20-somethings get a pretty good deal on their own but most of them won't even bother.

That's because of federal tax laws regarding benefits, sadly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com