Hacker News Reader

Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

Does this happen frequently in reality, where unions prevent exceptional employees from negotiating better pay?

Aren't unions overwhelmingly the driving force behind senority-based pay? Honest question. Like, I think teacher's unions are strongly against pay-for-performance.

You don't have to unionize in a set way, just like there's no one way to write an employment contract.

If anything, the tech industry should be leading the world in new ideas and methods (and dare I say it...technology) to organize labor.

I’m just responding to the question about how unions have often operated in the past.

I'd never heard of this before (but I'm also not any sort of expert in unionization).

I'm coming into it more from the other side, unionization as a way buffer against (and maybe negotiate something other than) sudden mass layoffs.

At the exon 101 level, that sounds much more like a job for insurance, savings, or gov’t. (There are generally much lower deadweight losses from transfers compared to keeping people working jobs that are no longer economically net positive.) The better pro-union arguments I know are about balancing negotiating leverage due to many fewer employers than workers.

Unions are what their membership makes them, omnia praeter.

Do you also believe we get the government policies we voted for?

I don’t want seniority based pay. I want value based pay.

If I join a company and day one I’m the top performer I’d want to negotiate a better package for myself and I don’t want other people meddling in my negotiation unless I explicitly hire them to

Reply on news.ycombinator.com