Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
and it doesnt mean they would be getting paid less.
No, but let me be clearer: they CERTAINLY wouldn't be paid more. And if they're being paid only as well, they have gained nothing, except perhaps the privilege of feeling superior to others.
Employees in the private NON UNION sector actually dictate their salary. . . .
If one is good at one does, he/she has two factors working in their favor
1) they generate revenue for their employer
2) their leaving for the competition will result in the employer losing their talent AND the competitoion GETTING their talent
I am fully aware of this. In fact, it is common knowledge. Since it does not change my thinking on this subject one bit, why bother bringing it up again? It simply doesn't imply what you claim it implies. It most absolutely does not mean that employees in non-union shops can "dictate their salaries." In fact, union employees can't do that, either, nor should they be able to do so. But they are able to bargain for their salaries as equals.
Here's another thing that unions do. Let's say a company invests in some new equipment and techniques that allow an improvement in productivity of 25%. In a non-union environment, the company will simply take that increased productivity as increased profit. If the market exists, they will make and sell more product; if not, they will lay off 25% of the workers and take more profit by reducing costs.
In a union environment, though, when the contract comes up for renegotiation, the union will press for across-the-board pay increases to reflect the improved productivity. And they'll probably get it. This will allow wages to keep pace with productivity, assuming unions are strong throughout the economy.
When that doesn't happen, there isn't enough buying power in the economy to absorb the increased production of goods, and the economy slumps. This is why unions are good for the economy, and why unions create jobs -- indirectly.