Unions: good for workers or bad for business?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)...

I'm also approaching 7 years and make less than 77k.  I only have a Bachelor's, though in engineering that is usually not much of an issue.

[alfred russel]

It took me 5+ years to get into NYS Parole because they only offer the exam every 3-4 years, and they have a very low turnover. The turnover they do have is mainly because of retirements. NC Probation/Parole doesn't offer competitive wages because they are an "at will State" and they have a 35-40% vacancy rate as a result. In fact, even in these trying times they had to recently increase minimum starting pay because no one was willing to apply. And those that stay past the 5+ years it takes to get vested in their retirements are those unable to get hired elsewhere.

I am not sure how the idea of not being able to get a fair and competitive wage fits into the free market idea but perhaps you will explain it for me.

I agree with DGuller on this: you aren't helping your case.

New York is an at will state too--if NC can't adequately staff their probation/parole officer positions, that isn't because they are at will, it is probably because they don't pay enough. In the private sector, there are very few employment contracts, even for senior level people. Remember those AIG contracts that were in the news? A former CEO was on TV expressing outrage because no American employee, including him when he was CEO, was given an employment contract. Everything was at will, and that isn't unusual.

[alfred russel]

I have a union.  I'm not a member of it, be the outfit unionized 3-4 years ago.

Government legislated our wages anyways.

Have you ever considered being a parole officer in NY?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

In the private sector, there are very few employment contracts, even for senior level people. Remember those AIG contracts that were in the news? A former CEO was on TV expressing outrage because no American employee, including him when he was CEO, was given an employment contract. Everything was at will, and that isn't unusual.

I take it you are referring to actual employees of the company having an employment contract, as opposed to those who effectively work for the company but are technically "consultants".

[alfred russel]

I take it you are referring to actual employees of the company having an employment contract, as opposed to those who effectively work for the company but are technically "consultants".

Consultants may have a service agreement in place, but they won't have an employment contract, because they aren't employees. Actual employment agreements tend to be rare.

[crazy canuck]

I take it you are referring to actual employees of the company having an employment contract, as opposed to those who effectively work for the company but are technically "consultants".

Consultants may have a service agreement in place, but they won't have an employment contract, because they aren't employees. Actual employment agreements tend to be rare.

Written employment contracts are rare.  Particularly in at will states.  In non at will states written employment contracts are more common because they are a means of employers and employees defining obligations at the time of termination.  In at will states this is obviously not needed because there are no such obligations.

However, all employees have a contract even if it is just verbal or set out in an offer letter.

btw in Canada there is no notion of at will employment and so all employers are advised to have written contracts specifying what will occur on a termination because the terms implied by law (which can be rebutted by written contracts so long as they conform with minimum standards) are very generous for employees.

[Valmy]

It is very free-market and no one in their right mind would ever consider banning all unions.  The trouble comes when the union uses its position of representation to attain political power and gets the government to mandate things on its behalf.  That is when it goes out of the realm of the free market and into the realm of mercantilism, which is why unions are so reviled by many.

Union are not inherently bad, just as businesses aren't.  They are mere entities.

Big business does the same thing.  It is the political power of big unions and big business that mean the free market will always be an ideal but nothing ever really attainable.

[grumbler]

This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

[crazy canuck]

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)...

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

[Razgovory]

This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

[Savonarola]

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

It was Colonel Mustard.

[Barrister]

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)...

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

You don't say...

[crazy canuck]

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)...

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

You don't say...

So stop comlaining.

[grumbler]

It is a "free market" because the employee is able to take his/her job skills to a place willing to pay for them. It is a "free market" because each State i.e. employer has the ability to pay what is required for them to get the best employees available.

Neither of these things is true, and neither have the slightest thing to do with the free market.

And, yes, Paterson is voiding out parts of the contract by asking for concessions. That is what happens when line X5637 is crossed out. Normally when you negotiate you offer the otherside something. That's what makes it a negotiation. Paterson saying I want to not pay this, that, and these things, and in exchange I won't promise you that next year I won't come again, is not a negotiation.

I think Patterson is saying that, unless the unions agree to concessions, patterson will, as allowed by contract, terminate employees until the costs of the contract match more closely to the state's resources.  I actually agree with you:  Patterson should not reduce the cost per employee, he should simply slash the number of employees.   Fewer employees will mean, over time, weaker unions, and once the unions are weak the NY government can negotiate contracts that pay reasonable, rather than exorbitant, wages.

Fewer employees will not mean significantly less work done, given slack in the average employee's existing workload.

[grumbler]

This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

A coupla posts ago, you said that you did! 

Okay, whatever.