thranx said:
When you want a good/great worker you have to pay for it. Great workers do not take shitty deals. If you dont care about the qaulity of your worker you can pay less, but it will be refelcted in their work and their customer service.
Even with unions, there will always be someone will to work for less as not everyone is part opf a union. |
Those woul all be great points, if we were debating the merits of capitalism vs communism. However, they are irrelevant to the matter at hand
"Certain states have higher pay due to individual bargaining."
They can do so under collective bargaining. Danger pay, pay to compensate for higher cost of living, or lower quality of life can all be catered for under collective bargaining.
"Intelligent/hard working people have higher pay under individual bargaining"
Again, this is not communism. If a person works hard, they will be promoted, and then they will fall under a higher band in the collective bargaining and be paid more. Hell, Trade unionism doesn't even oppose the existance of bonuses, it just guarentees a fair wage even without those bonuses.
"Even without unions, some people are willing to work unfair contracts."
This is, unfortunately true. However, there are considerably fewer people who will if you have a good trade union. If there are fewer, then employers still need to hire trade unionists, and thus there is compromise.
The plain fact is, unions protect people from unfair employers. You might point to a minority of employers that give decent working conditions (whether they do this out of kindness or to attract better employees is irrelevant) the fact is, the majority of employers don't do this. Even in the case of fair employees, they will simply deal fairly with with trade unions, as they otherwise dealt with individuals, so that is still fine.
