Serious question about unions: Is there a compensation model that rewards performance?

[maggiesfarmer]

I realize that DU has a lot of union members, so I'm hopeful for a knowledgeable response.

First: I've never been a member of a union nor have any of my immediate family members. This is one political issue that I'm actually very open minded on. From a legal point of view, I see unions as an expression of our freedom of assembly and fully support the right of workers to form a union. Where the issue gets fuzzy for me is when legislation requires employers to negotiate collectively with unions after agreements are made with workers as individuals (i.e. why should an employer be forced to bargain with the union when they hired each employee as an individual?). The subject of "right to work" states is also interesting -- on one side, I feel that as a worker, I should have a right to seek employment without paying a portion of my earnings back to the union. OTOH, I also think that corporations and unions have the right to negotiate agreements where the employer makes a concession to only hire union members in exchange for something else.

Setting aside stories of the $100k/year janitor and management difficulties in terminating sub-performers, one of the biggest questions that I have with unions is whether they have a workable model for compensating workers based on performance. in the United States? From discussions I've had on this topic with union proponents, unions base compensation almost solely on tenure, and reward poor, average and outstanding performers the same. (I've heard die-hard union proponents insist that union shops don't tolerate poor performers -- I don't have any first hand experience to confirm or correct that claim).

I'm an engineer by trade. It's hard to precisely measure, but the variation in work performance between a high performing engineer and an average engineer can be up to 5x. Literally, I see top engineers regularly come up with an innovative solution to problems in one week where their counterparts routinely take a month or more. In software particularly, Fred Brooks wrote that he noted the variation in performance was 10x in that field. Most engineering firms in the US have a compensation system in place that reward performance -- not 5x or 10x, but top performers get annual raises of CPI_increase + ~5% whereby average performers get CPI_increase. Top performers in my company receive out of cycle raises (acknowledge that the union argument is that in a union shop they'd all be making more in the first place).

Only a couple data points, but I have a family member who spent most of her career in nursing management, both at union hospitals and non-union hospitals. She reported what I perceive -- that from a compensation point of view, there was no mechanism to reward outstanding performers over tenure.

The exception I've read about are the pro-sports unions, but they've swung the pendulum in completely the opposite direction. They have the "shoot for the brass ring" model: a very small percent make huge, highly publicized salaries, while the "99%" are making within 20% of the league minimums. That's not what I'm interested in either.

So, is there a union model that rewards top performers without swinging all the way to the pro-sports type unions?

Note, whether or not performance should be a driver in compensation is not what I'm asking about here -- that's a different and more complex subject. I fully understand and respect that there are many who believe that tenure or family expenses should drive salary, not performance.

Thanks in advance for helpful responses.

[leftyohiolib]

2. pwui

goodnite

[Cumberland]

3. Looking forward to a rationed and reasoned response...

... if it appears.

[Starry Messenger]

4. I’m a Professional. What Can a Union Do for Me?

http://dpeaflcio.org/professionals/what-can-a-union-do-for-me/

"Won’t a union stifle individual achievement with things like raises and promotions determined solely by seniority?

Salaries and promotions are subjects for collective bargaining. Without a union, management is able to make such decisions unilaterally. Through collective bargaining, management and the union must agree on the mechanisms to be used and standards to be employed, an agreement that is included in a legally binding contract. There are no preconditions. Professionals, through their elected union representatives, may bargain for any viable system they believe best suits their profession and employment.For example, some union contracts provide not only for annual cost of living increases but a pool of dollars for merit increases. The combination assures both recognition of individual achievement and a minimum of equity. Seniority need not be the only criterion for promotion. A formal procedure could be devised which would include ratings by both supervisors and peers, credit for advanced education and training programs, and anything else that is deemed relevant by the professionals. A formal promotion and layoff procedure with rules known by all is preferable to no rules at all. Such a system can only be devised and implemented by a union and its members."

All your questions will probably find answers at that link. Short answer is, you can get paid any way that you want. It's just collectively agreed upon in a union.

[maggiesfarmer]

7. thanks Starry. I understand unions can bargain for anything they want, my question is

whether there are any current workable models in the US with a performance based compensation system?

I read the link, but it talks in high level concepts and theory; it doesn't present any models or examples. It reinforces the point a few times that under collective bargaining, the union can negotiate for anything, which I understand in concept.

If you or anyone else has specific examples where unions have bargained for a performance based compensation system and the results, it would be most helpful. I do appreciate the link.

[LeftyMom]

8. I just found a bunch of examples by googling "new union contract performance bonus"

so I'm not sure why you're asking DUers to do your homework for you?

[maggiesfarmer]

20. Not sure I deserved the 'homework' comment, but let me respond sincerely and try to

clarify.

I'm interested in "workable" models and was hoping for some data showing how well the system worked. I found most of those that your google query returned, but I wasn't using the term "new". None of those have been in place long enough to report results. There may be some on DU who are members though and can share personal experience.

If anyone on DU is a member of unions that have a performance based compensation policy, what are your early thoughts?

Interesting that the recent union contracts with performance clauses put it in the form of bonuses and not salary increases (one example did both). I'm not sure what I think about that point -- not a model I'm familiar with.

Regarding the "homework" crack and finding a "bunch of examples", > 50% of the results on the first two pages of the query you suggested refer to the NJ teacher's union. One of the results refers to the pro-soccer league and one refers to a UAW chapter negotiating to remove a performance based clause. The model at Chicago's City Colleges is most like what I'm interested in -- thank you for that.

peace

[kwassa]

22. You're full of it. You are trying to get others to disprove your unstated assertion, which is ...

that unions prevent merit performance compensation.

Do

Your

Own

Homework.

(and what assignment from what class are you trying to get us to do your homework for you? Is it due tomorrow?)

[JaneyVee]

49. I'm union and get incentive pay.

Unions set pay scales, but the company can most definitely pay you more than scale including bonuses etc.

[maggiesfarmer]

60. would you mind giving some more detail?

what type of work do you do?
how is the incentive pay dispersed - bonuses, salary increases or both?
what criteria is used to determine who gets how much incentive -- hard metrics, subjective evaluations or both?

how do you feel about the system? how is it working for labor? how is it working for ownership and management? would you support this structure again if it came to a vote?

do you feel that those who contribute the most are rewarded the most? do you feel those who contribute the least are rewarded the least?

Anyone, not just Janey, the idea of unions setting a scale but ownership having discretion to award certain members above others is not one that I've encountered before -- can anyone speak to how common that is?

thanks in advance

[MattBaggins]

71. Many stealthers will play the "I'm opened minded"

"But I have a few concerns" game.

[Starry Messenger]

25. It's up to the union in question to come up with a model

that the workers find to suit them. You asked if there were systems of pay in unions that reward in a way different from tenure or seniority. The answer is yes.

[pnwmom]

48. Yes, there is. Boeing has an engineering union and they bargain for things like a pool of money

to reward engineers the same way as non-union members are often rewarded -- based on merit (in addition to any cost of living or other salary increases.)

There's nothing that says an engineering union is incompatible with rewarding excellent work.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020438864_boeingspeeaxml.html

A key proposal is to raise the guaranteed portion of the annual 5 percent general wage increases in the Tech contract and correspondingly reduce the portion allocated to individuals according to merit.

[maggiesfarmer]

65. Thanks pnw -- best example yet. I'll have to get home before I research in depth.

I note that you pointed out the line about the unions wanting to move away from merit based increases, which I also homed in on.

Very appreciative of the sincerely, helpful response!

[Kingofalldems]

75. MLBPA get huge incentive pay.

[Brickbat]

5. A collective bargaining unit can try to bargain for anything it wants.

[oneofthe99]

6. I have been a union member all of my adult life

True story
and if anyone calls me a liar they can ######it

I first became a teamster at my first mill job , textiles


I was young , excited and wanted to do the best job I could.

First day on the job I show up and the lead man , I also think he was the shop steward
told me I had to drain these tanks of chemicals into 55 gallon drums and then get the tanks
scrubbed and washed.

First day on the job I wanted to impress so I worked my ass off. About half way into my shift ( I skipped my break )
I go to find the lead man and tell him I'm done ...what next.

He just blew up at me and started yelling his head off. He said you fucking finished it!!!
That job was suppose to last you all day (8 hours) and I had 2 other guys that wanted over time staying 4 hours to finish it.

Well there went my good first impression I was hoping to make. When I got home I told my dad what happened ( he worked there also helped get me in) he said that's the way it is , you don't go crazy doing extra work or taking away hours from other union members even though most of the jobs could be done in half the time or less........

[mokawanis]

9. The people I repped as a steward

weren't goofing off or working slow. They were working hard every day to provide care for seriously ill patients. I'm not discounting your story, I'm just pointing out that not all jobs and unions function that way.

[oneofthe99]

13. I never said they did but mill jobs are not health care , that's a whole different ball game

I'm just telling you my first experience as a teamster . This textile mill is closed now and moved to Mexico.

Like I said I have been in unions my whole adult working life and it has provided me with good wages .

[Nye Bevan]

12. I wonder whether that company would have been more successful

if the response had been "great job!" with raises and promotions for you if you had kept that kind of performance up.

As it is, it sounds more like Soviet Russia. And we know what happened to the Soviet Union.

[oneofthe99]

16. It wasn't the company , there were managers but the day to day work assignments

were run by union members in each dept

[Starry Messenger]

30. If you want to live in a right to work state

and take your chances as a special snowflake, no one is stopping you.

[Nye Bevan]

32. So the only way to avoid that kind of thing is to live in a right-to-work state?

Every single union shop punishes initiative and expects workers to deliberately work slowly to finish their tasks?

That is what you seem to be implying by your reply, which at first seemed to be to be a bit of a non-sequitur.

[joshcryer]

44. Almost invariably.

Look at the many unions who backed SOPA.

[TBF]

15. And if you think that doesn't happen in every other

company out there I've got a bridge to sell you out in the middle of West Texas.

I worked in law firms for years ... you bill hours. Lots of hours. In fact if you have one iota of sense in your head you make everything last 10 times as long as it needs to so you can keep billing for it. If you are are an attorney that is how your (large) bonuses are calculated (hours) - if you are staff it is also good for bonus but moreover it is good overtime pay. As staff the overtime was much more than the bonus in my experience - I had no problems doubling and even tripling my salary when we had busy times. I'd keep the work for myself rather than sharing it and milk every hour.

People love to use stories like that to bash unions but it's really dishonest because it is how work is done everywhere.

[oneofthe99]

21. So you aren't looking out for the best interest of your client?

interesting

[Maedhros]

79. Lawyers can be dishonest?

Who knew?

[Nye Bevan]

29. "you make everything last 10 times as long as it needs to so you can keep billing for it"

Always nice to see people advocating high ethical standards. But quite aside from that, one might think that clients would sometimes notice that they were billed for 20 hours for something when similar work was billed at 2 hours a few months ago. I guess your point is that if clients are too stupid to notice things like that, you might as well cheat them in pursuit of your own personal enrichment.

[TBF]

51. I've also seen this principle in other work environments -

it's just much easier to see how it happens in law firms. Any job I worked in had the expected work that needed to be done - and all the meetings/coffee clutch time that would stretch it out. Maybe I notice it because I'm more introverted and would rather just plow through work at my desk rather than socialize. The point is that people are going to do what their employers expect them to do. If you are there basically to answer phones, put together projects when needed etc . there can be a lot of down time or unproductive time. There were times I could easily get my work done in 3 hours and leave the building to do something else - but was not permitted to do so and it was not in the interest of the firm for managers to allow employees to do that. Employees don't set the goals/standards ethical or not - it is the owner that does that.

Granted I haven't worked in an office for a decade, and perhaps the past several years of down-sizing have changed the productivity that is expected of people.

[NoGOPZone]

19. cool story, bro. nt

[csziggy]

41. I've never been in a union and live in a "right to work" state

When I dropped out of college I was hired to work in an office in a newly created position. I was told what they needed done and had to figure out the best way to do it. Because I did it so well, I was always available to help other people in my section complete their work.

When a chance came for promotion, I didn't get it because my supervisor said I made everything look "too easy." I also got no raises after the first retention raise. At the end of the year, my parents offered me the chance to go back to college to finish my degree - I quit the job immediately with two weeks notice. For the two weeks I tried to train my replacement, who refused to learn beyond the job she was already doing. I couldn't blame her - it was a more complicated job but did not rate any higher pay than she was already making.

I found out later that the office eventually had to hire two people to do the job I had been doing, and an additional person to pick up the odd jobs I had been doing when I finished my main job.

My point - union or not, most workplaces do not reward harder or better work. Most of the people I knew just wanted to make a decent living but did not want to exert themselves physically or mentally to do extra because they know damn well they will not be rewarded for any of that extra exertion.

It is NOT a union problem - it is the nature of the workplace.

[TexasProgresive]

47. "It is NOT a union problem - it is the nature of the workplace."

I've worked in non-union jobs for small and large corporations and in a union job for a very large corporation. My experiences have been that large corporations cannot see beyond their boardroom bifocals. As a consequence many are promoted and protected who should be terminated.

In some of the small companies I worked for the owners were closely involved in the company and rewarded exemplary work with bonuses and compensation. In the larger non-union companies it was a different story and often people were promoted well beyond their skill set because they were favored by middle management.

In the uber large corporation that I currently work the union workers are at least on a level playing field. The management which is non-union is a different story- their ranks are filled will a lot of self-serving people whose only desire is to promote themselves. There is too much space between them and the upper echelons are too myopic to notice the rankness of the middle and lower management.

The reason unions are necessary is because it is not human nature to do the right thing. Some may but greed wins out with many.

[csziggy]

66. I fully support unions - the "problem" I referred to is pay for merit

And I also agree with the posts below that indicate unions are for protecting ALL workers, not just the rising stars.

After I left my job, a union came in. The average workers were very much better off. The supervisors were forced to recognize when the workers completed their assigned tasks rather than only rewarding their favorites. Workers' pay increased from minimum wage to a more liveable amount, etc.

Rewards for more capable workers are still rare. But I am glad that all workers are doing better.

[TexasProgresive]

68. When I work in non-union companies

it was tacitly forbidden to speak of what one was compensated. This was strange to me because I had been military and worked for NASA and our salaries were public knowledge. In any case this made it difficult to know whether rising "stars" were being compensated according to their worth. I do know that some people received plum assignments who were not particularly worthy.

I worked for a small owner operated company that installed and serviced commercial electronic systems. We received a base salary and were expected to invoice 2.5 times our base. When we did greater were received a bonus and if regularly our base salary went up. This was as fair a system as I can think of but it all depends on the boss. This man wanted his company to succeed and believed that success rested on the employees. Bill was a jewel shining in the mud-not many like him.

[X_Digger]

83. I've seen that- 'failing up the ladder' we called it.

The moron who screws up then "improves" to the point of being adequate is seen as something special and gets rewarded, while those who do their job well and don't raise a fuss are overlooked.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Yes. Because collective action seeks to preserve to the jobs not only for the young and the swift

but the old and infirm.

My mom worked on a non-union production line that paced their production according to the fastest and fittest. For most years she maintained production levels but then, like most of the women who aged out with her, she suffered from heel spurs and rotator cuff tears. In order to maintain production levels easily attained by women in their 20s, women in their 50s were forced to work in constant pain, Women, who in their younger years, were getting performance awards, were now getting poor reviews and getting fired before they were able to collect on their pensions.

That supervisor was looking out for the collective good. And your dad? I bet he couldn't have finished the job in the time you finished it as a young man but you seem willing to have put him jobless because a younger man could out pace him.

[Tanuki]

55. Excellent point. That is exactly what my grandmother experienced when working in a boiler

factory. Thank you for helping educate those who have not seen this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. ...my word. You're actually defending that?

"Unions actively encourage employees not to do the best job they can" sounds to me like exhibit A from a right-wing case for restricting union rights

[Luminous Animal]

80. Indeed I am. Because grandmas and grandpas don't deserve to have their bodies work

Don't deserve their bodies worked to death at a job they've worked at for 20 years.

My mom loved her job and she won many awards for innovation. Contributions that contributed to an increase of the companies bottom line. Unions protect workers. They advocate that the pace of work does not outstrip a workers productive longevity. That they are not churned out and robbed of, not only their salary (and their homes) but also their pensions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. Using phrases like "worked to death" makes it hard to take you seriously, I'm afraid.

The alternative to artificially-imposed unproductivity is not people being "worked to death"; that's just ludicrous.

I think that what you're presenting are essentially attacks on unions, not defences of them; thankfully, I believe that while there are undoubtedly some unions as bad as you say, they are in a minority.

[Luminous Animal]

88. "artificially-imposed unproductivity"... Now THAT is right wing and no where near what I said.

Thanks for playing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. No, that's *exactly* what you've been defending.

It may not be what you *meant* - only you can tell that - but what you've been *saying* is that the behaviour outlined in post 6 - a union rep putting pressure on someone to deliberately underperform - is OK.

And there's nothing right-wing about condemning that.

[haele]

78. Points people always forget to consider when coming across stories like this -

True Story - I ran marine electronics installation crews for over 15 years and had to manage both the job, the regulatory actions and the resources needed to to the job.
While it's nice that you apparently wanted to impress first day on the job, I suspect that if that job was supposed to last 8 hours, there were a few things that were missed because it was the first day on your job. The phrase I keyed on with your story was "tanks of chemicals" - dyes, softeners, and fixatives, I suppose. My crew often had to start an installation with demo and cleaning - bilges and fuel tanks are particularly nasty, and yes - if the site is OSHA compliant, even in the 1980's, it would take a good 8 hours for just one man to empty and containerize for storage the residue liquid, and to safely clean out a 1000 gallon tank. And to validate all the pre-inspection paperwork. Inspection would usually take 2 more hours. I would not let just one man clean tanks, either.
The reason all this is done is for SAFETY - for both the workers and the work environment.

Point 1 - In your story, your steward apparently made the mistake of not walking you through all the safety and environmental requirements - just letting you go for it. "Here ya go son, just empty whatever's in these tanks into those drums and scrub them out real good...come back at the end of shift and tell me how far you got."
Of course, most people who have never had to deal with chemicals think cleaning chemical tanks is the same as cleaning out a bathroom at home. It's not.
My previously healthy maternal grandmother died of three types of cancer that quickly riddled her body three years after WWII from exposure to aviation cleaners and following the shortcuts "everyone" at the aircraft factory she worked at took while handling chemicals. Her line did the painting and coating. All the women who worked her line were dead within ten years.

Point 2 - Since the 1920's, there have been work efficiency formulas for determining how long it takes to do a complete task within the specifications required. Any supervisor worth his or her salt knows how to break down the task and assign a time estimate to schedule required manpower and resources. And even the Teamsters require their shop stewards to attend management courses as part of the requirements to get the managerial positions that assign tasks. From what I understand, there's the major difference between "Line Lead" and "Shop Steward".

If it were a lead that told you what to do without walking you through a job you had no knowledge of the procedure required to do it, no matter how simple a job it seems to be, then that lead was seriously at fault.

Different unions may have different rules, and some unions are slack, but those are internal issues with that particular union branch, not "The Union" as a whole - they still have to follow Labor Law, OSHA, and other federal and state regulations to operate as a certified union.
Unions have been de-certified for shoddy, borderline criminal operations in the past. And they probably will in the future. But then again, Bankers, Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, and other professionals lose their certification, and business are given "cease and desist" orders for unscrupulous behavior just as often.

Haele

[Callmecrazy]

10. Hah...

I'm IBEW. Our Contractors would not tolerate that kind of production. The foreman would get demoted or laid off. My union policed its own. The contractors that we have agreements with are our partners, not the enemy. Lack of profit affects raises and health and pension benefits. Someone screwing around on the job would get talked to because poor performance reflects on us all- the professionals.

[madville]

11. Yes and No

In a federal bargaining unit I've seen and gotten annual monetary performance awards, like 1% of annual pay.

In a union workplace 20 years ago they didn't award performance, there were quarterly safety bonuses though in no one got injured, one reported injury in the whole plant and no one would get their bonus. It pretty much encouraged people to not report minor injuries. That place was weird, seniority meant everything when it came to promotions or applying to open positions but it meant nothing regarding pay. If a 20 year employee and a 1 year employee worked the same position, they got the same pay.

[Ilsa]

14. Do you know any pilots of large airlines?

Many of them are union. It might be worth asking them. And you probably know USPS letter carriers. They are union.

I would imagine that for some professions, like pilots, it is hard to do your job any better than the professional standards set by the professional associations and licensing associations. But the stress and commitment to get to that level of responsibility is why they have high baseline pay and power as a group, more so than individually.

[TBF]

17. Piece work is the most common example -

and I have no idea if it is done anymore or if there is another more sophisticated term for it. My dad was union in a steel mill in the 1970s in Wisconsin. He had something called "piece work". I don't know precisely what it meant - I was a kid - but it seemed to involve working harder or producing more (it may have been as simply as how many widgets you produced) - but I know the people who were motivated and wanted to make more money would ask for it. My dad always liked when it was available. Maybe someone who has actual experience rather than second-hand can give you more details.

[maggiesfarmer]

24. A had a roomie once who was a (non union) brick mason and did piece work.

at least, he called it that. it was basically what you described, he would negotiate a flat fee, or fixed cost fee, to do a specific piece of work (e.g. $150 to build a chimney).

First place Milwaukee Brewers (but you probably already knew that)!

[TBF]

54. Yay Brewers :)

Yes I still follow home state sports!

Interesting that piece work was done both union and non-union. Honestly, my dad was small town and he liked his union overall. I remember painting strike signs with him once and he said something along the lines of "the union is not perfect but we wouldn't have anything without it". Of course like any system there was corruption. Especially in Wisconsin - north of Chicago - the paper mills had strong unions for example and not a little bit of violence associated with them.

But having the union kept wages higher (that even influenced non-union shops because they had to compete for the workers by paying a little more).

A main problem right now in our country is that unions were demonized and so many folks are sitting in low-paying service jobs. If they would band together and form big unions like the food workers seem to be thinking about doing they could bargain for the wage increases. Overall it would benefit everyone to have them because all those part-time service workers going up to 40 hours and a little higher salary would mean a lot more purchasing ...

Good luck with your research.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. It seems strange...

...that you ask for examples of the union model rewarding top performers, then write off the most obvious and publicized examples of the union model doing just that (i.e., sports).

Aside from that, many IRS workers belong to a union (the National Treasury Employees Union), and there was the big dust up about how some IRS employees were receiving performance bonuses even though they had owed back taxes. So, that's another example of the union model providing for performance bonuses/incentives.

[maggiesfarmer]

27. the IRS might be a good example.

not sure how many of those getting bonuses were NTEU members, but that is absolutely worth checking out. thanks, it may be exactly what I'm interested in.

I think my reasons for dismissing the sports model was both explicitly addressed and obvious -- the "give it all to the 1%" model is not one I'm interested in.

[W_HAMILTON]

31. I wasn't sure about your comment about the union model used in sports, either.

I'm sure it varies by sport, but since I'm most familiar with basketball (NBA):

- For the current season, the maximum "league minimum" is about $1.4m. 20% of that is about $300k, so around $1.7m total, but I'll be generous and round it up to $2m.

- Just taking my favorite team -- who's in the bottom third of total payroll -- and 11 of the team's players made more than $2m this season.

So, I would say your assertion that 99% of the league makes within 20% of the league minimum is quite, quite far off.

[maggiesfarmer]

34. point taken (thanks for the data). I will take a deeper look at the NBAPA. thanks.

[maggiesfarmer]

86. I want to thank you again for the NBAPA pointer...

which prompted me to look a bit deeper.

In summary, it's really hard to reason about the NBA model and imagine how it could apply practically to my profession. A few key differences really stick out:
- the NBAPA only represents labor that reaches the top of their profession, and doesn't allow membership from other professional basketball players, including the ~300 NBADL players, ~250 WNBA players, ~200 ABA players, ~120 PBL players in the United States. In other words, the NBAPA already has a filter that says "we only represent the best pro basketball players, not the masses" (counter argument is that it's not uncommon for unions to only represent one company's employees)
- the NBADL, and players not in any league that called up for 10 day contracts and the such, represent a model that I don't believe would be acceptable outside of sports. I'm trying to imagine any normal profession where workers would accept a system where the top performers make salaries in the millions while the rest make salaries below the poverty level (requiring other jobs, in general) with imposed salary maximums.
- Since the NBADL is an official affiliate of the NBA, with NBA teams calling up players at will, the DL salary tiers at $13,000, $19,000 and $25,5000 are reasonable to average into the NBA salaries. In almost all cases, these players are not allowed to join the union (unless an NBA player is on a rehab stint in the DL or similiar).

I made a graph showing the salaries of all players under contract with the Spurs organization. Unfortunately I can't immediately figure out how to embed it (I guess I need to post it on an image hosting site and link to that site, but too much trouble ATM).

Summary (the NBA has a sliding scale for minimum pay based on years in league, data below is from ESPN):
of the 14 man roster (tossing out Damion James, data skewed by salary from last team):
5 make 100% - 200% of the minimum
5 make 200% - 600% of the minimum
[big jump]
3 make 800% - 1000% of the minimum (I don't follow the NBA that closely, is Tiago really worth it?)

The NBA does appear to be closing the gap between the superstars and the rest:

my conclusion: pessimistic that the NBA model would work outside of sports. The salary distribution curve is still too close to the 1% model. The NBAPA and NBA seem to have an agreement that the NBAPA won't represent players who aren't on active NBA rosters. The correlate in my industry would be a union that only represents Principal and Staff Engineers, but not those working at Engineer I or Senior Engineer level. I need to give some more thought here, but that doesn't seem palatable.

Again, I exaggerated in my numbers about the pay inequality in sports and you were right to call me on it, but the discrepancy still seems to big.

peace

[SheilaT]

23. My personal experience as both a union and non union worker

is that with the union employees get better pay and can count on job security. Where there's no union, companies cheerfully screw over the average employee, finding every possible excuse not to give any raises at all.

There are places where employees are encouraged to be minimally productive, and that's generally (in my observation) places where, union or no, the individuals simply don't get the recognition they deserve for a job well done.

I was a low level government employee in 1980. A GS-2 or 3, can't recall which any longer. I was actually a student intern, working part time, 20 hours a week, for the Army Archives division in Washington DC. The job was designed more to teach young people the necessity of showing up to work on time, rather than getting real work out of us. Well, I was older than their typical student, and had long since mastered those basics. I made myself somewhat unpopular by finishing up assignments in about a quarter of the time expected of me. After a while I worked out a way of shuttling between two sides of the Forrestal Building where I worked, until I was fairly certain no one on either side was quite sure where I was supposed to be, and then go home two hours early. I wouldn't be surprised if my actual boss was on to me, but I got so much done while I was there he didn't care. I was told by more than one person that I made the entire office I was in look bad, and if I had been a real employee, I'd have been promoted out of there so fast I wouldn't have known what had hit me.

Sometimes productivity isn't appreciated.

In recent years I've learned to disguise just how quickly I can accomplish my work, so I have some leeway for goofing off. Invariably I'm still accomplishing much more at a faster pace than they expect, so it works out.

[hollowdweller]

26. Nobody I know union or non union is rewarded for performance.

I certainly know quite a few people who are performing superior but they don't get really compensated.

I do know people have been fired for sub par performance.

Most people I know get hired get to a certain level of salary and then are stuck no matter how good they do.

Then if management sees them kicking ass, it's not "lets give a raise", it's if they fall back from a peak they catch hell because they raised the bar for themselves and then management uses it to hang them not to compensate them. You are living in a fantasy world if you think hard work gets anybody anywhere in ANY work place. It's bullshit and connections.

Your whole thread is wrong in my opinion. The middle class is screwed and the question should be how much to union workers get paid over non union. I believe generally higher. It's if your boss sees he has a bunch of older employees that are at the top of their pay scale should he be able to fire them all and hire new guys to save costs?? Does a union help you there or not??

Just sayin but the way you put it it sounds pretty republican.

[maggiesfarmer]

28. so, if I start a seperate thread titled, "union vs non-union: which pays better?", can we get back

to my question?

Jeez, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but I asked a sincere question and also explicitly asked to set aside the issues such as which pays better or whether hard work gets a person anywhere, but you responded with only that and nothing what I was hoping to discuss.

[Fumesucker]

37. Actually that poster's observations mirror my own

Increased pay for better performance is rare to the point of near invisibility, it really doesn't matter if you are union or non-union.

The only real performance that counts is performance in sucking up to the boss, that can pay huge bonuses for those who are good at it.

Why bother to study a phenomenon that is all but nonexistent?

[meaculpa2011]

57. I worked for a company that was a graveyard.

Regardless of how well I performed there was no chance of getting more that a grudging pat on the back. When my boss resigned they offered me his job, without any raise in pay. I respectfully declined. They were flabbergasted that I was not satisfied with more work, more responsibility and the same pay level. Finally we agreed on a number, but soon after I was recruited to a larger and much more progressive company that offered me international travel and a 40% bump in pay. See ya.

I stayed there for two years and learned enough (also saved enough) to go out on my own. I also kept them as a client for thirty years.

I was also a union member early on. When my boss asked me to worked on a difficult project that nobody else wanted I agreed, but demanded that I be bumped to full scale six months ahead of schedule. One of my co-workers filed a grievance.

I don't think that any union should agree to performance bonuses. It sets worker against worker.

[doc03]

33. I worked in a steel mill, we got incentive pay based on our

production.

[maggiesfarmer]

35. thanks -- first personal example! hope you don't mind some questions..

assume it was a union shop?

overall, how did you feel about the performance based system? why would you have or have not preferred one based solely on tenure?

how did the incentive pay work? was it based on hard metrics, subjective evaluations (supervisor, peer) or both?
was it in the form of bonuses, or wage/salary increases or both?

if based on hard metrics, how did the union handle measuring production between different roles in the factory (e.g. if plant production met goals, how did you determine the contribution of an individual pipe fitter versus an individual welder)?

thank you for having provided a relevant personal example and thank you in advance for your patience with my detailed questions.

[doc03]

81. The way ours worked was for example there are 480 minutes in

an 8 hour shift. For each ton of steel we would produce we would get paid so many minutes. For example with our production we may earn 720 minutes in 8 hours. We would be paid for the 8 hours or 480 minutes and an incentive pay of an additional 240 minutes or 4 hours. In this example we would get 150% of our base pay. That is a job that contributes directly to the production of steel. Now take a welder or electrician they didn't contribute directly to production and they may get 1/2 of our incentive or an extra 2 hours or 125% of their base pay. A laborer may get 1 hour or 112.5% of their base rate. That is a very simplified explanation, there a lot of variables. I think it worked very well, some shifts would consistently be the top performers. Now the electrician or welder may not get as much incentive pay but they had a higher base pay.

[maggiesfarmer]

84. thanks very much for the details (read both replies).

summary:
implementation
- performance incentive awarded by small team (shift team)
- individual portion of award set by role within team
- performance incentive comes in form of bonus (by way of time paid) in lieu of pay increases
results
- system viewed favorably by labor
- system did seem to encourage superior performance and "out work the other team" mindset to be the highest paid

fantastic, again, i appreciate the informative response.

[doc03]

82. Another example would be the shipping warehouse. We would get so many minutes depending

on how the coil was packaged, some would just take steel bands, others we would paper wrap and some we would put on skids. We would get paid so many minutes for each coil we would stock. When they would ship, we would get a set figure depending how they would be shipped. If they shipped on a truck we would get so many minutes for that. Some would ship by rail cars with built in racks but others we would have to build a rack with lumber and we would be paid more for that. The crews would compete with each other to be the top shipper and also the highest paid.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. On two separate occasions ...

(once on the labor side and once on the management side)

I was on a contract negotiation team that produced a merit pay scheme, where the a merit pool was funded and individual employees were given specific performance goals to meet, above and beyond what was considered "Satisfactory" performance.

The employee's merit pay was based on meeting the performance goals.

[maggiesfarmer]

38. so, I'd ask you the same questions as Doc,

with the benefit of hindsight, do you consider either of those arrangements to be successes? Did union members (from your mgmt example)?

If possible to answer, was there a notable change in worker's satisfaction with the performance based systems?

If possible to answer, was there a notable change in productivity with the performance based systems?

thanks in advance!

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Yes, Yes, No, No. eom

[Major Nikon]

39. Your post seems more like a thinly veiled rant against unions rather than a legitimate question

Perhaps that's not how you meant it, but a "question" that starts out with "Setting aside stories of the $100k/year janitor and management difficulties in terminating sub-performers," seems more than a little suspect.

The job of the union is to make sure employees get their fair share of the pie and to protect employees from arbitrary and capricious decisions. A union contract is an agreement between the union and the employer. Blaming unions for "management difficulties in terminating sub-performers" is simply nonsensical. I work for a company that has a very strong union contract, and I've managed to fire all sorts of sub-performers as well as employees with disciplinary problems. It should be "difficult" (actually procedural) to fire employees for whatever reason. Why? Because otherwise you have an at-will situation where members of management can fire employees for no other reason than because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed, or they are simply festering assholes with a power trip. And do these things happen without unions? You bet they do, and there's no surer way for a company to run itself into the ground than to fire good employees simply because managers were too incompetent to get production out of them.

What the anti-unionist conveniently ignore is that there's no shortage of companies that manage to run themselves into the ground with zero unionization. A good union will strengthen a company, not weaken it. And why is this? If you get enough people together, there will always be a small percentage that will not be productive no matter what management does. However, this type of employee is actually very rare. Human nature is such that the vast majority of employees want to be productive and want to please their employer. The challenge to management is to foster this nature rather than suppressing it or crushing it entirely. No company on earth that wants to stay in business would sign a contract that has no path to fire sub-performers, and I've never seen or heard about one that doesn't. If a manager can't follow a clearly written path for removing a sub-performer, they have no business being a manager in the first place. The much bigger problem that companies have is they have no clearly written path to fire poorly performing managers, and there's no shortage of those out there.

You seem to think tenure has no value. This is nonsense. An employee with 20 years with the company has a proven tract record of production. They also have knowledge and experience that benefit the company in all sorts of ways. Tenure does have value and it should be rewarded. A good union contract will have pay for performance and there's plenty of examples of where this happens regardless of what your anecdotal evidence tells you. However, a good union will always reject pay for performance schemes which are completely subjective. Subjective pay for performance schemes are actually not about pay for performance, but rather are pay for ass-kissing. The reason is because managers will inevitably reward employees that stroke their egos rather than employees who may be the most productive. Say the wrong words to your boss one time and you'll never get a raise regardless of how much you produce. That's a stupid fucking way to manage a company by any measure.

[Brickbat]

53. Interesting how every answer on this thread that says, "Yes, I'm in a union and we get incentive

pay" doesn't get a response from the OP.

[maggiesfarmer]

61. thanks for the well thought out response

If anyone thinks my questions are disingenuous they're invited to not respond. Assuming I have an alternate agenda in asking questions and responding in that vein isn't helpful to a meaningful conversation. My attempt with the comments you called out was to set aside points that frequently turn into distracting tangents, I clearly failed there. I'll take it as a lesson learned in crafting posts.

I didn't mean to imply tenure has no value. After re-reading my OP, I note that I actually went out of my to set aside that point as not central to the topic in the thread. I do believe tenure has enormous value and would be happy to contribute to a thread on that topic. I intuitively believe that there exists a positive correlation between tenure and work performance, but again, that's another subject.

[H2O Man]

72. Well said.

Thanks!

[standingtall]

42. I have never been a fan of so called

Performance based merit compensation. That's a corporate argument as far as I am concerned. How productive someone is can be highly subjective. Often times in the work place racism,sexism, or homophobia can cause someone to be unfairly labeled as unproductive by their coworkers and employers. As far as a company working out an agreement with an individual that's is meaningless without a legally binding contract.

[Major Nikon]

45. Actually it's not that difficult

The easiest and most non-subjective way to implement such a plan is to reward all employees when certain metrics are met or exceeded. From there you start down the organizational chart and reward individual lines of business for performance. When you get to the individual employee level, it becomes a little more challenging to develop non-subjective metrics that do not have the potential for illegal discrimination, but certainly not impossible.

[TexasProgresive]

50. Post 39 was excellent

The corporation I work for uses a system of annual bonus compensation similar to what you have outlined. The problem I have with it is it is based on too large a group of employees. Even though the employees in one area may meet or exceed all metrics they will be pulled down by other groups in the state. The other problem I have with this is that it keeps down base pay. The bonus check is a once a year thing and does not raise wages.

[Major Nikon]

63. That is a problem

Generally how it works is you have groups of employees who may loose pay or bonuses based on situations in which they have no control or influence. The flip side of that is they may have control over metrics that other employes do not which means they could also be the ones who pull everyone else down. That's why it's good to marry an overall pay-for-performance scheme with one that is more individualized at the employee level. That way each employee has a shot at reaping the benefits of when the entire company succeeds and when they succeed on a more individual level.

We have went through several different methods of implementing pay-for-performance. Some have been a disaster and some seem to work pretty well. Personally I like having such a system as a manager because the more carrots you have, the less you have to rely on the stick, and the stick is just not a good way to motivate people. Furthermore, I don't like handing out awards to people unless there is money attached to it.

[maggiesfarmer]

64. Two points you make that seem common to other experiences shared here:

- performance based compensation in union shops tends to be based on performance of the organization, not of the individual
- performance based compensation under union contracts tends to be in the forms of bonuses, not salary or wage increases

[madfloridian]

43. That's not what unions do. They are there to provide support for the workers, not police them.

The monitoring is done by the people that hire. I think your next step would be to say they protect bad workers.

I don't think that often happens. I know teachers in unions can most definitely be fired for cause. The union simply protects them from unreasonable dismissals....or at least they did until Arne came along.

[Starry Messenger]

56. Here is more from the concerned OP, from 2012:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002732437#post8

[madfloridian]

58. Ah, missed that one.

Glad I did.

Thanks for sharing.

[Nye Bevan]

69. Whoa. He thinks teachers' salaries should be higher,

and doesn't think that standardized testing should be the sole litmus test?

Awful stuff. How on earth has this DUer not yet been banned?

[Starry Messenger]

70. Derp.

[Brickbat]

52. "So, is there a union model that rewards top performers without swinging all the way to the

pro-sports type unions?"

This reminds me of the kids in high school who would say, "Show me an example where socialist principles actually worked! And Scandinavia doesn't count!"

[Nye Bevan]

67. Well, to be fair, the Scandinavian countries are unashamedly capitalist.

Plenty of free trade, thriving stock markets, and lots of private businesses. They just happen to be capitalist countries with higher taxes and more generous social benefits.

[Brickbat]

73. NYE BEVAN!

I'll be damned. What the hell have you been up to since graduation?

[Bluenorthwest]

59. I'm in a Union, there is a sharing of profits so everyone wants every project to excel

The other part of your OP that I find lacking in reality is the material which claims that the collectively bargained base contract somehow binds the individual, which in my Union is certainly does not. The Union contract contains baseline minimums which protect everyone by making sure the people at the bottom of the pay scales get a fair shake. But most work is done under specifically negotiated agreements made between the employer and the individual. We can not of course bargain away that which is collectively ours, but we can and do negotiate for more of everything, better everything, and mostly more money and enhanced sharing of profits beyond that which is guaranteed by the Union contract.
The Union has a say in minimums, but no say at all in maximums, or any other rate hikes or compensation packages. The employer is the entity making performance based pay decisions, the Union does not have to do with that at all, and could not.

All that said, my life is so much better because of my Union and I have not seen a minimum rate in decades.

[badtoworse]

62. From what I've seen, the answer is no.

[Niceguy1]

76. I've been union for a long time

and there are like 5 or 6 unions where I work. And they all fight performance pay. They think its a bad thing where I wish we had it.

[upaloopa]

77. The reason non union workers pay union dues

is because they assume all the benefits won by the union.
If the union negotiates a salary increase non union members get the increase too. They also get vacation holidays and health benefits negotiated by the union.
Generally unions support pro labor candidates which benefits union and non union workers alike.
As to rules, I belong to the SEIU as a county worker. I am subject to the county's code of ethics labor standards and the civil service code. All these have rules that I can be disciplined or fired for violating. We have an employee performance review annually. We could be fired for poor performance reviews. Our wage scale is tiered or has steps. Good performance reviews are rewarded by step increases. I live in a at will state meaning you can be let go at any time union or no. There is no seniority rights to your job.
Non union members also get the same pension that union workers get that was negotiated by the union.
Most of the talking points you have that are not pro union are myths. The only difference between us and a non union shop is that we get paid better, have more time off, have good health insurance and a pension. These were things all workers had at one time. Corporations over time replaced unions with non union shops.
The effect is all the low wage jobs and lack of benefits people have. The social costs of not having unions is passed on to you in higher taxes and poor economies. We are a consumer driven society. When workers have little income then they cannot spend thus demand is reduced and we all pay a price.
There is nothing good to be gotten out of diminishing union influence for the working class. Our lives depend on our being able to bargin for a decent wage and benefits.
Corporations have industry groups to represent them we need the same thing.

[Squinch]

85. I've been in both union and non union jobs.

In the union I am in, there is little protection against being fired if the management wants to do so. So that is one tactic for rewarding performance.

I grew up in a family business that relied heavily on guys in the construction unions. The individual companies, which tended to be small, kept the good performers on the payroll at the end of a job, and let the sub standard ones go back in the pool, so that is another way that good work is rewarded and poor work is not. A guy who got a reputation for being a bad worker didn't get requested by the individual companies.

In the non-union jobs, I saw just as much compensated and rewarded incompetence as I do in the union job, if not more.

[maggiesfarmer]

90. thanks to everyone who responded with helpful information (summary of answers inside)

I learned a lot that I didn't get from my google searching. I come to DU primarily to learn things, often by getting first hand opinions from people with experiences I don't share. I got that here, and I appreciate it.

For those who are interested, here's a summary of what I learned on this topic from DU and research directly traced from posts ITT:
-unions don't have many examples where individual performance is evaluated and used to adjust compensation (a few noted that power to terminate employment was a form of this, which is true).
-unions do have working models where team performance is evaluated and rewarded, although these seem to be in minority.
-DU union members who have worked under a model of merit based compensation universally report positive experiences from it (I believe that's true, if there was someone with personal experience and negative results, I missed the post).
-unions historically have opposed merit based compensation during contract negotiation; this pattern still holds today.
-under union contracts, performance based compensation almost always comes in the form of bonuses and not salary or wage increases.
-no DU'ers reported being members of unions with individual-based merit-based compensation systems; the only examples I found outside of DU are the teacher's union in NJ and City Colleges in Chicago. I was also referred to Boeing, whose engineers recently negotiated to remove that clause in the last contract. Following the NJ teacher's and City Colleges will be interesting.
-DU union members stated conflicting results on incentives that reward large teams (e.g. #50, #59).
-lots of discussion around professional sports unions with this model, although in digging in there, I really don't think that appears to be a workable solution because of selection process to achieve union membership and the huge discrepancies between players pay (#86).
-I need to learn to ask open ended questions (#40).

Last note:
For those who thought I might have an alternative agenda in wanting more information about how unions may fit my profession and responded with less-than-helpful posts, consider: If I'm sincerely interested in the topic, then your response is really distasteful and against the goals of the site. OTOH, if I'm being disingenuous and I'm really asking these questions here at DU for some alternative agenda, then your replies are just "feeding the troll". Either way, the posts are likely not driving toward whatever end goal you really intend and not bettering DU.

peace