If I decide to improve my skills and negotiate a 2x raise with my employer or another employer I don’t want to have to be limited by some additional bureaucracy trying to tell me what my employment contract should be
Not once in my life have I heard or seen unions imterfering in any way or form with negotiations with an employer for better than union conditions. Unions negotiate global basics and of course allow better individual contracts.
Is it actually common for high-performing union members to have better deals? In my (limited) experience, the unions tend to advocate for the long-term membership, who are often below-average performers.
Yes. Usually wage ranges are negotiated. Negotiate before you join the company and make sure you understand your contract. If you are not sure, ask your union's representative or, of course, a lawyer specialized in labour law. Labour law is complex and you definitely want a specialist to answer your questions.
Don't trust the first google hits, especially if you are in the US. Disinformation by union busters is very common around here.
"The maximum player salary is based on the number of years that player has played and the total of the salary cap. The maximum salary of a player with 6 or fewer years of experience is either $25,500,000 or 25% of the total salary cap (projected for 2017–18), whichever is greater. For a player with 7–9 years of experience, the maximum is $30,600,000 or 30% of the cap, and for a player with 10+ years of experience, the maximum is $35,700,000 or 35% of the cap.[19][33] There is an exception to this rule: a player is able to sign a contract for 105% of his previous contract, even if the new contract is higher than the league limit.[34]"
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.
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
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.
In a system that is hyper focused in growth like US and even more Silicon Valley, unions don’t seem to make a lot of sense for neither party. And the proof is there, huge businesses and astronomical salaries.
I would say though this only benefits part of the society and comes with huge drawbacks too.
You should read the article. He talks about how worker leverage has dissipated, making it not-so-easy to negotiate that 2X raise versus in the past. It's kind of the point.
See also, the surge in recent tech layoffs (which he cites in the article).
If worker leverage has dissipated then IMO that’s because they’re providing less relative value. If you can provide your employer more value they will pay you more