[xiler]

> actual unions are a far cry from how they are portrayed as helping the worker.

I think it's a fairly well established industry trend that, on average, union membership is a net positive for the worker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_wage_premium

[umvi]

Couldn't this just be because unions can have a deteriorating effect on meritocracy?

Say you have 10 workers - 2 are rock stars and make $50/hr, 6 are average and make $20/hr, and 2 are bad and make $10/hr (min wage - because they are never promoted).

Average "non-union" pay is: $24/hr

Now say you unionize and the union forces you to start paying the bad employees $20/hr like all the other average ones. So now you pay the 2 bad employees $20 each. Well, you still want to incentivize good work so you bump average employees to $25/hr. But dang, that's a lot of money, time to reign in rock star budget a bit. Now rock stars make $30/hr, average make $25/hr, bad make $20/hr.

Average "union" pay is: $25/hr

So yes, the "average pay" will be higher for "the worker"... but at a cost. Your average high performers will now be paid less, and your average low performers will now be paid more... which creates perhaps undesirable incentive structures ("why work my butt off to get ahead when it really won't make that much of a difference? I'd rather switch to a non-union company where my pay is directly tied to my output").

[ARandumGuy]

I'm not sure what companies you've worked for, but salary is almost never based on a 'meritocracy,' it's based on the minimum amount an employer thinks they can get away with. That value has nothing to do with an employee's output, and everything to do with minimizing costs.

[steffandroid]

This is a pointless thought experiment that has practically no basis in reality.