If you're a consultant billing out at $400/hour, you might be in a better position that someone who is salaried, but that's pretty rare. Most hourly workers are at minimum wage or a single digit multiple.

The unions factor can be a mixed bag for a new employee. The average compensation and working conditions may be better but there can also be seniority rules that make it harder to get a promotion or transfer, or ensure that more junior employees are the first to be let go of the company downsizes. Being a star worker won't make a difference under those rules.

Anonymous wrote:I believe that unions GENERALLY pay less - but this can quickly turn into a political discussion and don't think it really matters in your case, at least not in the way you have asked the question. Union or not, work for the employer with the best pay and benefits and best environment. Only you can answer that question.

I am an hourly waged employee, in a "white collar" position. I much prefer it over salaried status because I get paid when I'm on the clock. Many times my boss will text me or email me on the weekend or in the evening, and the second he does- he's on the clock. DH on the other hand is salaried and stayed at the office till 8:45 last night....you get my point.

The point I take from this is that your DH has poor boundaries. Salary is so much more flexible...surprised it's even a question.

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, PP, I'm salaried and I'll take off several hours on a particular day to go to a school event or medical appointment without worrying about losing pay or taking any leave. It gives me much more flexibility than when I was hourly (right out of college), and felt like I could never take off work because I'd lose pay.

This is PP, you have a good point. I'm fortunate as my boss is flexible but yes - you're point is valid.

On the other hand, PP, I'm salaried and I'll take off several hours on a particular day to go to a school event or medical appointment without worrying about losing pay or taking any leave. It gives me much more flexibility than when I was hourly (right out of college), and felt like I could never take off work because I'd lose pay.

I believe that unions GENERALLY pay less - but this can quickly turn into a political discussion and don't think it really matters in your case, at least not in the way you have asked the question. Union or not, work for the employer with the best pay and benefits and best environment. Only you can answer that question.

I am an hourly waged employee, in a "white collar" position. I much prefer it over salaried status because I get paid when I'm on the clock. Many times my boss will text me or email me on the weekend or in the evening, and the second he does- he's on the clock. DH on the other hand is salaried and stayed at the office till 8:45 last night....you get my point.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be a little more specific.

Do you think it's better to accept a position at a private company that is unionized (and become a member of that union as well) IE: work for Verizon as a member of the CWA union.

Or...

To work for a company that's private with no unionization.

Verizon sucks badly can't wait till it goes bankrupt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be a little more specific.

Do you think it's better to accept a position at a private company that is unionized (and become a member of that union as well) IE: work for Verizon as a member of the CWA union.

Or...

To work for a company that's private with no unionization.

And both are the same industry? I would say generally, then, the unionized company probably pays better.

Oops, I meant the unionized company probably is a better place to work. I say this because you have union reps that are constantly fighting on your behalf. I

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be a little more specific.

Do you think it's better to accept a position at a private company that is unionized (and become a member of that union as well) IE: work for Verizon as a member of the CWA union.

Or...

To work for a company that's private with no unionization.

And both are the same industry? I would say generally, then, the unionized company probably pays better.

PP, yes to which example? And why?

Yes.

Okay, I'll be a little more specific.

Do you think it's better to accept a position at a private company that is unionized (and become a member of that union as well) IE: work for Verizon as a member of the CWA union.

Or...

To work for a company that's private with no unionization.

That really depends on what the "hourly" position is and what the "salaried" position is.

I would look at:

stability of how many hours you work per week
what overtime compensation looks like

For example: I am a secretary and am classified as a salaried employee. I do have an hourly rate, though, which is used to calculate overtime past 40h/week. My hours are the same week to week, and if I work more than those hours, I am compensated for it at my overtime rate, which would also apply if I for some reason had to work 6d/week instead of 5.

However, if I was working in a job where I did not have guaranteed hours, or where the schedule changed from week to week (retail jobs, maybe some nanny jobs depending on the family's arrangement), I would not consider that to be "better" even if it ultimately paid more. I like stability, with the option of extra compensation if I work more. I know people who are salaried who are not compensated at all for overtime. Their salary is X amount per year, and if they have to for some reason work 12 hour days for a couple weeks, their yearly compensation doesn't change.

Personal preference, though.

Generally speaking, yes.

?