IT Employment

If your coworkers have a problem then let them do what they want to do. You should stay out of it unless you agree with them and you want to lend your support. Don't let them drag you into the confrontation. Make your own decision.

Also keep in mind that the people who do get involved may eventually pay a penalty.

Strike and how much of a pay rise do you need and for how long to get back your lost wages.
Your work force goes on strike, you can't satify your customers how long if ever before you get them back.
As soon as it comes down to industrial action, winners are your competitors and the people working for them.
Seen it first hand 19 years in the steel industry and a lot of my family and it's a big one were coal miners. Haven't spotted any of them celebrating any victories, managers or those working for them.
Definitely make your decision,, might as well you get the consequences either way.
Before you go to battle though, how good a chance have you of winning and by how much, if little to none don't bother, not for wages anyway, just leave.

I wasn't thinking about work strikes or unions. I was just thinking in terms of a group of people approaching a manager seeking higher wages. If the initial request is ignored, as it may be, then will the group escalate their efforts? Will they make a nuisance of themselves to the manager? Are they slowing down their rate of work? Are they calling in sick as a group? That sort of thing will drive a wedge between management and the workers and management will probably adopt an unflattering view of the group of workers involved in these actions.

Unions are a slightly different story because all of these things are already built into the system. If ls smith works in a union shop then his question is moot. The issue of his involvment is already decided. If he is part of a union then they act as a group with or without the expressed consent of the individual people on each individual issue.

I have been a member since 99, but it always seemed to me that both sides went out of their way to find something to fight about. If you do get vindictive management a good union is actually your best friend. If you get a vindictive union it's your worst enemy.

I am in the public sector (state government). My state has
something known as the "Sunshine Law" which among other
things, makes pubic rates of pay, position classifications, years
of service, previous employment history, etc. Since I have
worked in government most of my adult career I have never
really given it much thought, but have found it interesting how
uncomfortable some private sector people become when
discussing pay in a group setting. In my world, if you know what
someone does you can guess or ask there "official classification".
From that you now have the range of their salary.

Most governmental structures (like private sector) have pay
ranges or bands associated with each job "Classification" which
is then associated with a position. If you are part of a
professional union, there are often mechanisms to file an official
complaint or "grievence" stating that you are performing work
outside your classification. If you are management, you usually
need to resort to an "Office Politics" type of approach to correct
the situation.

Bottom line ... if you are public sector MOST of your employment
information is accessable via "Pubic Records Request", save
some insurance and SSN information. If you are happy with how
you are paid then stay away from this band of malcontents. If
you aren't happy with your pay either use the internal review
mechanisms available or find a better position where you are
more fairly compensated. These types of confrontations can
have a lasting effect on the office environment and social
landscape.

I joined the Federal government a year or so ago and had to file a financial disclosure form in which I had to list the sum and substance of my entire financial portfolio...what securities I owned, what mutual funds I owned, what securities my mutual funds owned. Coming from decades in the private sector, I found it to be very disconcerting and terribly intrusive. Imagine my dismay when I found out this information all becomes part of the public record, that anyone can find all this out about me simply with a FOIA filing (not that the details of my financial life are of interest to anyone, but that's not the point).

On the other hand, I was not required to specify exact amounts but merely ranges. It's the same with salary...what's public knowledge is the range, and the ranges in the public sector are sufficiently wide. The specific detail is no one's business but your own.

Those ranges aren't so great, BTW. I'm here to tell you...no one gets rich on their Uncle Sam. The wage scale is decent but by no means competitive. The bulk of people I've met in public service consider the discharge of patriotic duty part of their compensation program. Not that that puts groceries on the table, but one must nourish one's soul as well as one's wallet.

You're right...we veterans of the private sector are very unhappy with having to disclose a tremendous amount of personal data. However, as employees of the government with responsibility for the public trust it's important that we bring the issue of transparency down to the individual level, such that even the hint of impropriety can be either avoided or rooted out.

complain that their underpaid,here's the Microsoft stock,share,and pay scales for the top people.All available in the public domain:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312505193220/ddef14a.htm

DC guy is right. Public Sector/Government/Civil Service does not follow the analogy of squeaky wheel getting the oil...they get replaced.