I'm confused. All your arguments seem to be for why sysadmins _do_ need a union. If they're irreplaceable (at the current wage level) and underpaid like you seem to claim then it sounds like they're leaving money on the table by not bargaining collectively.
I'm confused. All your arguments seem to be for why sysadmins _do_ need a union. If they're irreplaceable (at the current wage level) and underpaid like you seem to claim then it sounds like they're leaving money on the table by not bargaining collectively.