> I think it's kinda interesting that the HN takeaway is that Eastman was killed by its unions: if it had just treated its employees as disposable it'd still be

> I think it's kinda interesting that the HN takeaway is that Eastman was killed by its unions: if it had just treated its employees as disposable it'd still be the juggernaut today that it was in the 20th century. Is it possible the employees could be treated reasonably well without the unions? Is it possible that unions have downsides that might affect a company's health? If either of those are true, it doesn't seem fair to frame "the HN takeaway" like this.