3 ms·
The problem with unions isn't just that they protect the worst employees it is that they negotiate for employees as if they are interchangeable. A subtle differ
by 3pt14159 8y ago
The problem with unions isn't just that they protect the worst employees it is that they negotiate for employees as if they are interchangeable. A subtle difference.
What's needed is a situation more akin to what hollywood has. A union sets the floor on treatment and wages and individual agents advocate for their clients. Also, I think the situation with large German corporations is better too, since it gives the union a literal seat at the board which puts the people running the corporation onto the same team as the people running the union.
- pmoriarty 8y agoAnd yet another alternative to consider: employee-owned and run corporations.
- danieltillett 8y agoPity they can't compete with capitalist owned and run corporations. I would love for them to work, but they all seem to end up failing [0]. 0. Yes I know there are the odd exceptions, but these are so rare they almost prove the point.
- meheleventyone 8y agoIsn't the question whether or not they fail at a higher rate than more traditional corporations? For example many fewer employee owned companies started is going to make the successful look exceptional even if they are more likely to succeed.
- danieltillett 8y agoIf fewer employee owned companies are started it just means the failure is upfront.
- meheleventyone 8y agoIf you want to know relatively which does better you need to compare success in each population. There are a lot of confounding factors in why different types of companies are founded. Saying that less employee owned companies are started is evidence of failure is at best a very shaky understanding of how to look at the business landscape.