3 ms·
Sure and also make sure that a single hr department can’t hire more than 30% of the staff and make them compete for employees. You have a single employer on on
by empath75 8y ago
Sure and also make sure that a single hr department can’t hire more than 30% of the staff and make them compete for employees.
You have a single employer on one side, you need a single union on the other side to make negotiations fair, otherwise they just would just low ball each other to get more jobs.
The history of labor activism shows that workers only get big gains when they work together.
Unions were largely a victim of their own success, though — once a lot of their gains were codified into laws and regulations there wasn’t as much to fight for.
- haneefmubarak 8y agoI think the multiple employer comes from having multiple employers in the marketplace for a given profession, the logic being that an employer should not be restricted to a single union just as a union should not be restricted to a single employer.
- gizmo686 8y agoYou do have multiple employers, and a single union can represent workers across an industry, not just at 1 employer. Having multiple unions would remove the monopoly power unions enjoy, but a triopoly is still pretty powerfull, and reduces the risk of corruption. Of course, if the triopoly was enforced by statute, then a corrupt member could act with impunity knowing that it cannot loose too much of its power.