4 ms·

There is no need to be adversarial as long as workers have the right to leave. These are not slaves. They only stay until they can get a better deal (pay, respe

by tropo 8y ago

There is no need to be adversarial as long as workers have the right to leave. These are not slaves. They only stay until they can get a better deal (pay, respect, safety...) elsewhere.

vkou 8y ago
Workers derive 100% of their income and survival from their employer. Employers dervie some sub-percentage point of their income and survival from any one worker. Unions level the playing field. Now, both sides have to negotiate from an even position - neither can do without the other.
- burfog 8y ago
  That isn't a level playing field with an even position. The employer can't get other employees (due to union-favoring laws) but the employees can get other employment. The closest thing the employer has to "get other employees" is to shut down the workplace, possibly outsourcing to a different country.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > The employer can't get other employees Yes, they can. They can just close down the branch in question, and re-open two months later. Why do you think Wal-mart is so successful at union-busting? Or, they could actually negotiate on an equal basis with the union. > employees can get other employment Collectively? For an employer that's big enough, this is not at all the case. Their industry may not be able to absorb them, individuals within the union may not be able to handle the interruption in pay, etc. This is also why striking is used as a last resort. > The closest thing the employer has to "get other employees" is to shut down the workplace, possibly outsourcing to a different country. Trying to find another job is very similar to what you've just described. You cut yourself off from your stream of income, and often have to relocate to a different city, or country, at great personal expense.
    - burfog 8y ago
      Temporary shutdown is likely to attract trouble from the federal government. I forgot to mention that there is something deeply wrong with the presumption that employees (or their union) should be able to negotiate on an equal basis. They didn't risk their money to found the business. They don't own it, and shouldn't own it, because they didn't put up the funds to create it. It doesn't belong to you. It's not yours. Do not perform a mugging. Sure, employees want to negotiate from a position of equality or strength, but wanting something doesn't mean you deserve it or get it. To them we must say: find your own business idea and venture capital, and work hard for years with the possibility of losing everything. Most businesses fail. Most of them fail quickly, causing painful losses. Nobody would bother if they didn't have a chance to get lots of money and power. We need people to bother, because this creates jobs.

by tropo 8y ago

There is no need to be adversarial as long as workers have the right to leave. These are not slaves. They only stay until they can get a better deal (pay, respect, safety...) elsewhere.

vkou 8y ago

Workers derive 100% of their income and survival from their employer. Employers dervie some sub-percentage point of their income and survival from any one worker. Unions level the playing field. Now, both sides have to negotiate from an even position - neither can do without the other.

burfog 8y ago
That isn't a level playing field with an even position. The employer can't get other employees (due to union-favoring laws) but the employees can get other employment. The closest thing the employer has to "get other employees" is to shut down the workplace, possibly outsourcing to a different country.
- vkou 8y ago
  > The employer can't get other employees Yes, they can. They can just close down the branch in question, and re-open two months later. Why do you think Wal-mart is so successful at union-busting? Or, they could actually negotiate on an equal basis with the union. > employees can get other employment Collectively? For an employer that's big enough, this is not at all the case. Their industry may not be able to absorb them, individuals within the union may not be able to handle the interruption in pay, etc. This is also why striking is used as a last resort. > The closest thing the employer has to "get other employees" is to shut down the workplace, possibly outsourcing to a different country. Trying to find another job is very similar to what you've just described. You cut yourself off from your stream of income, and often have to relocate to a different city, or country, at great personal expense.
  - burfog 8y ago
    Temporary shutdown is likely to attract trouble from the federal government. I forgot to mention that there is something deeply wrong with the presumption that employees (or their union) should be able to negotiate on an equal basis. They didn't risk their money to found the business. They don't own it, and shouldn't own it, because they didn't put up the funds to create it. It doesn't belong to you. It's not yours. Do not perform a mugging. Sure, employees want to negotiate from a position of equality or strength, but wanting something doesn't mean you deserve it or get it. To them we must say: find your own business idea and venture capital, and work hard for years with the possibility of losing everything. Most businesses fail. Most of them fail quickly, causing painful losses. Nobody would bother if they didn't have a chance to get lots of money and power. We need people to bother, because this creates jobs.