4 ms·
Your post only makes sense when you frame the employer-employee relationship as adversarial. When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both par
by Smithalicious 7y ago
Your post only makes sense when you frame the employer-employee relationship as adversarial. When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both parties, unions, which make money when employees and employers are in conflict, seem like a much less appealing idea.
- brmgb 7y ago> unions, which make money when employees and employers are in conflict That's non sense. Unions are not for profit organisations making money during conflict. Most unions are not for profit association representing their members for collective bargaining. Companies can and do have good relationship with unions. It is in everyone interest that the company works. It's just easier to negociate when you have collective power and can have a meaningful impact. Also companies absolutely are not there to create wealth for their workers. Google especially has an history with non poaching agreements.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago"When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both parties" But it isn't. Especially not Google, who cut the wealth of their employees at the knees via non-poaching agreements.
- mandevil 7y agoWhen you illegally conspire to hold down the salaries of your employees you lose the benefit of the doubt.