7 ms·

We know because we got the merit increase. Do you think they'd give up so easily if they had a good case against it?

sethammons 6y ago
For the same reason little shops pay protection money to gangs. Just because the money went somewhere does not mean it was the best place. Absolutely, the company likely was acting in bad faith, but it is not guaranteed. Maybe merit increases means they have to cut something else that affects their ability to complete, or maybe it just means less bonus for executives. Just saying that there are two sides. It is not always an evil company. I guess this is an argument for collective bargaining. I’ve never experienced its benefits however, and have seen negative effects.
- vegardx 6y ago
  That's a lot of whataboutism. It's not like it's in the best interest of the workers to see the company go belly up. Or be less competitive. If the company can show that this is why they're defering merit pay there's no reason to believe that unions won't accept it and agree with them. It gives employees leverage, and healthy competition in all aspects should just strengthen the company.
  - yeahwhatever10 6y ago
    Of all the comments in here this has to be the most naive.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    That really depends on whether the union is larger than the company it's making demands of. It may be in their best interest to bleed a company faster if it will yield greater benefits over the now-altered life span of the company. There's a real consideration of whether X% of employee compensation over N years is better than the same over M years.
refurb 6y ago
Well US auto manufacturers went bankrupt because the choice was: 1) agree to maintain unaffordable union benefits or 2) end up in a worse situation with a prolonged strike that hurts the business even more. So they kicked the can down the road and chose 1 until they just went bankrupt and the courts allowed contracts to be renegotiated and high cost union employees to be replaced with younger employees at a far lower compensation package.

For the same reason little shops pay protection money to gangs. Just because the money went somewhere does not mean it was the best place. Absolutely, the company likely was acting in bad faith, but it is not guaranteed. Maybe merit increases means they have to cut something else that affects their ability to complete, or maybe it just means less bonus for executives. Just saying that there are two sides. It is not always an evil company. I guess this is an argument for collective bargaining. I’ve never experienced its benefits however, and have seen negative effects.

vegardx 6y ago
That's a lot of whataboutism. It's not like it's in the best interest of the workers to see the company go belly up. Or be less competitive. If the company can show that this is why they're defering merit pay there's no reason to believe that unions won't accept it and agree with them. It gives employees leverage, and healthy competition in all aspects should just strengthen the company.
- yeahwhatever10 6y ago
  Of all the comments in here this has to be the most naive.
- dleslie 6y ago
  That really depends on whether the union is larger than the company it's making demands of. It may be in their best interest to bleed a company faster if it will yield greater benefits over the now-altered life span of the company. There's a real consideration of whether X% of employee compensation over N years is better than the same over M years.

refurb 6y ago

Well US auto manufacturers went bankrupt because the choice was: 1) agree to maintain unaffordable union benefits or 2) end up in a worse situation with a prolonged strike that hurts the business even more. So they kicked the can down the road and chose 1 until they just went bankrupt and the courts allowed contracts to be renegotiated and high cost union employees to be replaced with younger employees at a far lower compensation package.