6 ms·

That is weird. The literal purpose of a corporation in all its varieties, for profit, non-profit, co-op, S Corp, C Corp etc. is to pool the resources of its ow

• duxup 6y ago
  >serve their interests. Serve the interests of the majority... and even like a corporation sometimes they don't even manage to do that. Human organizations kinda stink sometimes, although I wouldn't really endorse another kind...
  • SllX 6y ago
    Correct. People who hold more equity have more control. This is easily seen in small businesses on the Balance Sheet with only one or two owners, you can quickly determine who put more money into the business, assuming no investors. This becomes more complex as you go from small business to startup with investors to a larger business, but the principles remain the same. Nobody starts a business to have others dictate to them what to do with their business, and to be told whose interests they should really be serving. I’m not sure why you would expect that to change just because the company in question is valued at over a trillion.
• chrisseaton 6y ago
  Unions serve the interests of the people with power in the union. If those interests don't align with yours, the union may be working against you and you may not want to get involved.
  • TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    How is this different to corporations? What would an organisation that serves your interests look like? Why don't you try to start one - and see how corporate management responds?
    • chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Why don't you try to start one Why should I? You can start an organisation if you want, but you'd need to argue why it's in my interest if you want me to lend what little individual power I have. And the employer can present their arguments as well, which is fine. But if you think I'm going to trust you've got my interests at heart just because you're not my employer, then you're delusional. Why should I trust you more than them?
  • HarryHirsch 6y ago
    On the other hand, the employer never ever serves your interest. Rachel has a something to say about performance reviews recently: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2021/02/19/perf/ https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2021/02/19/perf/
    • chrisseaton 6y ago
      > On the other hand, the employer never ever serves your interest. Their interests may align to mine even if they're doing it for their own benefit. And if the union's interests don't align to mine, then I'm better off without the union and with the employer. I don't think that's a hypothetical scenario, either. For example if the union wants to pay by seniority and the employer wants to pay by results, and I have low seniority but good results, who am I better aligned with?
      • HarryHirsch 6y ago
        Common experience is that performance reviews are bullshit and that scores are determined by warm fuzzies and management's political needs. Rachel has story after story. If you are politically astute, by all means don't join the union, but all this talk about "results" doesn't sound as if you are.
        • chrisseaton 6y ago
          Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation where the majority of workers may want something that's not in your interests? For example you morally support allowing new people to enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of more established people and they vote for credentialism to restrict supply. Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!
          • _jal 6y ago
            > Do you not have the imagination Why the rudeness? I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.
  • SllX 6y ago
    I don’t disagree.
• cperciva 6y ago
  > Unions are just another type of corporation. No, unions are not just another type of corporation. They are a very special type of corporation: One which is exempt from anti-trust laws.
  • SllX 6y ago
    Subject to antitrust law is not an inherent property of a corporation. Antitrust law is a statutory construct, as are the tax benefits of incorporation. What you’re failing to understand is that while there are different types if corporations as legal constructs, with differing advantages and disadvantages mostly related to their overall tax liability, a corporation in the general sense is just a group of people come together for a common goal. Usually that goal is profits. You join up with 5 people putting in 20% of the money, you are entitled to 20% of the future proceeds. So if you take a distribution of $1000, all other shareholders holding equal shares, they must also take a distribution of $1000, or equal to their share of equity in the company. A union has a different structure, different legal privileges and burdens, and different goals, but fundamentally it is a group of people with a common goal. I think where they tend to fall down is that unions can grow so large that the power is so diffused amongst individual members that even people in unions may come to resent the union more than their employer, particularly if they are always in the minority on union issues. In which case they might find they are actually more in alignment with their employers rather than their union leaders.
  • tshaddox 6y ago
    Is that even true? Quick Google searches seem to show several instances of antitrust accusations against non-profits including trade unions and professional associations. There does seem to be a basic exemption for trade unions, but it seems that trade unions can lose that exemption for behaving in certain ways.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • cperciva 6y ago
      Sure, there are exceptions. But the entire purpose of labour unions is to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.