4 ms·

I know a few small business owners that have said if their staff unionized they would just close the business. These aren't bad bosses or people who don't know

by glasss 6y ago

I know a few small business owners that have said if their staff unionized they would just close the business. These aren't bad bosses or people who don't know how to run a business. They just know if their staff unionized and the rest of their industry didn't, they wouldn't be able to compete on price or keep the necessary number of staff. I think it's easier to pick on Amazon or bezos than it is to deal with the political forces that you've mentioned, or come to terms with needing to unionizing a whole industry before it would stop hurting small businesses.

TurningCanadian 6y ago
It's in the union's interest to keep the company alive too.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  But then what is its purpose? Management has no reason to oppose changes that cost them nothing with or without a union. In an industry with thin margins, anything that does cost them money puts them out of business. Meanwhile a union that can't achieve meaningful concessions is collecting dues for no benefit, requiring the company to pay more to retain talent and thereby putting them out of business just by existing.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    This is a very simplified way of thinking about it. Costco manages to be profitable while paying more than the average to retail workers in an industry with thin margins. Whole Foods managed this too until it was acquired. It's funny how the US is often presented hyper innovative, and economically dynamic, while at the same time it is claimed that basic issues like universal health care and workers rights - problems that are solved in many other developed countries - are intractable in the US because of "thin margins" or "the deficit".
    - Aunche 6y ago
      Costco operates in the same market conditions Walmart. It's just that their revenue to employee over twice as high, so they can sustainably pay a small number of high-quality workers more rather than a large number of lower-quality workers. Pro-labor operates under the false assumption that employing a small number of well-paid workers is better for society than employing a large number of lower paid workers. Let's say Walmart could afford to pay a "living wage" by replacing their shelves with pallets, laying off most of their shelvers, and redistributing their wages to the other employees. Would that really be any better?
- psychlops 6y ago
  In my experience, the union's interest is more in keeping the union alive.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Which business and union are you talking about specifically? As unions usually live on either/and employee dues and government grants, making sure both the company and the industry overall is doing well is in their best interest, as otherwise the union will certainly not be alive. So would be useful to see an example of a union NOT wanting good for the company/industry as that would be an outlier compared the the rest of them.
- Rule35 6y ago
  It's in the union organizers interest to pocket as many of the dues as possible. The union isn't an entity to itself, it's a whole other bureaucracy and is no more on your side than your government is in the first place. In the best case scenario a union is now another level of government you're forced to participate in just to tread water, and at worst it's the literal mafia. The legal climate has improved significantly since the unions of the early years were needed. Largely because those workers voted (governmentally) to give the benefits to everyone. Dishonest fake flags. Imagine what the person who flagged this post would be like to work with. Imagine them having power over your career.
cratermoon 6y ago
> people who don't know how to run a business I submit that if business can't exist without a government subsidy that allows them to pay their employees less than a living wage, then the people running the business do not, in fact, know how to run it.
- glasss 6y ago
  I agree, but I know first hand that the businesses I'm referring to pay a minimum salary of $45K and the vast majority of employees are above $55K. These businesses are IT service providers, providing their services to other small or medium businesses. The clients in this industry are very price conscious and wouldn't care that the staff unionized at one company, they wouldn't be able to justify a significant price increase for the same services / value.
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    That's $22.50/hr before taxes. It's barely a living wage in for a single adult with no kids some places.
- deadmetheny 6y ago
  Do you run a business? I do. Industry-wide races to the bottom that have existed for decades before I was even born have put margins so razor-thin that paying more than slightly higher than the usual industry thresholds is untenable for smaller businesses. You raise your price too much to compensate, and your business dries up. Regulations designed to curtail abuses by large corporations can be devastating for small businesses. I don't like this fact, and this obviously isn't going to be true for every industry, but these twee 'truisms' don't accurately represent reality.
jhbadger 6y ago
That's just an empty threat similar to the threats to do the same if the minimum wage is increased. Every time it happens, businesses adjust.

by glasss 6y ago

TurningCanadian 6y ago

It's in the union's interest to keep the company alive too.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
But then what is its purpose? Management has no reason to oppose changes that cost them nothing with or without a union. In an industry with thin margins, anything that does cost them money puts them out of business. Meanwhile a union that can't achieve meaningful concessions is collecting dues for no benefit, requiring the company to pay more to retain talent and thereby putting them out of business just by existing.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This is a very simplified way of thinking about it. Costco manages to be profitable while paying more than the average to retail workers in an industry with thin margins. Whole Foods managed this too until it was acquired. It's funny how the US is often presented hyper innovative, and economically dynamic, while at the same time it is claimed that basic issues like universal health care and workers rights - problems that are solved in many other developed countries - are intractable in the US because of "thin margins" or "the deficit".
  - Aunche 6y ago
    Costco operates in the same market conditions Walmart. It's just that their revenue to employee over twice as high, so they can sustainably pay a small number of high-quality workers more rather than a large number of lower-quality workers. Pro-labor operates under the false assumption that employing a small number of well-paid workers is better for society than employing a large number of lower paid workers. Let's say Walmart could afford to pay a "living wage" by replacing their shelves with pallets, laying off most of their shelvers, and redistributing their wages to the other employees. Would that really be any better?
psychlops 6y ago
In my experience, the union's interest is more in keeping the union alive.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Which business and union are you talking about specifically? As unions usually live on either/and employee dues and government grants, making sure both the company and the industry overall is doing well is in their best interest, as otherwise the union will certainly not be alive. So would be useful to see an example of a union NOT wanting good for the company/industry as that would be an outlier compared the the rest of them.
Rule35 6y ago
It's in the union organizers interest to pocket as many of the dues as possible. The union isn't an entity to itself, it's a whole other bureaucracy and is no more on your side than your government is in the first place. In the best case scenario a union is now another level of government you're forced to participate in just to tread water, and at worst it's the literal mafia. The legal climate has improved significantly since the unions of the early years were needed. Largely because those workers voted (governmentally) to give the benefits to everyone. Dishonest fake flags. Imagine what the person who flagged this post would be like to work with. Imagine them having power over your career.

cratermoon 6y ago

> people who don't know how to run a business I submit that if business can't exist without a government subsidy that allows them to pay their employees less than a living wage, then the people running the business do not, in fact, know how to run it.

glasss 6y ago
I agree, but I know first hand that the businesses I'm referring to pay a minimum salary of $45K and the vast majority of employees are above $55K. These businesses are IT service providers, providing their services to other small or medium businesses. The clients in this industry are very price conscious and wouldn't care that the staff unionized at one company, they wouldn't be able to justify a significant price increase for the same services / value.
- cratermoon 6y ago
  That's $22.50/hr before taxes. It's barely a living wage in for a single adult with no kids some places.
deadmetheny 6y ago
Do you run a business? I do. Industry-wide races to the bottom that have existed for decades before I was even born have put margins so razor-thin that paying more than slightly higher than the usual industry thresholds is untenable for smaller businesses. You raise your price too much to compensate, and your business dries up. Regulations designed to curtail abuses by large corporations can be devastating for small businesses. I don't like this fact, and this obviously isn't going to be true for every industry, but these twee 'truisms' don't accurately represent reality.

jhbadger 6y ago

That's just an empty threat similar to the threats to do the same if the minimum wage is increased. Every time it happens, businesses adjust.