3 ms·

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.

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.