4 ms·
I admire that you keep an open mind in a subject that is normally extremely infected, but I think your perspective shows a slight lack of understanding for the
by hnarn 6y ago
I admire that you keep an open mind in a subject that is normally extremely infected, but I think your perspective shows a slight lack of understanding for the history of labor conflict around the world. I don't know if you'll find it helpful, but I'll just chime in on some of your points:
> The entire concept of unionization seems unnecessarily confrontational.
Unionization is confrontational by definition because it's the materialization of completely opposing interests. A unified workforce that can make collective demands on their employer is economically never in the interest of the employer.
> There is nothing preventing the state to require significant representation of employees in every board of directors.
There is not a single doubt in my mind that this would be seen by almost anyone as an extremely left-wing policy. When you say "there is nothing preventing the state" I'm not sure what you mean, unless you have a country with a very left leaning populace there is no way this would fly. For an example from my country, have a look at "employee funds".[1] The purpose was essentially to tax companies, use the money to buy stock in the companies, and give ownership to a part of the companies to trade unions. So, in a way, exactly what you mention. Remember that this was attempted in a country that had a post-war social democratic majority for decades, and even then it didn't work.
> In this way, labour and capital could work together in a more integrated manner, avoiding much of this unnecessary conflict.
Again, the conflict between labor and capital is not "unnecessary", it's built into the power relation. While everybody benefits from the company doing well in the long run during an equilibrium where everybody's happy, in the short term, changes to the benefit of the employer are often negative to the employees, and vice versa.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds
- clcaev 6y agoI'm not sure why you are currently downvoted; it seems like a contribution to this discourse. Even so, perhaps the reasoning frame you promote is one of our challenges. I see labour and capital as being in conflict when they are out of balance with regard to one another. In particular, I do not think labour (or capital) must always be in the driver's seat. I think that every situation probably has a healthy balance of power, dependent upon the circumstances, where both capital and labour are respected for the contributions they make to the enterprise.