3 ms·

Why not?

by e12e 5y ago

Why not?

AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
Long ago, there were 2 companies - one welcomed unions and the other stopped unions. The one which welcomed unions lost it's profit margin and the other "predatory" company kept it's profit margins and grew more aggressively and put the "good" company out of business. After that entrepreneurs learned that you need to be ruthless to win in capitalism. Don't get me wrong, I support fair wages for all employees, no matter what they do. But in real life capitalism, only the most ruthless companies win (FB, AMZN), unless they have an amazing product (e.g. GOOGL)
- shakezula 5y ago
  If you truly supported fair wages then you’d support collective bargaining.
- e12e 5y ago
  I'm not sure GOOGL is any less ruthless, they where certainly not above illegal wage fixing.
kortilla 5y ago
Because unions offer literally no upside for companies. They are meant precisely to organize the collective power of the employees to pressure the company into deals with its employees it wouldn’t have otherwise.
- shawnz 5y ago
  One upside for companies is that the unions are better able to represent the interests of the employees than, for example, the HR department would be able to, simply because of the incentives at play. This could attract more talent to the company, improve retention, and give the company more insight into the employees' needs.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    only in theory. in practice unions become just like other orgs where leaders concentrate power for themselves and fail to represent anyone at all. making the situation worse for the employee and the employees.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      If that's the inevitable fate of all orgs then why bother creating any kind of society at all? I can agree that unions concentrate power in imperfect ways, but personally I still think they are an overall improvement on the non-union status quo.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > unions are better able to represent the interests of the employees than, for example, the HR department would be able to Employees are really good at complaining (at least in the US). Management that is interested in knowing what bothers employees definitely knows without a union. > This could attract more talent to the company, improve retention Paying more money works even better. People choose better paying jobs pretty consistently even if it means dropping the union.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Management that is interested in knowing what bothers employees definitely knows without a union. Sure, but unions are good at motivating management to care.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Why not?

by e12e 5y ago

Why not?

Long ago, there were 2 companies - one welcomed unions and the other stopped unions. The one which welcomed unions lost it's profit margin and the other "predatory" company kept it's profit margins and grew more aggressively and put the "good" company out of business. After that entrepreneurs learned that you need to be ruthless to win in capitalism. Don't get me wrong, I support fair wages for all employees, no matter what they do. But in real life capitalism, only the most ruthless companies win (FB, AMZN), unless they have an amazing product (e.g. GOOGL)

shakezula 5y ago
If you truly supported fair wages then you’d support collective bargaining.
e12e 5y ago
I'm not sure GOOGL is any less ruthless, they where certainly not above illegal wage fixing.

kortilla 5y ago

Because unions offer literally no upside for companies. They are meant precisely to organize the collective power of the employees to pressure the company into deals with its employees it wouldn’t have otherwise.

shawnz 5y ago
One upside for companies is that the unions are better able to represent the interests of the employees than, for example, the HR department would be able to, simply because of the incentives at play. This could attract more talent to the company, improve retention, and give the company more insight into the employees' needs.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  only in theory. in practice unions become just like other orgs where leaders concentrate power for themselves and fail to represent anyone at all. making the situation worse for the employee and the employees.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    If that's the inevitable fate of all orgs then why bother creating any kind of society at all? I can agree that unions concentrate power in imperfect ways, but personally I still think they are an overall improvement on the non-union status quo.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > unions are better able to represent the interests of the employees than, for example, the HR department would be able to Employees are really good at complaining (at least in the US). Management that is interested in knowing what bothers employees definitely knows without a union. > This could attract more talent to the company, improve retention Paying more money works even better. People choose better paying jobs pretty consistently even if it means dropping the union.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Management that is interested in knowing what bothers employees definitely knows without a union. Sure, but unions are good at motivating management to care.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]