3 ms·

I don't think this dichotomy is necessary. Management are workers - they have the same goal as everyone else, making money. The distinction you intend to make i

I don't think this dichotomy is necessary. Management are workers - they have the same goal as everyone else, making money. The distinction you intend to make is people who have a stake in the company vs. people who do not. If all employees held equity/stocks or had substantial participation in company decisions (be it through a vote, or through an elected representative), then collective bargaining would organically arise as part of the organizational structure.

rsj_hn 5y ago
In Germany you have a very different relationship between unions and management, with unions sitting on corporate boards and management being in the union as well. But American unions are legendary in the Western world for corruption and pugnaciousness which continues up to the present[1,2], which is unfortunate, and long term hurts workers. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/15/head-of-californias-largest-union-arrested-on-theft-fraud-charges/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/15/head-of-californias-l... [2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/11-union-officials-charged-racketeering-fraud-and-bribery-offenses https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/11-union-officials-char...
rcoc 5y ago
Managers are better thought of as "agents of capital or ownership" under this distinction. Manager compensation would typically be at least partially tied to overall company performance, even without equity (e.g. cash bonuses for a strong P+L). Employees, as a group distinct from the Managers, earn a flat wage regardless of performance. Of course, this is industry/location/company dependent, but I believe that is the reasoning for the distinction.