6 ms·

Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. If the company needs to shed a bunch of people or switch business models or _hire different talent_

Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. If the company needs to shed a bunch of people or switch business models or _hire different talent_ the union will resist, because their job is to maximize the number and pay of jobs for their members. The prime example of this being a problem right now is longshoremen in LA and Long Beach resisting automation. The other issue with co-op like structures is that they don't provide enough upside for company founders and early employees. Founders need the chance to make big money or they won't take big risks (see: Europe for an example of this). One of the reasons the NYC rideshare co-op is failing is because no software engineer wants to work at some rando startup for a fraction of what they could make at Uber & Lyft. Unions work when the work is highly commoditized and technological improvement is stagnant. I can't say that's the case for a huge percentage of jobs today.

burkaman 5y ago
> Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. They are not aligned with those of management. They are aligned with those of the company almost by definition if the union is big enough, because a company is its workforce. If the CEO says the company wants to do something and 80% of the employees disagree, then in fact the CEO wants to do something and the company does not. It's obviously not hard to find examples of unions causing negative impacts on society, just like it's not hard to find the same for corporate executives. The idea is to find the right balance. Is the the threat of inefficiency worse than the threat of worker abuse and inequality? At some point yes it will be, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that point yet.
- jjk166 5y ago
  The company is not its workforce. Every individual in the company would like more money for less work, but that's not in the company's best interest. If the company goes under because it's paying too much for too little, the employees can get new jobs elsewhere, whereas any money reinvested into the company will provide virtually no direct benefit to any individual employee. A company's interests can be aligned with employees, indeed typically you want good employee retention and high morale which can only come from creating a company where people want to work, but companies do not exist to maximize employment and employee compensation.
  - titusjohnson 5y ago
    A company is nothing more than the collection of its employees. Without employees, the company does not exist. There may be some legal fiction around registration and taxes and similar, but make no mistake, without people those legal fictions cannot make plans, cannot advocate for itself, cannot change direction, _cannot exist_. A company is its people. Full stop.
    - gapurov 5y ago
      Saying a company is its employees, is like saying a bunch of dots randomly placed on a piece of paper would magically create a line. People playing a crucial part in a company, but without founders, well oiled processes and risks taken, these people would not be able to create what a company creates in terms of products and profit.
      - burkaman 5y ago
        I think this is a fundamental philosophical difference that we're not going to resolve in a comment thread. For me "a company is its workforce" is almost tautological, I don't even know how to explain it further. I don't know how to argue with your objections either, it seems like you're agreeing. Founders are people, processes are designed by people, risks are taken by people. All these people make up the workforce. That's what a company is.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      My car needs wheels. My car isn't just its wheels. My car does not exist for the benefit of its wheels.
alistairSH 5y ago
Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. Solvable via work councils with reserved seats on the BoD, similar to the German Betriebsräte.
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  No, the workers have to have actual ownership (ie stocks) in the company. Work councils are no different from unions in that the members of the council are not working to maximize the success of the company but to maximize employment and wages (and these two things are not always aligned). Until incentives are aligned, there will always be an antagonistic relationship between workers and companies. Putting workers on the BoD just makes the conflict internal rather than external. Of course this is easier said than done since most workers just want to get paid and would sell their equity stakes as soon as they vest. Designing good incentives is very hard.

burkaman 5y ago

> Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. They are not aligned with those of management. They are aligned with those of the company almost by definition if the union is big enough, because a company is its workforce. If the CEO says the company wants to do something and 80% of the employees disagree, then in fact the CEO wants to do something and the company does not. It's obviously not hard to find examples of unions causing negative impacts on society, just like it's not hard to find the same for corporate executives. The idea is to find the right balance. Is the the threat of inefficiency worse than the threat of worker abuse and inequality? At some point yes it will be, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that point yet.

jjk166 5y ago
The company is not its workforce. Every individual in the company would like more money for less work, but that's not in the company's best interest. If the company goes under because it's paying too much for too little, the employees can get new jobs elsewhere, whereas any money reinvested into the company will provide virtually no direct benefit to any individual employee. A company's interests can be aligned with employees, indeed typically you want good employee retention and high morale which can only come from creating a company where people want to work, but companies do not exist to maximize employment and employee compensation.
- titusjohnson 5y ago
  A company is nothing more than the collection of its employees. Without employees, the company does not exist. There may be some legal fiction around registration and taxes and similar, but make no mistake, without people those legal fictions cannot make plans, cannot advocate for itself, cannot change direction, _cannot exist_. A company is its people. Full stop.
  - gapurov 5y ago
    Saying a company is its employees, is like saying a bunch of dots randomly placed on a piece of paper would magically create a line. People playing a crucial part in a company, but without founders, well oiled processes and risks taken, these people would not be able to create what a company creates in terms of products and profit.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      I think this is a fundamental philosophical difference that we're not going to resolve in a comment thread. For me "a company is its workforce" is almost tautological, I don't even know how to explain it further. I don't know how to argue with your objections either, it seems like you're agreeing. Founders are people, processes are designed by people, risks are taken by people. All these people make up the workforce. That's what a company is.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    My car needs wheels. My car isn't just its wheels. My car does not exist for the benefit of its wheels.

alistairSH 5y ago

Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. Solvable via work councils with reserved seats on the BoD, similar to the German Betriebsräte.

b9a2cab5 5y ago
No, the workers have to have actual ownership (ie stocks) in the company. Work councils are no different from unions in that the members of the council are not working to maximize the success of the company but to maximize employment and wages (and these two things are not always aligned). Until incentives are aligned, there will always be an antagonistic relationship between workers and companies. Putting workers on the BoD just makes the conflict internal rather than external. Of course this is easier said than done since most workers just want to get paid and would sell their equity stakes as soon as they vest. Designing good incentives is very hard.