3 ms·

If the company's in a competitive market, it's unlikely that there's a huge pot of gold somewhere to hand to employees in operations. The whole value-add for un

If the company's in a competitive market, it's unlikely that there's a huge pot of gold somewhere to hand to employees in operations. The whole value-add for unions lately has been pitched as better employee representation in decision making. I'm all for that - if that stops management from colluding with some hedge fund to engineer an awful reverse-buyback-privitazation scheme to load the company with unservicable debt or something like that, I think unions have a lot to add. But I can tell you from experience - it's definitely not "one lazy guy" - it becomes endemic because the process for dismissal becomes so costly. It's extremely demoralizing working alongside people who are "working the system" and are lazy as fcuk. It's better to just leave.

cool_dude85 5y ago
>If the company's in a competitive market, it's unlikely that there's a huge pot of gold somewhere to hand to employees in operations. Here in the US, corporations all over are making record profits! Buying back shares like never before! Unless you want to play definition games about what a "competitive market" is, plenty of companies in competitive markets have big pots of gold to hand to employees.
- CountSessine 5y ago
  The average operating margin for companies on the S&P 500, the "best of the best" of US corporations, is 9.35% - and that's a figure that is inflated by all of the pharma companies that have crazy 20% margins and sell into a dysfunctional drug market in the US and don't have to compete with generic drugs. Remove them and the operating margin is even lower. There's no pot of gold in most cases. But I still think there's a good case for unionization.
  - aylmao 5y ago
    I will point out 9.35% when talking about companies that size is a lot of money. Also worth noting; companies pay taxes on their profits, so while there's a lot of incentive to report high profits when a company is looking for investors, there's also plenty of incentive to hide profits (and thus lower operating margins) or shift them to subsidiaries in countries with lower taxes when companies that don't need to inflate their value. I am curious wether the stats you found take this into account.
mullingitover 5y ago
> If the company's in a competitive market This typically translates to "the company's successfully lobbied for trade agreements that allow us to force our domestic labor to compete against impoverished foreign workers in a developing nation with nonexistent environmental and safety standards," which is a race to the bottom for everyone but aristocrats. I think the problem in the US is that the country is deeply right-wing when it comes to labor policy. The union/management relationship in the US is designed to be adversarial. In Germany, it's legally mandated for unions to be represented at the board level, and that kind of cooperative relationship's results speak for themselves. Here, that idea would be considered tantamount to bolshevism.
- CountSessine 5y ago
  I wonder what most labour activists in the US would think of German worker councils, though? Works councils are basically company unions (which are loathed in US labour for some good reasons), but they are strengthened and protected through legislation. It doesn't stop at representation at the board level either - union busting is illegal and worker council reps enjoy job protection. But the flip side of this is that the union can't engineer a labour monopoly the way the UAW did in the 60's - the union and its employees are incentivized to keep the company healthy and competitive rather than just screwing over consumers by raising prices across the industry and lobbying for trade barriers.

cool_dude85 5y ago

>If the company's in a competitive market, it's unlikely that there's a huge pot of gold somewhere to hand to employees in operations. Here in the US, corporations all over are making record profits! Buying back shares like never before! Unless you want to play definition games about what a "competitive market" is, plenty of companies in competitive markets have big pots of gold to hand to employees.

CountSessine 5y ago
The average operating margin for companies on the S&P 500, the "best of the best" of US corporations, is 9.35% - and that's a figure that is inflated by all of the pharma companies that have crazy 20% margins and sell into a dysfunctional drug market in the US and don't have to compete with generic drugs. Remove them and the operating margin is even lower. There's no pot of gold in most cases. But I still think there's a good case for unionization.
- aylmao 5y ago
  I will point out 9.35% when talking about companies that size is a lot of money. Also worth noting; companies pay taxes on their profits, so while there's a lot of incentive to report high profits when a company is looking for investors, there's also plenty of incentive to hide profits (and thus lower operating margins) or shift them to subsidiaries in countries with lower taxes when companies that don't need to inflate their value. I am curious wether the stats you found take this into account.

mullingitover 5y ago

> If the company's in a competitive market This typically translates to "the company's successfully lobbied for trade agreements that allow us to force our domestic labor to compete against impoverished foreign workers in a developing nation with nonexistent environmental and safety standards," which is a race to the bottom for everyone but aristocrats. I think the problem in the US is that the country is deeply right-wing when it comes to labor policy. The union/management relationship in the US is designed to be adversarial. In Germany, it's legally mandated for unions to be represented at the board level, and that kind of cooperative relationship's results speak for themselves. Here, that idea would be considered tantamount to bolshevism.

CountSessine 5y ago
I wonder what most labour activists in the US would think of German worker councils, though? Works councils are basically company unions (which are loathed in US labour for some good reasons), but they are strengthened and protected through legislation. It doesn't stop at representation at the board level either - union busting is illegal and worker council reps enjoy job protection. But the flip side of this is that the union can't engineer a labour monopoly the way the UAW did in the 60's - the union and its employees are incentivized to keep the company healthy and competitive rather than just screwing over consumers by raising prices across the industry and lobbying for trade barriers.