> In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. In practice, that's what power often does in any situation. So the question often boils do

> In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. In practice, that's what power often does in any situation. So the question often boils down to "who do you want to benefit from the 'abuse, stagnation and corruption'?" because someone will. > I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team to team and even promoted because it was too complex and costly to fire them. And there are tons of examples of hardworking non-union employees getting shafted, so the do-nothing shareholders can collect more profits. In almost all settings, shareholders are the group that contributes the absolute least to an organization (e.g. most didn't really even invest anything, they just bought a share that's long circulated in the stock market), yet their interests are the ones that are prioritized. A lot of people who are strongly against the mythically-large do-nothing union employee seem to have no problem with do-nothing shareholders.