3 ms·

I wouldn't frame unions as a "fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself." Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shar

I wouldn't frame unions as a "fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself." Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. It's about the distribution of profits between capital and labor.

acdha 5y ago
> Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. This doesn’t make sense to me: a union member wants to be treated with respect even if making their working conditions worse would make more profit for the company. Similarly, a smart shareholder is willing to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term success — the idea that you’re supposed to screw everyone in service of the quarterly report is a [very successful] marketing campaign by the kind of MBAs who are hoping to profit before most shareholders realize what they’ve done to the company.
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  It probably depends on the specific tradeoff, but people accept poorer working conditions for higher wages all the time. See anyone working on an oil rig/fishing boat. Of course there are some margins where a union may focus on working conditions over wages but you can say the same about shareholders and managers. Anyway, I didn't mean my original comment to be anti-union. I just think that framing unionization as anti-business/profit is both counter-productive and substantively wrong. It's about giving workers a seat at the table as proper stakeholders. But once that happens, it's in everyones interest to make the underlying business as successful and profitable as possible.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Yes - my point was simply that “as successful” and “as profitable” intersect but don't overlap. There are many formerly successful businesses where they cut too deeply into staffing, future investment, etc. to maximize profits and I would generally expect a union member to be more interested in the former goal than the latter.
datavirtue 5y ago
It's about more than money. Workers should have veto power over management decisions that hurt the business' viability or that would violate ethical values. It is the next inevitable step in human institutional evolution--democracy making it's way into working life. Some companies don't unions because they are built in. Messer Construction and Gore Industries are two examples. They are employee owned , operated, and managed.
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  That to me is a separate issue. Anyone with bargaining power can use that bargaining power however they want. Unions are just about giving workers bargaining power as proper stakeholders. If they want to use that leverage to make the company more ethical then they can (just as equity shareholders can use their leverage to do the same). But I'm skeptical that the end result will be more ethical business practices (outside the specific area of working conditions or course). Getting large numbers of people to agree on ethical values is hard, especially when there is a substantive cost.

acdha 5y ago

> Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. This doesn’t make sense to me: a union member wants to be treated with respect even if making their working conditions worse would make more profit for the company. Similarly, a smart shareholder is willing to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term success — the idea that you’re supposed to screw everyone in service of the quarterly report is a [very successful] marketing campaign by the kind of MBAs who are hoping to profit before most shareholders realize what they’ve done to the company.

thinkharderdev 5y ago
It probably depends on the specific tradeoff, but people accept poorer working conditions for higher wages all the time. See anyone working on an oil rig/fishing boat. Of course there are some margins where a union may focus on working conditions over wages but you can say the same about shareholders and managers. Anyway, I didn't mean my original comment to be anti-union. I just think that framing unionization as anti-business/profit is both counter-productive and substantively wrong. It's about giving workers a seat at the table as proper stakeholders. But once that happens, it's in everyones interest to make the underlying business as successful and profitable as possible.
- acdha 5y ago
  Yes - my point was simply that “as successful” and “as profitable” intersect but don't overlap. There are many formerly successful businesses where they cut too deeply into staffing, future investment, etc. to maximize profits and I would generally expect a union member to be more interested in the former goal than the latter.

datavirtue 5y ago

It's about more than money. Workers should have veto power over management decisions that hurt the business' viability or that would violate ethical values. It is the next inevitable step in human institutional evolution--democracy making it's way into working life. Some companies don't unions because they are built in. Messer Construction and Gore Industries are two examples. They are employee owned , operated, and managed.

thinkharderdev 5y ago
That to me is a separate issue. Anyone with bargaining power can use that bargaining power however they want. Unions are just about giving workers bargaining power as proper stakeholders. If they want to use that leverage to make the company more ethical then they can (just as equity shareholders can use their leverage to do the same). But I'm skeptical that the end result will be more ethical business practices (outside the specific area of working conditions or course). Getting large numbers of people to agree on ethical values is hard, especially when there is a substantive cost.