3 ms·
>It is not in a company's interest to be unionized. Why not?
by JaimeThompson 4y ago
>It is not in a company's interest to be unionized.
Why not?
- tomelders 4y agoI think they mean it's not in the best interest of the people who "own" the company. Those people want to minimise costs as much as possible and Unions get in the way of them doing whatever the hell they want.
- colinmhayes 4y agoUnions increase labor costs.
- JaimeThompson 4y agoTreating people like people reduces labor acquisition and training costs.
- daniel-cussen 4y agoLabor costs bring food home to the table for people to eat.
- moate 4y agoFor labor, yes. For ownership/management, literally the opposite. OP was just pointing out why management is typically opposed to unions, since raising labor costs hurts the share of the profit to be given to ownership/management, they didn't seem to be weighing in on whether that increase in cost was a net good or bad.
- daniel-cussen 4y agoSo the word "hurts" generally refers to someONE, a creature of GOD, or as some people put it a "person" which I consider offensive. But in any case not to a number in a bank account. Bad means harm basically. For ownership and management...not literally the opposite. I highly doubt a manager has had that difficulty putting food on the table (in the 70's, I divine yes, occasionally it did happen sometimes and it disgusted the manager who went through that. I recognize they were underpaid then, but it's been a golden age for that class of worker ever since). Not stealing food from them. Worst case, they can always ask for demotion and put food on the table that way, as the employee. And a lot of people did that between the 40s and the 70s, choosing a diagonal-downward move to a job with a different demand balance, becoming schoolteachers for instance. Wozniak did that, a lot of Great Men did that.