3 ms·
did your employer hire more people? if so, there you go. think of the pool of money that is profit to go to workers. when employers make more money, more nomin
by endisneigh 4y ago
did your employer hire more people? if so, there you go.
think of the pool of money that is profit to go to workers. when employers make more money, more nominal amounts (not percentage) go to the workers collectively.
you can look at the balance sheet of basically any company to show this.
to contrast, I know of a single tech union, Kickstarter. From publicly available information I see no evidence that workers are getting more money. In fact kickstarter employees seem to be paid less than general (especially for NYC, where they're based).
- UncleMeat 4y agoI said "per employee" in my post.
- endisneigh 4y agoYes, but that’s not relevant to my point. More profit per employee means more capital for new initiatives means more employees.
- UncleMeat 4y agoOk then I don't understand. You brought up revenue comparisons as an argument against unionization, presumably because a company making less revenue per employee is somehow bad for employees. I claimed that revenue per employee is largely unrelated to compensation or benefits and we should really be talking about those things. Now you seem to agree that profit per employee doesn't affect wages but instead only benefits the corporation, which is able to start new projects.
- endisneigh 4y agoThe point is that you were saying you’re not getting a share of the profits, my point is that the profits are being shared in the form of additional employees. If profits increased and employees stayed the same then you’d have a point.
- UncleMeat 4y agoBut why do I care about additional employees? It isn't a benefit to me whatsoever to have my employer hire another 50% more people.
- endisneigh 4y agoThe new employees are obviously happy about it lol. Your mentality is generally the main issue with unions - old vs new.