3 ms·
Unions are not quite the great deal. They don't add to the value of the company, and their only goal is to redistribute value from company to workers. Which is
by kova12 4y ago
Unions are not quite the great deal. They don't add to the value of the company, and their only goal is to redistribute value from company to workers. Which is not a bad deal when all runs smoothly, but come financial stress and unionized companies go under first. Then there's also the question of fairness. Unions are not motivated by merit employee brings, so the leeches end up eating lunch of workers who are productive, causing stagnation. All in all, this is not an ideal arrangement. If I had an option to join a union, I wouldn't
- fargle 4y agoyou know, i think it is simpler than that. collective bargaining: if you are a fungible asset and the company can replace you and hire somebody else for the same price, no problem, tomorrow, then perhaps a collective bargaining is a good idea. If they can't replace all 10,000 of you for the same price, no problem, tomorrow, but they could on an individual basis, collective bargaining gains leverage and stability. non-collective bargaining: every individual effectively makes their own deal. if the individual is not fungible, then bargaining en-mass to the lowest common denominator or average contributor will hurt at least some if not all of the individuals. so make your own deal since you are above average and this will be better. plus you avoid the union tax. so it depends. if you are below average or easily replaceable then UNION is better for you. otherwise, make your own deal on your own merits and avoid the tendency to pull the above-average down to the midling. unions are machines that thrive on, produce, and require, conformity and therefore must reject individuality.