3 ms·
> This kind of toxic condescension by (some) bosses and ruling/employing classes, is exactly why workers need unions. Tell that to all the New Yorkers who can'
by cromka 4y ago
> This kind of toxic condescension by (some) bosses and ruling/employing classes, is exactly why workers need unions.
Tell that to all the New Yorkers who can't enjoy a modern, efficient transportation because expansion is just too expensive and slow. Or good law enforcement, for that matter, too. Plenty of good journalistic pieces digging deep into it and the conclusion is one: corrupted, power-tripping unions. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
I am not against unions nor regulation, but they can drain the employer and stagnate growth very quickly. It doesn't have to automatically be greedy CEO's "toxic condescension", it can have merit.
- gamblor956 4y agoIf the Qatari construction workers had been unionized, the World Cup stadiums would have been even more expensive to build. But 6000+ of them would still be alive. The tradeoff you're condemning is literally people's lives for a few dollars of savings.
- cromka 4y agoThese are two extremities laid out, mine and yours. Finding a common ground does not have to be impossible.
- Viliam1234 4y agoThere should be a rule like: if you work for a private company, you can have a union, but if you work for a government, you cannot have a union. Maybe adjust the details as necessary, but the idea is that there should be no police unions etc. The reason is that when a union in a private company goes too far, that company can be replaced by a competitor. But if you cannot similarly replace a police force, nothing prevents a police union from going too far.