3 ms·
> If you and no one else wants WFH, the union isn't going to care about it. So the exact same as a non-union workforce. > If most people want WFH, companies
by krainboltgreene 3y ago
> If you and no one else wants WFH, the union isn't going to care about it.
So the exact same as a non-union workforce.
> If most people want WFH, companies that refuse to allow it will have to pay more to attract or retain talent.
I love how people just assume companies are this perfect machine that both know what's going on and understand the choices made, especially in a thread where Blizzard clearly isn't able to deal with their choices and almost certainly didn't intend to lose such talent.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> So the exact same as a non-union workforce. The claim was that unions would be an improvement. > I love how people just assume companies are this perfect machine that both know what's going on and understand the choices made, especially in a thread where Blizzard clearly isn't able to deal with their choices and almost certainly didn't intend to lose such talent. Markets don't cause everyone to be perfect. They just cause poor decisions to have consequences. Now they're experiencing the consequences, and anyone seeing it may want to make different decisions than they did.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago> The claim was that unions would be an improvement. You do understand that something can have a similar base, but one is better in other areas, right? Surely you get that and you just forgot.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoThey can also be worse in other areas too, right? And we were talking about this one area. But the same logic generalizes. If you're in the minority then the union doesn't care about your concerns and if you're in the majority then the company does regardless of the union because it costs them too much to not.