3 ms·
Because of the sarcasm dripping from your post I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.
by Teever 3y ago
Because of the sarcasm dripping from your post I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.
- pdonis 3y agoWhat I'm trying to say is simple: the unions' basic position is that corporations don't treat workers the way they deserve to be treated. If that is really true, unions should be able to increase productivity and efficiency by putting their money where their mouth is and forming their own corporations that treat workers better, and selling the services of the workers to other corporations. Then negotiations like the ones described in the article would be straightforward contract negotiations between corporations with roughly equal bargaining power. That's what the unions claim to want. And yet it doesn't happen: the UAW, for example, has never even considered becoming the United Auto Workers Corporation and selling services to GM and Ford.
- PlunderBunny 3y agoWhat makes you think a corporatised union would be able to access the kind of money required to do something like that, as opposed to the 'C' suite types that currently run the show?
- pdonis 3y agoWhat money would be required? Forming a corporation is cheap. The workers already own the capital required--their own skills and knowledge. If they sell organized labor as a service, they don't need to buy the equipment--that's still owned by the automakers (or other companies) that they sell their services to.