3 ms·
I'd argue that workers who don't feel exploited are more productive and that more productive employees can have a positive impact on a company. I'd bet that emp
by autoexec 3y ago
I'd argue that workers who don't feel exploited are more productive and that more productive employees can have a positive impact on a company. I'd bet that employees who are treated well tend to stick around longer too and that also can have a positive impact a company.
I think research might be a little difficult since there are a lot of things that can impact a company's longevity and success (however that's being defined) that have nothing to do with employees (unionized or otherwise), but I imagine a good study might be able to account for that to some extent.
- salamanderss 3y agoNBER research suggests unions correlate with lower relative employment for certain more vulnerable populations such as young and old. There's also the risk the union basically exploits the young and old by driving their wage from shitty to zero (by setting them too high to bear for anything but the most able bodied middle age). This pretty much mimics my experience younger working construction; union gigs set my wage at '0' by making me the outgroup. Being exploited by middle age union workers is bad for longevity imo.
- autoexec 3y agoI can understand that if the pay is high enough companies will want the most skilled/effective workers, but you'd hope for some kind of apprentice program to get younger workers trained up. I think older workers will always suffer in industries like construction or physically demanding work through.
- salamanderss 3y agoYeah. For the record I'm not against unions. It's just as a worker it's always been way too exploitive / exclusionary to be practical. I don't doubt it's great if you're a chosen apprentice due to connections with the union boss or whatever, or one of the guys that can use their card to shut out more vulnerable workers from the job.