3 ms·

If the employees truly came together to collectively bargain why wouldn’t they unionize at the same time to protect against similar abuses by the board in the f

• voxic11 3y ago
  This collective action seems like it was effective enough and achieved its stated goals. Why introduce yet another permanent layer of bureaucracy and politics at your company if you can achieve your goals without it?
  • Normal_gaussian 3y ago
    Well structured unions have a board seat; this would likely have avoided this issue in the first place. This action, by both the board and the employees, is the result of poor communication. It has caused non-trivial damage to the organisation, internally and externally. It is highly desirable for everyone involved for this level of disruption not to happen again.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• ETH_start 3y ago
  Collective bargaining permanently puts the management and other prospective employees at a disadvantage, with their contract liberty limited by government fiat, as a result of a mandate for the employer to negotiate with the union to the exclusion of all other parties. It is generally associated with less performant companies, which is not in the interests of those employed in a rapidly growing company.