3 ms·
It creates two castes in the company, management and unionized workers. Aristocrats and the peasant workers.
by AYBABTME 3y ago
It creates two castes in the company, management and unionized workers. Aristocrats and the peasant workers.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIn contrast to a non-union shop, where there's... management and ununionized workers? With every individual worker in their own powerless little caste of one?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoWithout unions you already have the management and worker castes. Source: I've worked in non-union jobs for 20+ years. What unions do is provide an opportunity for the workers to collectively apply power. Of course, there's a lot of nuance in the implementations, and of course people can be corrupt as hell. But in no way, shape, or form did unions create the management/worker caste split. Holy hell that requires some twisted logic.
- AYBABTME 3y agoI'm just presenting the argument, which can be made. Reasonable people will disagree. In my particular experience, I always hated working unionized jobs I had and much preferred being a free actor with minimal fuss. I don't feel like "management versus workers" is a real divide in most non-union jobs I had (in which case you could say that systematizing the difference materializes the difference). But I also think it would likely be very different in different companies and industries. Unions aren't for me and I think they've had their use in the past, and I'm ambivalent as to their necessity in modern times (since governments now enforce a good set of minimums).
- VoxPelli 3y agoNot really, unions provides the workers with representatives in the management which essentially bridges management and workers and lessens the divide