3 ms·
> But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction. FWIW I don't think that's obvious at all. Even a small group of happy
by coldpie 3y ago
> But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction.
FWIW I don't think that's obvious at all. Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone and protect themselves and future employees against potential changes in ownership or a downturn in company health.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone I'm not arguing it couldn't be done, nor that it doesn't have benefits. Just that it has costs, and those costs at a small level should outweigh the benefits. While they're doing that, and maintaining that structure, they could be doing something else. (Something more enjoyable and lucrative.)
- coldpie 3y agoSure, but now you've changed your point from "very obviously" to "it's a cost-benefit analysis." It's not hard to imagine how someone else's analysis might end up different from yours (say, based on their previous experience, or experience of others in their industry).