2 ms·

> I don't think this argument in particular stands well against reality I think it does. I mentioned the salaries and perks offered by tech companies. I could

> I don't think this argument in particular stands well against reality I think it does. I mentioned the salaries and perks offered by tech companies. I could also mention Henry Ford. If something benefits the company then they will do it, and if it works it will naturally spread. > Things that are in the interest of individuals rarely "sort themselves out" without some intervention I didn't write "in the interest of individuals", I wrote benefitting both sides, which means, crucially, also benefitting the company. But again, in many cases happier employees simply do not provide a net benefit to the company. Back to the point: The claim that unions benefit both sides is naive and a fairy tale. Obviously unions do not benefit companies hence why they are opposing them as much as they are legally able to.

int_19h 3y ago
There's also a question of short-term vs long-term benefits to be considered. Short-term, the demands that trade unions make do indeed make workers more productive. But long-term, the company owners (and here I of course mean actors who hold significant amount of concentrated shares, not your average stockholder) and top management may see this as only the first step down the road where they do not wish to go. By this line of thinking, if you allow unions to establish a foothold with those basic demands, they will use that as a beachhead to make further and further demands that favor labor interests over those of the capital, with the end goal being a worker-owned business (i.e. socialism) which excludes the people who currently own the capital entirely. Naturally, they do see it as a threat to themselves - it is very much intended to be! And so they are willing to forgo some things that would be more profitable short-term.

2 ms·

> I don't think this argument in particular stands well against reality I think it does. I mentioned the salaries and perks offered by tech companies. I could

by mytailorisrich 3y ago

int_19h 3y ago
There's also a question of short-term vs long-term benefits to be considered. Short-term, the demands that trade unions make do indeed make workers more productive. But long-term, the company owners (and here I of course mean actors who hold significant amount of concentrated shares, not your average stockholder) and top management may see this as only the first step down the road where they do not wish to go. By this line of thinking, if you allow unions to establish a foothold with those basic demands, they will use that as a beachhead to make further and further demands that favor labor interests over those of the capital, with the end goal being a worker-owned business (i.e. socialism) which excludes the people who currently own the capital entirely. Naturally, they do see it as a threat to themselves - it is very much intended to be! And so they are willing to forgo some things that would be more profitable short-term.