4 ms·

> If the company's existence depends on the unfair exploitation of its staff, its foreclosure is inevitable and justified, and that is simply the price everyone

by seneca 10mo ago

> If the company's existence depends on the unfair exploitation of its staff, its foreclosure is inevitable and justified, and that is simply the price everyone involved must pay to maintain equilibrium. Claiming that all non-union companies are inherently operating via "unfair exploitation of its staff" is ridiculous. It's entirely possible for a labor union to go too far and drive a company to become noncompetitive. These sort of canned answers are empty claptrap and not really fit for an honest discussion.

c-hendricks 10mo ago
The statement wasn't really pro or against unions. Simply put, if your company can only survive while exploiting its workers it shouldn't survive. Whether that's due to constant turnover from poor treatment of their employees, or due to union strikes, doesn't change the statement.
- seneca 10mo ago
  That's not at all what the statement I replied to says in context. hellojesus said "There is always the chance that the collective action discounts the impact to the business too heavily and ends up driving the company under, making the outcomes worse for everyone." popalchemist said "If the company's existence depends on the unfair exploitation of its staff, its foreclosure is inevitable and justified" That response is implying that the only way the business could go under due to unionization is because the business was formerly exploiting its staff. It's not just pro-union, it's outright zealotry that ignores reality.
  - nickthegreek 10mo ago
    You’re reading an extra claim into it. It’s not saying “all post-union failures prove exploitation.” It’s saying “if survival requires unfair exploitation, then losing that advantage exposes an illegitimate model.” I see no implication that all failing businesses after unionization is due to exploitation.
  - popalchemist 10mo ago
    That is not my implication, you are reading it incorrectly. The above commenter is reading it correctly.

by seneca 10mo ago

c-hendricks 10mo ago

The statement wasn't really pro or against unions. Simply put, if your company can only survive while exploiting its workers it shouldn't survive. Whether that's due to constant turnover from poor treatment of their employees, or due to union strikes, doesn't change the statement.

seneca 10mo ago
That's not at all what the statement I replied to says in context. hellojesus said "There is always the chance that the collective action discounts the impact to the business too heavily and ends up driving the company under, making the outcomes worse for everyone." popalchemist said "If the company's existence depends on the unfair exploitation of its staff, its foreclosure is inevitable and justified" That response is implying that the only way the business could go under due to unionization is because the business was formerly exploiting its staff. It's not just pro-union, it's outright zealotry that ignores reality.
- nickthegreek 10mo ago
  You’re reading an extra claim into it. It’s not saying “all post-union failures prove exploitation.” It’s saying “if survival requires unfair exploitation, then losing that advantage exposes an illegitimate model.” I see no implication that all failing businesses after unionization is due to exploitation.
- popalchemist 10mo ago
  That is not my implication, you are reading it incorrectly. The above commenter is reading it correctly.