this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
820 points (99.5% liked)

Work Reform

10000 readers
562 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It is soo good. A tech company i just got offer from. In their onboarding app, they let me join the union on the first day.

This is what you see in the company with strong union.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Unions have long made businesses run better. They don't fight unionization efforts because of profit. They do it because of control.

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Unions help to fight inflation and price gouging as well. Unions are good for the entirety of any economy in which they exist. There are decades upon decades of independent and government funded research that supports this.

https://theconversation.com/unions-do-hurt-profits-but-not-productivity-and-they-remain-a-bulwark-against-a-widening-wealth-gap-107139

https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions-and-the-us-economy

https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-and-well-being/

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

It's important to remember that "they" is specific people with varying goals. Similarly, merely saying "profit" doesn't tell us anything about where the money is going.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

At the expense of profit? If control is preferable to operational stability, why do so many businesses use IT vendors?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They still have a leaver on outside vendors. And yes, power is ultimately their goal. If there's a conflict between power and profit, they choose power.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

OK just so we’re crystal, I’m only interested in fixing what’s broken. I have no time for doomerism, tedious conspiracies, or despair.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What I'm saying is that you can't go to businesses and say "a union will make this whole place run better for everyone" and expect them to take that for an answer. Unions have to fight. Some of those fights have been bloody.

That's not doomerism, tedious conspiracies, or despair. It's what has happened already in the history of unions.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Edit: You’re angry, hurt, jaded, and need others to feel your misery. I understand the feeling. What comes next, however, is the work. Angsty rage-baiting is a dead end.

Of course, union battles are a matter of history. And yes, today the rational agents of global economies often see unionization as a threat, clearly.

I argue that it’s only a threat insofar as it’s a disruptive paradigm. On the whole it’s a more fiscally advantageous schema for all but the monolithic “vertically integrated” international corporations that profit largely from self-dealing (and probably need to be broken up anyway).

You said businesses prioritize “Control” and “Power” over profit — i.e. they are not rational economic agents but despots. It’s a bleak perspective since despots can’t be reasoned with, only overthrown, and moreover it dismisses economic theory entirely.

I’m just weary of the defeatism. I know we’ve been through a lot and many of us are terribly jaded, but giving up is not an option. I want to win.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

moreover it dismisses economic theory entirely.

Yes.

I’m just weary of the defeatism

I don't see it as a defeat. I'm not saying give up. I'm saying know what we're up against.