RE: SHAME ON GREYHOUND 🚍 🚌
I don't tell them not to do it. It's within their right to do it. But I think it's childish and harmful.. and should be within an employer's right to say okay, fired.
I basically think it wouldn't be an effective tactic and wouldn't really happen at all without coercive rules that make it maybe effective.
It's like the violence props up the childish behavior (and vice versa).
I don't have a problem with unions, but I have a problem with forcing a company to allow unions.
They should be free to not have them and to fire people who form them or whatever, and employees and potential employees are free to not work there and look for somewhere who allows unions. Free association.
I suspect that when companies aren't forced to accept unions, there would be less of them. But I'm not anti union per se. For large companies, a union representing the workers as a whole makes sense.
But, the behavior of "let's just not show up!!" does not make sense imo and isn't a good way for the union to negotiate
Interesting
I'm curious, besides strikes, what options do unions have?
I believe unions aren't the best solution but there isn't much option.
Plus, businesses only understand one language: money. If they lose enough money, they'll take you seriously. How do you make a company lose money legally?
Well, it could be something like what an agent does for an athlete.
The people speaking for the union are aware of all the Xs and Os, so they're in better position to negotiate with the company on behalf of the average worker.
Businesses are basing it on money, ya. And at the end of the day, paying people their fair value (based on what they're providing to the company) is in their best interest.
If they under pay, they're making it more likely that their good employees find a better deal elsewhere.
So finding that "correct value" isn't simple, and I've never run a business, but I suspect business owners are really happy to listen to negotiation. It's like you're helping them solve the puzzle and arrive at the proper price point.
It helps both sides, ultimately.
And one form of leverage that a union might have is they could have connections with competitors who are willing to take people and offer X price.
(It might not be as much leverage as going on strike, but they probably "shouldn't" have that form of leverage, if it wasn't protected by government coercion.)
And as long as we grunt and moan and threaten to strike as the form of negotiation, I tend to think there must be less fluid actual negotiation in the manner I describe above.. so worse for workers long term.. worse for the process of arriving at that proper value
I'm not sure how the inner workings of unions go, but I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes union leaders actually have a motivation for people to be underpaid, so that now they have fodder to begin a strike
(rather than they just want workers to be properly paid in the first place)
Good questions!! Thanks for them.
You know what occurred to me as I read this? Violence!
Negotiation is a peaceful approach. It makes room for sensibility on both sides. Forces people ro put their ingenuity to use.
Strike suddenly sounds like violence to me. Or maybe bullying is the word. The unions are the ones bullying the business owners. The business owners cannot do anything about it (thanks to laws).
Because striking workers can't be fired (or denied pay), unions can strike at will, even at the slightest whiff of disagreement. They have almost nothing to lose while the company and customers have everything to lose. I don't know why but violence rings in my head.
Perhaps it reminds me of my school mates who would rather employ force to solve issues rather than dialogue.
In a way, this could be true. I mean, if workers didn't have the option of strike or no reason to, the union leaders would probably have to get other jobs
Exactly!! You're right on imo
Going on strike is propped up and made a thing because of the use of violence
(ie employers aren't allowed to fire employees who strike, or are forced to allow unions in the first place, or whatever)
So going on strike just wouldn't be effective at all if it wasn't for coercive policies that surround it..
when there's free association across the board it just doesn't make practical sense to strike
(to suddenly breach your commitment in a way that's supposed to cause financial harm to someone)
I don't blame people for using the system as it currently exists..
As long as the laws exist like this, you understand why people will use it and do what's in their best interest
but ideally the laws would change, and then everything makes more sense and long term it's better for everyone especially the workers when there's more negotiation and less "I'm going on strike"