It's one of the few moments where rank-and-file folk realize they do need a say in where things are heading - because you start seeing that the leaders aren't somehow magic beings with perfect decision making qualities. And, at the same point, you get strong reminders that your livelihood is coupled to the company's livelihood - which is making bad decisions right now.
That's why "fight for survival" is a common inflection point for unionization.
Buts it’s not. They can leave and find another job easily.
I agree that management can often be shit and make bad decisions. But at the end of the day everyone is working to make the owners a lot of money, and if the owners cannot see how shit management is, why should employees bother? They don’t stand to gain, only keep working at a company they believe could do great things. See…the incentives for employees drift off into intangible and unmeasurable things.
If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company. They have no skin in the game. It makes no sense.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818323
> why should employees bother?
Perhaps they care about the mission. Perhaps they care about the customers. Perhaps they want to ensure the work they've been working on was not made in vain. You seem to see work as purely satisfying the lower ranks of Maslow's hierarchy, but for many workers it is also a means of self-actualization.
> If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company.
And what if management or the owners do that? How about giving someone else involved in the endeavor a try?
> They have no skin in the game.
They literally have skin in the game?
2) Uh, yes, unions do have skin in the game. Again, it's the whole "keeping your livelihood" thing.
3) I'm not saying it's the best moment for people to start thinking about a union. They should've done that way earlier. Better late than never.
4) "What happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company" - I am sorry, do you have any idea what unions are and how they work? There are any number of vultures that'll fleece the body of a company before a union can "bankrupt" it. They happen to be all on the ownership side.
The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.
What has led you to this conclusion?
I’ve observed the opposite to be true: employees have more incentive than investors to seek the long-term success of a company. Building a career within a company and industry requires an investment of time and effort. Career changes are slow and become increasingly difficult. In contrast, investors can invest in anything so investments are more liquid than careers. In the case of a company failure, well managed investment portfolios are exposed to significantly less risk than the typical salaried career.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo...
Still, having a union would provide a stronger bargaining position than individuals voicing concerns during all-hands.
