Classic "all unions are corrupt" propaganda despite the evidence that they are extremely beneficial to workers.
> While your union leader does nothing while driving a luxury car
"While the CEO owns a couple private jets and the company initiates another billion dollar stock buyback"
I'd take my chances on getting an occasionally corrupt union (that I actually have a say in) vs 100% of companies that couldn't care less about my interests.
> the evidence that they are extremely beneficial to workers
Could you please cite the evidence?
> While the CEO owns a couple private jets and the company initiates another billion dollar stock buyback
Unlike the union leader, the CEO isn't working for you, so that private jet isn't coming out of your pocket, unlike the previously mentioned luxury car
You can google, plenty of sources, but the best evidence is how hard every company fights to prevent companies from forming one. How much has Amazon spent on union busting?
> Unlike the union leader, the CEO isn't working for you, so that private jet isn't coming out of your pocket, unlike the previously mentioned luxury car
We'll probably disagree on this, but all profit comes from the difference between the value created by workers and the portion of that value returned to workers. There is no value without workers.
So, when a company does a $60 billion stock buyback. That $60 billion comes from the amount workers were underpaid relative to the value they created.
If a worker takes $100 in materials and builds a $1000 chair, they created $900 in value. If you pay the worker $20, then the employee was "underpaid" $880. That $880 is what is used to pay the CEO, stock buybacks, dividends, etc.
(I'm not suggesting the employee necessarily deserves all of that $880 of course, but it is the value from which the worker's pay comes from)
If workers are paid according to the value they create, then profits would be $0. (Revenue - COGS - Compensation). So, there wouldn't be money left to pay for dividends or stock buybacks.
Therefore, necessarily, employee compensation must be suppressed to afford stock buybacks and dividends.
My point is that everything comes from the same pot. Stock buybacks and dividends "could" have been employee compensation.
It does require the underlying premise that workers should be paid according to the value they create. I suspect you'll disagree on this, but I hope I've explained enough to share my point of view.
> This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers
No. The company had created this value. If it was just the employee, I invite the employee to try quitting and creating this value without the company. It is bound to fail.
The rest is invalidated by this faulty assumption in the beginning.
> Fine
I can't say I read 100% of this. But it seems to show:
- Unions claim to be beneficial. What a surprise
- U.S. Democratic party claims unions, who give them a lot of money are beneficial. Another surprise!
- Some authors rely on correlation to claim causation. Good luck.
> Please show me some sources that show unions hurt employees.
Have a look at your own links, for instance the last one. Reduced competitiveness of the business is bad for employees. Reduced income inequality is bad for everyone who is willing to work hard. Massive corruption. Waste of money and resources on nonproductive activities. Difficulties firing people who don't perform. Do I need to go on?
Haven't seen a well functioning union. Years ago I was practically forced to enter some, they were all scams. If you are a member of a good one, good for you.
Maybe, but it is likely that you will not be able to form a new union and instead be forced to join with an existing one. As soon as a big union hears of your efforts they will step in and demand to be the ones to represent you then they only need a couple people to scream we need to join the big union and they can fight your efforts to be independent in court.
It’s more of the principle of the thing. We work in an industry that aspires to disrupt everything from human relations (social media), to commerce (Amazon, the sharing economy), to biology, nutrition, and the very laws of physics (or at least material science.) Even if a lot of this is just marketing hype, there is still ambition required to come up with such utopian grandiose goals. But whenever the idea of a union is discussed it’s “no, we’ve tried it already, that’s impossible, everyone knows that.” What hypocritical defeatism!
Some things we disrupt, others we fail, often because the very laws of physics are against it. There are also laws of what makes a union work and they don't point to success. Mind those laws are not as absolute as the laws of physics, but they also place limits on what a union can do, and in turn make me less interested.
That still doesn’t prevent all sorts of audacious, even foolhardy experiments from being undertaken in this industry. We should seek to dream bigger in every arena, even in the area of labor.
