velvetpage (
velvetpage) wrote2006-08-28 02:48 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
PoAC: A chicken-or-the-egg argument
"The unionized (company) had lower worker morale, always had confrontation between management and workers and used more people to do the same amount of work."
Here's the question: which came first, the adversarial management/employee relations and low worker morale, or the unionization?
What do you guys think? Is there a way to get the best of both worlds, and if so, can you give an example of it?
Here's the question: which came first, the adversarial management/employee relations and low worker morale, or the unionization?
What do you guys think? Is there a way to get the best of both worlds, and if so, can you give an example of it?
no subject
There should be confrontations between management and workers. This is not inherently a bad thing. Unions only increase worker confidence in addressing issues that would otherwise be suppressed or ignored by management. If the managers/owners can't take the confrontation, that's their problem. They'll get no sympathy from me.
I think it's fairly obvious that the crappy conditions that most workers have had to endure gave rise to unionization. I tend to look at the history of unions as an ongoing affair, rather than something that occurred in the distant past. The fact that we are losing a lot of the rights that we fought for in our earlier struggles is an indication to me that a lot of people have forgotten why we fought in the first place. It is, or should be, an ongoing struggle.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)