PoAC: A chicken-or-the-egg argument

[velvetpage]

"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?

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

And because they had lower costs still outdid Stelco without risking their own workers "voting with their feet" to Stelco or unionizing themselves.
Cynical self protective "generosity".

Oh, very much so. But it was a case of the end justifying the means, the end being a very content Dofasco workforce on the back of someone else's union. In the interests of not wanting a union for themselves, Dofasco management chose to eliminate the need for one. The auto industry has been doing this for decades, too, and it works there as well. It's not proof that unions aren't necessary; only proof that not all workforces need to be unionized in order for unions to do their job making workers' lives better.

...he replied that if they didn't like the low-paying jobs, they could vote with their feet and quit. Then starve and decrease the surplus population.

Exactly. How many single moms work at Walmart because that's the only place that will hire them? They don't have the skills to get anything better, no one will help them support their families long enough to train for anything better, so they're stuck in working poverty their whole lives while some idiot in government tells them that if they want more, they should take steps to improve themselves. Well, yes, they should, but who's going to help them with the rest of their lives while they do that?