PoAC: A chicken-or-the-egg argument
Aug. 28th, 2006 02:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
"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)
Date: 2006-08-28 08:26 pm (UTC)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)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-29 01:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
From: