View Single Post
Old 12-11-2012, 09:55 AM   #10
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 102
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Unions improve working conditions at the expense of their employers and, ultimately, their workers. They fight for their own interests not that of the community... just look at the big auto groups or, more recently, hostess. We could also point to the obvious shortcomings from groups like the teachers' union but that's a whole other story (and I'll let that be told to you via "waiting for superman")
Much the converse could also be said of employers, companies and corporations: that they improve their profits at the expense of their employees and workers. They fight for their own interests (profits), not necesarily those of the community, which often suffer as the majority of the residents, the workers, clearly have lower wages, benefits and inferior working conditions while the corporate profits often leave the community rather than being reinjected/invested back into that local economy.

In the end, I think there needs to be a proper and roughly equivalent balance in power across a company/business, much like, dare I say, in a representative democracy like the U.S. Employers and investors can be as equally myopic, short sighted, greedy and rapacious as workers and employees -- these sins hardly reside solely on the employee side.

It's only when one side or the other can prevail over, rather than work in concert with, the other that their own myopia, short-sightedness, greedy and rapaciousness can run unchecked. Both sides, employer and employee, have clearly shown that capacity in the past. But the answer is not necessarily to effectively do away with or cripple one or the other, as I think many/most "right to work" laws tend to do in the end, but rather restore a balance.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote