BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti told employees in 2015 that "when you look at companies that have unionized, the relationship [between managers and employees] is much more adversarial."
I suppose the remaining employees have taken the layoffs as a sign that management IS their adversary.
> I suppose the remaining employees have taken the layoffs as a sign that management IS their adversary.
Nah, basic economics says that now that the supply of employees at Buzzfeed has been reduced, the remaining employees have more leverage to negotiate with management as rugged individualists. /s
I don’t suppose they’ll care to bail the company out with their own finances if the company were to teeter on bankruptcy for the sake of collectivism...
Unions should regard businesses as their customers, not their enemies. The relationship should not be regarded as zero-sum, i.e. that the union can only win if the business loses, and vice versa.
The union pitch to businesses should be "you'll get more cost-effective results if you hire our union guys." The same pitch as any other business selling something to that business.
Businesses don't treat their customers as enemies, and their transactions with them as zero-sum. At least, successful businesses don't. They know that win-win is the way to success.
Unions, however, always seem to take the win-lose tack, which is why businesses don't want to deal with them.
> The union pitch to businesses should be "you'll get more cost-effective results if you hire our union guys."
This approach makes no sense.
The role of a union is to defend the interests of their members in particular and workers in general. This means that the job of an union also includes opposing management decisions that go against the best interests of the company's workers.
An union only has any semblance of value if it oposes management practices that hurt workers, such as laying off a significant portion of a company's staff when the company is not in financial risk.
Your pitch idea is utterly absurd because you can't convince a manager that eliminating 15% of the company's salary costs is a bad idea even if the alternative is keeping around workers that might not be needed in the immediate future.
The only way to avoid these whimsical lay-offs is if an union opposes these initiatives in a way that the corporation has more to lose if he pushes them ahead.
> The role of a union is to defend the interests of their members in particular and workers in general.
Sure, but going about it by antagonizing their customers is not productive.
Implicit in your argument is the idea that workers have nothing to offer in exchange. I don't believe that's true. Businesses are always offering more money and perqs to get better workers. Unions can endear themselves to business by offering things in exchange for what they want, and by being partners in the success of the business.
Being enemies is a doomed endeavor, and likely why unions have declined over the years, unless they got special government rules to keep them in place.
Businesses see unions as enemies and transactions zero-sum. They view paying better wages and improving working conditions or providing actual benefits as a loss, rather than creating a "win" for the people who comprise the company.
Why is this? Probably because the investor class "matters" more than the employee class, through some odd inversion where the people who actually add value and make the company work are subject to those who don't.
Or, we could just cut the verbosity and call it like it is: Business don't want to deal with unions because of unchecked greed.
Only because unions frame it that way. I used to work in a union shop, and the union members simply poured out their hate for the business on a daily basis. Who would want to do business with people that hate you?
> and transactions zero-sum.
Businesses that screw their customers don't last long.
Canada Post went on strike early winter as a pressure tactic because it knew the company would suffer going into the holiday season. Ultimately, that only screwed over the customers.
Single piece of anecdata for you. I know the owner of a construction company. I asked him about the 3 unions he has in his company, and his answer was that he really liked the significantly better tradesmen that the union makes available to him. He’s fairly conservative, and I’m not sure he likes unions in general, but he’s found them to be a net benefit to his company, this is after having tried staffing with and with unions.
I suppose the remaining employees have taken the layoffs as a sign that management IS their adversary.