> insist that the store needs to negotiate via the union, while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union
American unions are adversarial to management. I don’t see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary.
American unions are adversarial to management. I don’t see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary.
American management is adversarial to workers.
Yes, adversarial relationships have this symmetry.
> American management is adversarial to workers
Strongly disagree. Between tech and finance we have proven models for gains sharing that doesn't require workers and managers be at each others' throats. Many European models similarly have workers aligned with the company's long-term goals and vice versa without a militant union butting heads with sociopathic management. (They're symbiotic.) Meanwhile, American ports are embarrassingly inefficient because the port unions don't want to modernize.
These models need refinement. But for many industries, they seem better than inserting a middleman whose existence is reliant on an adversarial relationship between employee and employer.
It might depend on the exact country you are thinking about, but I’d assume these models stand on top of solid labor laws and employer obligations that don’t need bargaining in the first place.
You don’t need an union if you have a government willing to pass laws benefiting all workers. You’ll see unions where these laws grossly mismatch the extent protections and adjustments are needed (in particular in profession where the employer is the gov itself, teachers for instance…)
What models are those, and how are they less adversarial than union membership? Compensation negotiations are inherently adverserial, getting fair representation for workers doesn't make them any more so.
Employees as stockholders, employees having a Board seat (I still think ESOP plans should be required to have this). Profit shares. Yes, pay in the present is adversarial. But there are synergies and opportunities for productivity enhancement modern companies and workers can use to align interests that an industrial line worker could not. (A line worker couldn’t boost the company’s bottom line the way an Apple retail employee can. Counterfactual: an Apple retail employee is less able to jump ship and turbo power a competitor the way tech and finance workers can.)
I don't think owning 0.000001% of your employer's company is particularly meaningful.
> employees having a Board seat
That's... vanishingly rare, no?
> Profit shares
Unusual outside of small businesses, and even then...
I agree with the GP that employers are generally adversarial toward workers.
Sure thing. But that typically takes place in scheduled sessions. Casting Starbucks as refusing to engage when they’re adding it to the next meeting’s agenda is what I’m pushing back against.
But that the situation when negotiation is most needed. I agree that the unions are under no obligation to negotiate with management, its just a good idea.