This is simply not true. Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
If it was true, then you'd think more companies would care about their employees. Amazon treats their warehouse and delivery people as disposable.
> The unions are always trying to recast the relationship as adversarial, which is a huge mistake.
If employers were treating their employees well, they wouldn't need a union.
https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...
This is not the same for Amazon. What you care about is delivery time and choice and they are doing well in that front.
That probably explains why most VC-funded businesses these days aren't profitable, even after they IPO :-)
Liquidation preference does not make for happy employees.
It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.
Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
Yes, sure, in the broad sense they're all part of the same ecosystem and if that ecosystem does well it can get to a happy stable state where each community prospers. That's certainly true.
But also on a day to day level one of the parties is literally trying to consume the other one.
That is not inherent. Businesses have mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers and customers. Transactions are win-win. There's nothing fundamentally different between a business and its employees, and no reason why the relationship cannot be win-win.
But unions frame their negotiations in terms of win-lose. This is a sad state of affairs.
https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8...
I inherently agree that this is a good Code of Ethics. It comes down to whether the people at these organizations conduct themselves in a way that embodies these principles. In the OP and my specific cases it was not the case. My position is that these principles are difficult and not particularly well adopted.
Although it can be win-win in theory, it frequently isn't in practice. A well-known example of companies working against their own employees is the "anti-poaching" policy illegally agreed to by Google, Apple and others a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
There was no union here trying to create an adversarial situation. It was simply corporate greed (on the part of some of the most profitable companies in the world).
I.e. win-lose.
Is it any surprise that companies don't like being treated like that? Would you?
What if, instead, unions framed it as a partnership for improved success of the company. Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it. Win-win! What a concept.
Its relatively uncommon if your baseline is status quo ante (though I’ve seen it in repeatedly in public sector unions in downturns, and I’ve heard of it happening in private sector unions when the employer is in particularly dire straits), but not at all uncommon if your baseline is the employer’s offer.
> Like, for more benefits, we'll improve productivity to more than pay for it.
Unions don't control productivity, so they can’t promise that. Of course, if employers want to give labor a stake in productivity by offering equity, they are free to do so.
Of course they do. They're not mindless automatons. They're in the position with the best view of where productivity choke points are, and how to fix them. They can also run seminars to improve the training, and can help find positions where the unproductive members can be productive.
I'm sad I even have to point this out.
> not at all uncommon
I've never heard of it. The Starbucks strike has been in the news in the last week, and the union offered nothing whatsoever but threats and demands.