- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
This is a point I don’t see brought up enough. The amount of effort and money spent by corps to discredit unions should be the only proof people need to see they’re in their best interest.
Same holds true for any legislation corps fight tooth and nail against. Their only concern is their bottom line. If they’re spending millions on something, it’s cause it’ll save them billions.
It saving billions isn’t argument against it being good for employees/most people. If say the government introduced a bill that required every company to send 5% of their money to Russia, fighting the hell out of that bill would save them billions and would be in line with what most Americans want. There are more realistic ones like pretty much every iteration of the kids online safety act.
It might be a good rule of thumb, but it definitely isn’t the only argument/proof needed.
My company refused to hire me help and instead are going to spend more than that in “compliance fees” that could have been avoided. They had a choice.
so many companies are pennywise and dollar dumb
Late stage capitalism has grown unbelievably short sighted and obtuse: companies cannot see behind their quarterly profits and labor that doesn’t directly grow the wealth disparity is criminally undervalued. Accountants who erode society by finding clever ways to help the rich cheat their tax obligations are showered with wealth while teachers, caretakers, and social workers who are the backbone of civilization are given poverty wage.
Was that the clown from IT?
Sorry, but we’ve taking away your coffee machine. We can’t afford the coffee grounds if we want to stay competitive.
Next week we’ll install the chains.
Sometimes as a programmer, I’m invited to visit the customer service offices to visit the workers on the front line. We have a bunch of offices around the nation. And if I’m in the area, it’s nice to stop in.
The one office did not have a coffee machine! Not a problem - I went to the lobby and bought coffee.
When I told them a bunch of other offices had free coffee, free beer, 8 rows of snacks. Then they said, “Must be nice as a programmer!” And I said, “Nah all of the other customer service offices have that.” And I could just see the office manager fuming. I don’t know if she was fuming because of some office politics, or fuming because she’s secretly getting kickbacks.
Anyways, I left with, “Y’all should really start talking more with your fellow coworkers about benefits.”
Give a man a raise and you feed him for one year. Teach a man to unite for regular raises and good benefits and you’ll feed him for the rest of his life.
*millions
My position isn’t in a bargaining unit :(
Priorities
In fairness that adds up though. They’re spending that to stop the union because it’s cheaper than giving everyone a raise. Logically if it’s the cheaper option it’s more affordable.
Logically if it’s the cheaper option it’s more affordable
If you mistreat your workers, productivity suffers compared to what it would be if you paid them properly so they’d be happt. Then even when your costs are lower, your revenue is as well.
Meaning paying your workers would mean you’d be making more money, despite the increased costs. So it’s actually more “affordable”.
Yeah but you can’t really quantify “happiness based increased productivity” on a spreadsheet as easily as “pay rise” or “stopping union expenses” so, ya know…
You can, though.
Not as easily, but it has been quantified.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nataliaemanuel/files/emanuel_jmp.pdf
https://www.waldenu.edu/programs/business/resource/shortened-work-weeks-what-studies-show
We know these things for pretty much certain. The only people who pretend “the science isn’t in” are the people who stand to gain when employees are exploited. So, ya know…
Right, and there are tons of other ways that companies run better when workers are empowered to initiate changes. There are a few companies that manage to do this on their own, but most that get there do it because the union forced the issue.
Except that they’re not giving you a raise while they live a life of luxury and you eat ramen every night and sweat every day.
Where’s the fairness in that?
I don’t remember saying that is fair, or that it’s the right or moral decision.
“In fairness that adds up though.”
That wasn’t you?
What? Saying it’s fair to say that they consider the cost of stopping unions as cheaper than giving everyone a raise is not the same as saying its fair to overpay themselves while underpaying employees.
