is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden?
personally, i think i would prefer a co-ownership (coop) scheme than union, since that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers... idk just a thought
> is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden?
It wouldn't happen in other countries because the US has a uniquely adversarial union structure, where Europe uses codetermination (ICs with board seats) and sectoral bargaining (don't have to convert one company at a time).
> that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers
This is only true if everyone has exactly the same responsibilities, hours, working conditions and pay. All differences lead to divergences of interest.
well, there will always be a divergence (no two people have the exact same needs or wants) but i would argue being co-owner with others helps as a forcing function to help converge interests (you wouldn't be happy with a co-worker slacking off since they're also wasting your money/time not just 'the companys')
and there are many successful co-ops where people have different responsibilities, hours and pay, i don't think that is a requirement for co-ownership (though the variance is definitely less than traditional top-down orgs thats for sure)
personally, i think i would prefer a co-ownership (coop) scheme than union, since that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers... idk just a thought