Agreed. Virtue capitalism is the sociological illness that defines our times. A widespread belief in corporate paternalism is the spoonful of sugar that helped the pill of de-unionization go down in the first place.
We fight for unions on the basis that absent better labor laws the corporation requires an adversary to keep it from exploiting workers. It's hypocritical to insist upon a union and then get mad about a lack of corporate generosity.
I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in it. That might create the opportunity for this relationship to become one that is more cooperative.
At least that way the struggle might get a little less existential as every corporation would be on an even footing. I think a good portion of corporate resistance to unionization is about fearing they will have to compete with an un-unionized company.
> I think the ultimate solution is an economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and controlling stake in it. That might create the opportunity for this relationship to become one that is more cooperative.
I believe this is how Germany does it. I may be getting the details a bit off, but I believe corporate boards have to have a worker’s/union representative as a member. This makes total sense to me.
> I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in it.
Our economic system _permits_ that; is there something you think is specifically handicapping employee-owned businesses?
Perhaps we should follow the German model where large stakes in public companies are actually mandatory to be owned by the employees so they have a more direct say in workplace democracy by default.
While there are times where government needs to step in and force things, I'm cautious about presuming it.
Workers in the US are free to get together and argue (without a union) for a group or general pay increase. Workers can as a group walk off the job. Workers are free to quit at any time.
Voting with your feet is the most democratic thing we have.
And employers can ignore workers or fire them. If the company ignores too much or fires too many, then the company will suffer.
IME, that works much better than using the law to privilege either side.
> Workers can as a group walk off the job. Workers are free to quit at any time.
Have you ever actually studied a labor action? How it happens? The power dynamic is vastly in the employers favor. By far the majority fail or are outright broken by targeted firings, strike breaking, etc.
> IME, that works much better than using the law to privilege either side.
You're begging the question that it currently doesn't favor a side.
We fight for unions on the basis that absent better labor laws the corporation requires an adversary to keep it from exploiting workers. It's hypocritical to insist upon a union and then get mad about a lack of corporate generosity.
I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in it. That might create the opportunity for this relationship to become one that is more cooperative.
At least that way the struggle might get a little less existential as every corporation would be on an even footing. I think a good portion of corporate resistance to unionization is about fearing they will have to compete with an un-unionized company.