Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is the difference you fail to recognize: all of those other pros and cons are determined by the employer. They are making a decision to offer, or not offer, certain benefits that might attract better employees. Fewer benefits might save the company money; more might attract better staff that allow for more productivity, making the company more successful.
That is a risk / reward based decision, a balancing process that's at the discretion of the business owner. Furthermore, it's subject to negotiation between the prospective employee and the employer - if the employer wants the employee badly enough, it can decide to provide certain additional benefits (e.g. additional money), or forego demands (e.g. you don't have to work on friday). It cannot say "you don't have to be a member of this union". The existence of a unionized environment is foisted on the business, and by any employee who might otherwise want to work for that business, by a third party that can't be negotiated with.
This, meanwhile, is completely unrealistic and you know it.
|
The decision to work there rests entirely on the worker, no company can force you to be hired by them. The existing work rules were not put their against your will, why would they give someone who doesn't work there a say. If you are that opposed to unions, don't work in a unionized place. I'm not opposed to non union companies who treat their workers fairly, so I would work at one if it felt like the right choice for me, but even though I would never work at a Walmart because I disagree with their treatment of workers, let's say hypothetically I did apply and got hired, knowing full well that they are non union, I wouldn't start working and then complain that I had no choice but to work in a place with no job security, fair treatment, defined benefits or pay structure. I would either try to unionize, and if that failed, quit; or chosen to not accept the job in the first place. If I didn't like unions I wouldn't apply to unionized jobs and then complain that I should have a say in what decisions and rules were made before I got there.
Also, a lot of people see things like the security and benefits unionized employees get as enough of an incentive that employers don't need to sweeten the deal.
"You don't have to work Friday's, Oh you changed your mind ok you don't have to work Monday's either, I'm desperate!" Are you in favour of seeing the employer at the mercy of the employee? When you try to argue that it is good to give the employer the ability to let their employee dictate what he gets in the same post you are trying to make an argument against unions, it really creates a confusing mixed message. Quite ironic to be honest with you.