Quote:
Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Jan 17 2005, 06:10 PM
Because one can not exist without the other. Without a place to work at - employees are just plain out of work. Ask any NHLPA member that.
As for the whole sharing of the wealth part between employees and employers - a means to do this does exist - buy shares in the company. That's what most employers here in Calgary do, and they usually sweeten the deal by matching what employees put in. Pension plans are a rarity here, and the investment in the company by employees helps them keep a vested interest in what's good for the company, not just themselves.
|
Corporations cannot exist without Unions? Obviously companies need to exist for business to be done, Unions don't have to exist necessarily, individual employees could bargain with a company on a one-to-one basis (what employee leverage!).
As for the sharing of the wealth thing, I suppose thats just my frustration talking. Unions have done an excellent job of creating middle-class lives with lower-class jobs. I've a feeling North American might start to polarize a good deal if the blue-collars all drop below the poverty line, while us white-collars continue to push and exploit the overall bottome line, lining our pockets with stock options, exec. bonuses, etc.
I guess in the end I lament that our overall objective is healthy business first, healthy employees second. I'm not sure what corporations have done to deserve our admiration and respect in this regard. They've infiltrated and subverted many layers of government, creating a suitable political climate for increased profits. The profits are not to be shared any more than is necessary, with the government or the workers. The largest portion of it goes to the top layer of corporate management and the company's 'working capital'.