Unions don't give 2 shits about the plight of workers. Their only concern is to increase the pool of union dues in order to maintain their seniority pyramid scam.
Unions Abuse Affect Competition
- Thread starter VicBee
- Start date
have you seen how much of a fuck your idol Elon cares about workers?
If you read my posts you'd know by now that Musk is far from being my idol. I've even called for him to resign from Tesla to focus on Twitter, his new acquisition. Regardless, I don't know what you're referring to, the fact that he fired half of Twitter? Why, do you think workers are owed their job? or that the company's owner should be forced to let an unproductive union boss decide who can get fired or hired?
The employee-owned business model is superior imo.
Let me give an example of how much unions care about workers:
In the industry I worked in, there was a pool of union labor and a pool of non union casual labor meant to fill the ranks of union labor upon retirements and such. That casual labor pool had the worst jobs, at the worst times, at the lowest pay with the lowest employment commitment. After some years on the job I finally understood why the union didn't fight for these workers.
The most obvious was that they didn't pay union dues, therefore of no interest to the union. But all would have gladly paid dues to get union labor benefits, so why did the union not care about adding dues paying labor? Because they would have increase the labor pool and triggered mechanisms creating competition for those with seniority. In effect, the union labor benefitted from a disenfranchised labor pool who could fill nasty jobs without being able to compete for the good jobs. Right of passage they called it...
In the industry I worked in, there was a pool of union labor and a pool of non union casual labor meant to fill the ranks of union labor upon retirements and such. That casual labor pool had the worst jobs, at the worst times, at the lowest pay with the lowest employment commitment. After some years on the job I finally understood why the union didn't fight for these workers.
The most obvious was that they didn't pay union dues, therefore of no interest to the union. But all would have gladly paid dues to get union labor benefits, so why did the union not care about adding dues paying labor? Because they would have increase the labor pool and triggered mechanisms creating competition for those with seniority. In effect, the union labor benefitted from a disenfranchised labor pool who could fill nasty jobs without being able to compete for the good jobs. Right of passage they called it...
Last edited:
well, not like they had any collective bargaining or power to strike so were subject to lose their livelihoods on the whims of an unstable man.
Absolutely agree with some caveats.
Having skin in the success/failure of your place of employment is the key but it's not for everyone, using the analogy of chiefs and indians. Many just want to go to a job, get paid and go home to their non work life.
Even employee-owned businesses need to have a decision making hierarchy or risk falling in the union model of slow decision making process which kills dynamics and efficiency. Those with the original idea and most financial investment should control the venture, but all employees should be vested with a significant share of ownership once they demonstrate their commitment to the business.
That dynamic is analogous to domestic workers attempting to secure their jobs w/protectionism/tariffs only for said jobs to be outsourced abroad for shittier pay and conditions. I have no answer to an oversupply of workforce driving down wages as I see everyone equal so have no real love for protectionism. That's what was so vexxing about Trump's nationalistic protectionism. MAGA applauded while hating unions for doing the same.
Last edited:
Nope, if you go back to my previous posts, it's not a union prerogative to fight for such rights. These should be government controlled functions, where rules are clear for everyone. Musk did not break any employment rules but if he did he will be called to answer for it.
Furthermore, Musk owns the business, paid cash for it. It's his business, not the 4000 or so workers who thought their jobs were a bestowed right. In fact, Musk showed that the business could run with 50% less employees or more! Wtf were all these people doing other than bloat payroll?!?
Certainly, Musk hasn't yet demonstrated that he can turn the business around and make it profitable. But so far he has stopped the cash hemorrhage. Let's see what happens in 6 months.
And btw .. Elon Musk has hired 128,000 people at Tesla over the last 10 years. I haven't heard one union praise him for putting men and women to work in well paid jobs.
There’s no doubt if the government enacted laws that protected workers then there would be no need for unions yet here we are with a need for unions.