This seems like one of those optical illusions that can look either way. Duck or rabbit? What color is the dress? Young lady or old hag?
Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?
Got that message of: we’re all just one big family where everyone loves each other. Now, don’t you call Child Services on us when we discipline y’all a little, ya hear?
And, what you said can be totally legitimate parenting. I'm not making a call here, just calling people out for jumping to conclusions when there are other valid interpretations.
Although I have to admit many industrial unions today have become "another authority", fundamentally, unionisation is about workers talking to each other and finding alignment in what they want out of work. Not another authority.
At some point in your life, you'll find that something you always thought was true and couldn't understand how anybody could see was false actually could be understood to be false by a totally reasonable person. At that time, I think you'll understand what I mean.
Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions. Fix those conditions in time, and no unions. No fear required.
> Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions
No. Unions are created because it gives workers several tools to counter the power imbalance inherent in the boss-worker relationship, the most immediate tool being collective bargaining.
Even in places where working conditions are acceptable—by some threshold of acceptable—unions still have a place. In Europe, for example it is not uncommon for the union to engage in outreach and mutual aid to education on labor rights and intervene when rights are violated.
In places where working conditions are not acceptable, the union does empower workers to rise up against their bosses for better conditions, this is enabled through solidarity between workers. After the conditions are fixed, that solidarity is still required to maintain them.
Very true. However labor violations are seldomly this clear cut mustache twirling villain you would see in the movies which affects all workers equally. Most often it is some mundane error done by a clerk in the HR department that never gets corrected until—by luck—a well meaning lower manager spots it, and goes to the union to demand a correction including back-pay.
This is the reason why outreach is an important part of the union’s job. These errors exists sporadically and will persist uncorrected while the workforce is uneducated on our rights.
At some point in my life I’m going to realize that the documented violent history of labor-capital was all just a fabrication and it just so happens that the standard American anti-union talking points—America might have the most violent labor-capital history of any Western nation, by the way—were reasonable and based in reality? No, I don’t think so.
Besides, your comment is just a generic relativistic refrain and doesn’t contain any argument at all. No: not all viewpoints are reasonable.
I'm not saying they all are. I'm saying mine is, and you don't understand it.
Unions were certainly critical at some point. I've read The Jungle, I get anarchy, etc. We live in a very different world now. I'm not saying unions were never valid, I'm saying that it's possible to make them unnecessary.
Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?