> Why shouldn't employees expect, and get, better working conditions?
have their cake and eat it too is absolutely correct. And the reason why we want to keep it the way it has been, is that the status quo productivity maximization is what has resulted in our current high pay and quality of life.
> individuals leaving "collectively bargain", it's the complete opposite, it's individual bargaining, with all the perils that entails.
The benefit of market rate is that it's fundamentally sustainable, and fair. When businesses collectively bargain, we call them "cartels"
>look at Germany where every industry has unions, regardless of size, and unions has a say in how companies are run, and what direction they head in. They make sure that shareholders and employees get input into the highest levels of leadership, ensuring that shareholders can't force decisions that benefit shareholders at the detriment of employees.
Because shareholder need to make decisions to improve shareholder value even if it means it's going to suck for employees. That's an important part of the system. You need to let go of deadbeats. Go ahead look at Germany. All their companies are very old. There's no room for startups. The only halfway relevant company they've produced in decades was a complete fraud. If the USA was like that, Google wouldn't even exist.
Shareholders provide real value. For the most part from the fact that the business wouldn't even exist without them. How much they provide is supposed to be determined by the cost to replace them, the shareholders, by starting a new company and competing with the old one.
> employees should absolutely make it clear who generates most of the value in a company,
This would be hilarious. Only a tiny fraction of Google employees work on a part of the business that actually makes money.
Most of the value google generates comes from their monopoly on search, not from workers. It would be trivially easy for google to crush the unionization efforts, sack more than half their employees, and increase theor profits.
First: that's awful because it means business don't have any flexibility to change. you're forced to work with people who don't work, because they can't get fired. The lower productivity of those workers becomes a drag on everyone else.
Second: this is the worst. Instead of shedding the dead weight it insists on protecting the people who've been paying dues the longest, at the expense of young people.
No this is not what I call a just society.
A just society is one where people doing more work get more pay. This exists fine right now. Workers have tons of companies to choose from. Companies have lots of workers to choose from. There's a vibrant market and most people end up getting paid what they're worth.
have their cake and eat it too is absolutely correct. And the reason why we want to keep it the way it has been, is that the status quo productivity maximization is what has resulted in our current high pay and quality of life.
> individuals leaving "collectively bargain", it's the complete opposite, it's individual bargaining, with all the perils that entails.
The benefit of market rate is that it's fundamentally sustainable, and fair. When businesses collectively bargain, we call them "cartels"
>look at Germany where every industry has unions, regardless of size, and unions has a say in how companies are run, and what direction they head in. They make sure that shareholders and employees get input into the highest levels of leadership, ensuring that shareholders can't force decisions that benefit shareholders at the detriment of employees.
Because shareholder need to make decisions to improve shareholder value even if it means it's going to suck for employees. That's an important part of the system. You need to let go of deadbeats. Go ahead look at Germany. All their companies are very old. There's no room for startups. The only halfway relevant company they've produced in decades was a complete fraud. If the USA was like that, Google wouldn't even exist.
Shareholders provide real value. For the most part from the fact that the business wouldn't even exist without them. How much they provide is supposed to be determined by the cost to replace them, the shareholders, by starting a new company and competing with the old one.
> employees should absolutely make it clear who generates most of the value in a company,
This would be hilarious. Only a tiny fraction of Google employees work on a part of the business that actually makes money.
Most of the value google generates comes from their monopoly on search, not from workers. It would be trivially easy for google to crush the unionization efforts, sack more than half their employees, and increase theor profits.