Let’s put it in terms of expense: All it takes is a couple of mistakes (honest or not) by the temporary replacements to cost the organization more money than meeting demands would have. If the organization is doing manufacturing, that’s recalled parts, low productivity, and damaged public image.
Is it a health or safety organization? Lawsuits relating to missed/bad service can cost the tax payers a lot, and again, negative sentiment causing latent damage.
What do you think? The only downside to some of this process is that people have relatively short memories, so some profit oriented execs will try to sweep the monetary damages under the rug for the next sap to be accused of, albeit after helming a lower-esteemed org than previously.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but its:
A) not necessarily a matter of expense, but one motivated at least in part by ideology (can’t let the union win)
And B) mainly about perceptions. If people believe their job and possibly future employment opportunities are at risk, they are more likely to break. Scabs aren’t necessarily unskilled, they are just people who have decided the cash is more important than solidarity.
In an ideal world employers would realise a content, healthy, and properly compensated employee is better for the business and the economy in general. In reality they are going to keep cutting corners until the whole thing falls apart because line goes up.
Thanks for explaining the reasonably obvious, without adding much here.
Nobody is naive enough to think it’s solely motivated by cost, nor can we ignore the successes and failures of historical action.
The US has a pretty long history of industry watering down industrial action, either directly, or indirectly by tying things like healthcare to employment right? So, if in spite of pretty serious risks, people collectively decide to strike, it’s no longer a half-measure; to your point, the ideological part applies just as strongly to the membership, who will want to follow leadership that expressly works for the benefit of the members.
Petals we haven’t all worked in manual/production environments, but no matter what, less people familiar with a process and its tooling is all but guaranteed to result in more/many mistakes which will absolutely cause money problems for the organization.
But Amazon! Amazon hasn’t cared much about the unionization efforts publicly because a) they’ve got tremendous marketplace inertia, which strikes and stuff still negatively effect, b) incredible profit margins and c) lack of marketplace alternatives. But look at how pernicious their anti-union messaging inside the warehouses has been. Almost seems like they know who actually has the power.
So: things are bad, but don’t be pessimistic. This past year alone has plenty of loudly successful efforts to improve working conditions for the avg joe/Jane.
Sure, strikes have been broken before.
Let’s put it in terms of expense: All it takes is a couple of mistakes (honest or not) by the temporary replacements to cost the organization more money than meeting demands would have. If the organization is doing manufacturing, that’s recalled parts, low productivity, and damaged public image.
Is it a health or safety organization? Lawsuits relating to missed/bad service can cost the tax payers a lot, and again, negative sentiment causing latent damage.
What do you think? The only downside to some of this process is that people have relatively short memories, so some profit oriented execs will try to sweep the monetary damages under the rug for the next sap to be accused of, albeit after helming a lower-esteemed org than previously.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but its: A) not necessarily a matter of expense, but one motivated at least in part by ideology (can’t let the union win) And B) mainly about perceptions. If people believe their job and possibly future employment opportunities are at risk, they are more likely to break. Scabs aren’t necessarily unskilled, they are just people who have decided the cash is more important than solidarity.
In an ideal world employers would realise a content, healthy, and properly compensated employee is better for the business and the economy in general. In reality they are going to keep cutting corners until the whole thing falls apart because line goes up.
Thanks for explaining the reasonably obvious, without adding much here.
Nobody is naive enough to think it’s solely motivated by cost, nor can we ignore the successes and failures of historical action.
The US has a pretty long history of industry watering down industrial action, either directly, or indirectly by tying things like healthcare to employment right? So, if in spite of pretty serious risks, people collectively decide to strike, it’s no longer a half-measure; to your point, the ideological part applies just as strongly to the membership, who will want to follow leadership that expressly works for the benefit of the members. Petals we haven’t all worked in manual/production environments, but no matter what, less people familiar with a process and its tooling is all but guaranteed to result in more/many mistakes which will absolutely cause money problems for the organization.
But Amazon! Amazon hasn’t cared much about the unionization efforts publicly because a) they’ve got tremendous marketplace inertia, which strikes and stuff still negatively effect, b) incredible profit margins and c) lack of marketplace alternatives. But look at how pernicious their anti-union messaging inside the warehouses has been. Almost seems like they know who actually has the power.
So: things are bad, but don’t be pessimistic. This past year alone has plenty of loudly successful efforts to improve working conditions for the avg joe/Jane.