Workers at a warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, chose to take on one of the biggest companies in the world and form a union. If they were successful, they would be the first in the company’s history. The potential for similar efforts in thousands of warehouses across the country would have risen dramatically. Amazon, America’s second-largest employer, would have been forced to contemplate an entirely new relationship with its gigantic workforce.
When the results were in, however, the analogy broke down. Goliath had won.
So, why would a company be against the formation of a union? Because of what is said here, of course. The understanding is that the creation of a union would shift power from company to workforce. So, to avoid losing that power, be against the creation of a union.
Seems simple enough, no?
From the centre of the tech trade comes this:
So inevitably the union is going to be dragging your company’s managerial layers into prolonged wage and conditions negotiations, pursuing pet causes, trying to eject people that they regard as “undesirable” – e.g. anti-union, pro-business – while trying to retain people that management regards as “undesirable” – e.g. ineffective, spending too much time on pet causes. They’re going to seek “equity” of salaries – looking for differentials by gender, race and age and poking at anomalies. Their executive is looking for a steady income stream and an increasing amount of power, and they’re not going to take “no” for an answer.
The unionization struggle, I think, is going to be over approximately 1-2 years after a union gains a significant foothold in a major tech company. The highly productive people are going to see the brake on company productivity in general, and their salaries in particular, and go looking for employment somewhere they don’t have to carry as many passengers. In the mean time, the company is going to burn.
If you don’t believe me, look at the car manufacturers in Detroit.