Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
If the company treats workers like shit, upper management is raping the company, then the workers should have the right to protect themselves from that.
|
But they do have that right. Since the end of the civil war, for the most part.
They have the right to leave.
Quote:
|
Workers have just as much if not more interest in how a larger company performs than most owners and board directors have. The workers should have the right to have some say in how the company is run, since it is their livelihood at stake.
|
I don't see how an initial contract/arrangement to provide labor to a business suddenly grants the laborer to many more privileges never laid out in contract form. The idea of a strike, strikes me as a perfectly moral form of bargaining. The idea of legal action against an employer for terms never promised, on the other hand, strikes me as nothing more than dishonest on the part of the employee. If you wanted a legal guarantee of wages or benefits increasing down the line, you should have made that clear at the onset and let the employer decide if that additional cost was worth your value as a laborer.
Quote:
|
So to say owners should have sole rights as to whether a union is needed or how a business should be run, is IMHO very wrong. If ownership does the right thing, the union laws won't matter, if they don't do the right things then the laws should protect the workers who have just as much if not more at stake.
|
I don't think the laborer has the right to enforce his idea of "the right thing" upon the owner. It isn't his property and the employer should be allowed to make whatever sort of offer for his property that he wishes.
Don't like it, don't take it. Stop liking it, bargain (without legal coercion) or bail.