• Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hmm… That is the idea of a union to have guarantees on benefits, work and rules. That is called a contract.

    In my job a union would make zero sense but for many jobs they make perfect sense for that reason alone. The contract.

    My company can change any of the benefits at will. Normally they change them for the better but they can change them at any time with no input from me.

    A contract prevents that.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The main purpose of a union is not simply to hold the company to terms it had agreed.

      Unions are the vehicle for workers to negotiate.

      Having a contract is not a meaningful reason not to be organized.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm… That is the idea of a union to have guarantees on benefits, work and rules. That is called a contract.

      That's a very simplistic view on what a union does.

      If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I'd only get a portion of my income after taxes covered by public income insurance. The union covers up to the rest, meaning I won't have any noticeable loss of income for I believe six months, at which point it goes down to 80% of my income prior to my unemployment.

      I also don't have to bother negotiating my salary with my employer, unless I personally chose to do so. And should my employer for whatever reason decide to sacrifice me to cover up for some blunder, then the union will deal support me through it, offer legal advice, and even representation.

      That's still not everything a union does.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are no jobs where unions make zero sense.

      It's not just about the contract, but also the ability to better negotiate a contract through collective bargaining. Not to mention the general benefit of a community that you know has your back.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would make zero sense.

        I’m paid a base salary which based on a formula is the same as everyone else’s. I also get commissions. There is zero reason to unionize as I wouldn’t get anything better from the deal.

        If I worked in a non-sales job. I’d see a benefit. If I worked as a developer, or support, etc.

        Sales is treated extremely well as long as you prform

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Whatever you are paid is less than the value you create for the company, and the more privileges you have relative to other workers, the more likely the company is to take them away when it wants to reduce costs.

          All of the reasons you have given are not sensible as reasons not to be organized with your coworkers.

          Your company does not care about you, but you and other workers can care about each other.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I have the argument I am paid less than the value I create.

              All businesses exist for the purpose of generating profit for their owners.

              Without workers providing labor to a business, the business could not operate. All value generated from the operation of a company is generated by the labor of workers.

              Profit is the value generated by the labor of workers minus the wages paid to them.

              If the wages paid to workers were not less than the value generated by their labor, then the business could not generate a profit.

              The reasoning is so simple that a child could understand it, and you could understand it too, if you were not so pigheadedly anchored to your narrative about "idiotic communist BS" and "everyone had nothing".

              I have friends and family who care about me. work is about producing an income to do the things I want to do in life.

              Unless your friends and family would be willing to pay you as much as your income from your job, you profoundly misapprehended the meaning of my comments.

              The very instant conditions change such that your labor is no longer profitable for a company, you lose.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A business owner takes a risk. They supply the capital to run the company.

                  the owner loses his whole investment and possibly his home.

                  Business owners don't "supply" capital. Business owners own capital.

                  Anyone who has access to capital is far less vulnerable generally than workers, who have no capital.

                  Workers live under continuous precarity.

                  What is the net worth of the owner of your company? What is the motive for being a business owner? Do you really think you are less likely to become homeless than him or her?

                  The whole the "business owners take all risk" is just some tired neoliberal apologia that is intended to mislead.

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They supply the capital. That is why they are the owner.

                    WOrkers have capital. Who do you think money, car, homes, etc are?!?!? I am a worker and I have a fair amount of capital saved up.

                    The company I work for is about 28 billion. My share is about 1 million. The company I own is worth about 28 million. I started with the capital from my day job and grew it and in the beginning, I was taking on a lot of risk.

                    The owner/shareholders are the ones who take all the risk. The worker has zero risk. If times get bad, they can go get another job. The company I work at could go bankrupt tomorrow and I would be fine.

            • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              lol one of my product reps was doing just as well as you, and he got the ax is some restructuring with the minimum notice allowed.

              He's amazing, and went to work for a competitor basically instantly, but the interruption in cash flow made half a year extremely stressful.

              You represent the top 0.5%, but you still aren't immune to life changing events. A union would still benefit you, by increasing the stability of your income.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The interruption of cash flow is a pain but that is why we save. If they laid me off and I couldn't find work. I have enough savings to last me at least 60 years. I don't see myself living to 110.

    • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My thoughts exactly! A good contract has all of those things in writing. Shitty contracts do exist however so perhaps that's their angle there.