[ChemicalWarfare]

Not sure why he's getting downvoted. Unions are only interested in company's existence but even then very often they are willing to see it go to the brink not budging on concessions etc. Not to mention the whole objection to the "right to work" approach.

[sangnoir]

> Not sure why he's getting downvoted

Because his fact-free attack is demonstrably wrong. The majority of unions are invested in the companies they provide labor for. By way of example, Germany has unions that are evidently committed to the company's existence - to the extent that labor being represented at board level is not unusual. That is the kind of, ahem, synergy that should exist between capital and labor, but is anathema in the US.

In contrast, some executives are effectively mercenaries with no interest in the long-term survival of companies, they work on very short horizons, but I never hear anyone demanding that management is toxic and shouldn't exist.

[coredog64]

US unions are required to have a more combative relationship with management than their German counterparts. There's a USSC decision (the name escapes me at the moment) that makes unions offer equal representation to all. So unless there is criminality, the union can't decide that you are incompetent and should find a new career. From discussions with German union members, they do have that flexibility.

[s73ver_]

How many times have you seen a company push their best to the brink, or just outright fire them for little to no reason? I've seen it quite a few times. So unions aren't the only ones doing what you accuse them of doing. So why call them out for it if you're not going to call the companies out for doing the same thing?