[Dylan16807]

A company is a group effort and people can quit whenever they want. The owner doesn't have complete say and shouldn't have complete say, and it's good for employees to talk to each other so that they can use their say together.

[erlich]

People can quit whenever they want which is the main point.

Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union.

I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autonomy taken away.

[Dylan16807]

> Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit

Why? It's pretty weird to say they should use the most extreme option without negotiation or do nothing, and that this is better than using intermediate options.

> because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union.

The main concern isn't the mere fact the union exists, it's to have a more even negotiating position, and I feel like everyone should want that. And I'm quite sure that the number of people that want that is much bigger than the number of unemployed workers, so that trade you suggest isn't even possible.

> I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autonomy taken away.

Are you actually encouraging the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" point of view? How about an attempt at an objective view, that even if we look at it like a zero sum game, it's better for 20 workers to have more autonomy than for 1 employer to have more autonomy.

[Apocryphon]

And who's to say that the current management isn't doing a poor job? Based on Glassdoor and Blind, they've been experiencing high turnover and mixed reviews at best. So why shouldn't the management and owners be held accountable for questionable decisions? Why are you so insistent that workers get no say, and can only leave? On what basis is blind obedience mandatory in the workplace?

[erlich]

The owners hold the management responsible. If targets are not met then they dig deeper, see staff turnover, find causes, and fix them. It’s capitalism at work. If the owners are not savvy enough then the company should fail or be sold and the capital should be allocated elsewhere.

If workers have a say it distorts these forces. And by say you mean the ability to force the hand of management. Because they already can have a say and modern companies measure everything and listen to feedback.

[Apocryphon]

Why does (in your view) capitalism mandate that only owners hold management responsible, and that workers having a say would distort that process? Are you suggesting that class warfare is inevitable? (That's a Marxist concept.) Otherwise, why keep workers out of the decision-making process?

Also, if in most tech companies workers are given equity, are they not owners also?

[erlich]

Workers don’t have same incentives. They can push for conditions that would risk bankrupting company, and if the company does shutter, they can simply get new jobs with no loss. Meanwhile owners lose their money.

[Apocryphon]

Workers don't have an incentive of bankrupting the company. And not all employees are so blasé about finding another job- there are always some dependent upon a company for their livelihoods. Different owners also have different risk thresholds. As evidenced by the lavish VC funding of the past decade, there are many investors with a strong stomach for waste and failure.

Examples of unions fighting for management to make better business decisions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13986889

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3mjxg/general-electric-work...

[Dylan16807]

An owner that's invested in multiple companies is probably more likely to push for risk than workers are. Losing a job is not "no loss".