Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by edent 1029 days ago
I'm not from the USA - so I don't know about that specific case.

But let's take your premise and reword it.

What happens if shareholders have an agenda of extracting maximum benefits out of the company while actively encouraging its demise?

We see that all the time with private equity groups loading up on debt so they can make a huge profit and then letting the company go bust.

What happens if senior managers have an agenda of extracting maximum benefits for minimum effort?

Again, how many CEOs get golden parachutes after wrecking a company?

Who protects the workers in those situations?

You'll find (in some cases) unions do take a long term view. They want to secure long term benefits rather than a short term bump. That's because they're working for people who need a regular pay cheque. So you'll see compromises being made in order to secure longer term employment.

1 comments

So you have basically decided not to answer the relevant question but to parrot an idiotic left wing garbage narrative.

Okay! in that case, I rest my case that unions can actually be very harmful due to it being a power structure and particularly if they are not subjected to any check and balances.

Sorry, I had to reply to both…

> So you decided not to answer the relevant question but to parrot and idiotic left wing garbage narrative.

No, he had answered your first question and then you came up with an absurd hypothetical as a rebuttal, so he responded with an extension of your hypothetical which demonstrates its absurdity.

> I rest my case that unions can actually be very harmful due to it being a power structure and particularly if they are not subjected to any check and balances.

Sure, but the topic was if having unions was better than not… anything can be harmful given some abnormal premises, so you’ve made no valid point.

As a side question, is your objective to ‘win’ the argument, or be correct? To me, it sounds like the former.

> As a side question, is your objective to ‘win’ the argument, or be correct? To me, it sounds like the former.

My objective here is to get to the truth - nothing more and nothing less. Unions can be "every bit harmful" since they are a power structure and power corrupts. Unrestrained, unfettered, corrupt unions can do more harm than good. They are not a cure all remedy for all problems a modern "evil" corporation might have [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBudiVNsW2E