[kurikuri]

> But the divisiveness they employ makes them a political distraction.

What divisiveness? Most news I hear about unions paints them as a negative without backing anything up.

> We need workers’ rights for everyone. Not just those who are in a union.

Agreed, but we have to start somewhere. If unions are able to push for some type of labor benefit, then good for them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What divisiveness?

Unions are fundamentally about putting workers and management into separate categories. (And unionized workers on a pedestal above others.) In an industrial context, this makes sense. In a start-up, it does not.

[AndrewKemendo]

This is so fundamentally wrong I don’t even know where to start.

By definition of function, employees and shareholders are at diametrically opposed incentives if the organization prioritizes return on capital over all other things.

If you are in an organization, where in the majority of the ownership is held by the people who have funded it, then at the starting point, it is already adversarial unless you are an equal partner in equity.

Since the vast majority of organizations are set up as such, and unless you have a controlling interest in the organization from a legal stock perspective, then you are in a position of no power to start with, and it will continue that way until you become a significant shareholder.

Unions are required to provide the collective action necessary to counter the overwhelming legal power of shareholders in the current structure.