[robomartin]

> Why did the union keep demanding more and more?

Because that's what unions do. If you were a union leader you'd have to deliver more pay and benefits to your union members every so often in order to stay in your cushy job. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing: Getting more for their members. The problem is that, taken to the limit, this eventually kills the goose.

> Why didn't management just make all employees joint owners of the company?

In what virtually reality does one go from "employee" to actually being entitled to own a piece of a company? These kinds of ideas come from people who've never started or run a business. I've done it several times. If an employee is willing to make the investment, lay it all on the line, take the risks, make the commitment, responsibility, stress and place their own family's and children's very livelihood and future on the line as well as accept all else that comes with launching, running and growing a real business, well, then they are investors and partners, not employees. I have taken trips to the hospital due to the stress caused by business issues. None of my employees ever missed a paycheck or had to worry about where payroll money would come from. Every.

What nonsense.

[dalke]

This is a terrible naive view of what unions do. Union membership, and leaders, do vote to cut pay and benefits. Take for example "Members of the Los Angeles teachers union voted overwhelmingly to approve a temporary salary reduction in exchange for sparing thousands of jobs, the union announced Saturday." and "Nine years of living with wage and benefit cuts of 25 percent and the prospect of six more years of substandard industry compensation doomed a "final best" contract offer by American Airlines to its Transport Workers Union mechanics, union officials said Tuesday." Those were not hard to find. Do you seriously think that the goal of a union airplane mechanic is to get enough money from the airline so as to put the airline out of business, leaving the mechanic jobless?

We've overwhelmingly fallen into the view that union members are greedy bastards out to soak the companies for all its worth. This is not what unions do, at least, not the definition of what unions do. As others pointed out, there are countries with high union membership. For example, "Finland has one of the highest rates of union membership in the industrialized world, with 80 per cent of employees organized in trade unions." Yet they don't seem to have the same management/union conflicts as here. And especially not the view that union's are basically a drag on the system.

Why don't we also have the view that company owners are greedy bastards out to soak the employees for all they're worth - and out to cheat the customers as much as they can get away with? (cough locksmith scammers cough). Why is it that Gordon Gecko's "Greed is Good" is admired for Wall Street but not for employees? I read that "Brokerage executives at one Wall Street firm, Jefferies Group, have threatened to leave the company if their bonuses aren't up to par with other firms" - why shouldn't teachers be able to make the same threat if their salaries don't at least keep up with inflation?

[v0cab]

> In what virtually reality does one go from "employee" to actually being entitled to own a piece of a company?

In the startup world? Legal practices?

> I have taken trips to the hospital due to the stress caused by business issues.

Same here, but as an employee. And I didn't end up owning a company in the end.

> None of my employees ever missed a paycheck or had to worry about where payroll money would come from. Every.

None of them ended up filthy rich either. I'm in my 30s and am reluctant to get married and have kids because of uncertainty over my future. My industry is flooded with labour, pay keeps going down and management keeps getting more unreasonable.

> What nonsense.

Enjoy your company's bankruptcy then.

[shard972]

> In the startup world? Legal practices?

Yes and both of these places require all/most of the things he listed in order to get to a director position.

> Same here, but as an employee. And I didn't end up owning a company in the end.

Do you think it would have been more or less severe if you were had the extra responsibilities and commitments that came with being in a controlling position of the company?

> None of them ended up filthy rich either.

So? They didn't sign up for that. I don't expect to get paid $200k a year when I sign a contract saying I will get paid $50k.

> I'm in my 30s and am reluctant to get married and have kids because of uncertainty over my future.

Wouldn't being put in a controlling share of a company only make that situation worse?

> My industry is flooded with labour, pay keeps going down and management keeps getting more unreasonable.

Maybe because the economy is currently tanking and has been tanking for the last 4 years. Don't worry im sure Obama's recovery will kick in as soon as he gets in office.

[dalke]

"to get a director position"

v0cab challenged the idea that employees aren't actually "entitled to own a piece of a company" unless they go through these great hardships. This is obviously incorrect because some companies provide shares as part of employee compensation, making those employees also part owners of the company - they are 'entitled to own a piece of a company.'

You cannot now switch this to mean 'to get to a director position'.

"Do you think it would have been more or less severe ..."

In the first startup I worked for, I think it didn't make a difference. I took on responsibilities that weren't part of the job, and unlike the management, who were at least 15 years older than I was, I didn't have the experience to separate myself from my work. I felt that I, personally, had to work harder so that the company wouldn't fail.

And I got paid under market wages for it. (Did I mention that I was completely inexperienced?)

While the management of the company had enough experience to demand compensation which was more commensurate with their market rates, with good insurance, and definitely enough that they had more stability in their respective futures.

"Wouldn't being put in a controlling share of a company only make that situation worse?"

It depends on the company, doesn't it? If I had a controlling share of, say, Microsoft, then I think I could guarantee a very comfortable financial future for myself.

BTW, when you say "controlling share", you mean here ownership, not management, yet earlier you talked about management ('director position'). I don't understand why you changed the topic.

[v0cab]

> Do you think it would have been more or less severe if you were had the extra responsibilities and commitments that came with being in a controlling position of the company?

I don't know. Is being a shareholder particularly stressful? Do Scandinavians find that their unions sitting on work councils and having a say in major company decisions increases job stress?

> So? They didn't sign up for (being filthy rich). I don't expect to get paid $200k a year when I sign a contract saying I will get paid $50k.

Contracts can be renegotiated.

> Wouldn't being put in a controlling share of a company only make that situation worse?

Depends on the situation. I believe that the current state of research indicates that people are more stressed by situations outside of their control. I guess the company would have limited liability, so not too much financial risk and much to gain financially. Of course, financial worries are a major source of stress for most stressed people.