• Zorque@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are no jobs where unions make zero sense.

    It’s not just about the contract, but also the ability to better negotiate a contract through collective bargaining. Not to mention the general benefit of a community that you know has your back.

    • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would make zero sense.

      I’m paid a base salary which based on a formula is the same as everyone else’s. I also get commissions. There is zero reason to unionize as I wouldn’t get anything better from the deal.

      If I worked in a non-sales job. I’d see a benefit. If I worked as a developer, or support, etc.

      Sales is treated extremely well as long as you prform

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Whatever you are paid is less than the value you create for the company, and the more privileges you have relative to other workers, the more likely the company is to take them away when it wants to reduce costs.

        All of the reasons you have given are not sensible as reasons not to be organized with your coworkers.

        Your company does not care about you, but you and other workers can care about each other.

          • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            lol one of my product reps was doing just as well as you, and he got the ax is some restructuring with the minimum notice allowed.

            He’s amazing, and went to work for a competitor basically instantly, but the interruption in cash flow made half a year extremely stressful.

            You represent the top 0.5%, but you still aren’t immune to life changing events. A union would still benefit you, by increasing the stability of your income.

            • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The interruption of cash flow is a pain but that is why we save. If they laid me off and I couldn’t find work. I have enough savings to last me at least 60 years. I don’t see myself living to 110.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I have the argument I am paid less than the value I create.

            All businesses exist for the purpose of generating profit for their owners.

            Without workers providing labor to a business, the business could not operate. All value generated from the operation of a company is generated by the labor of workers.

            Profit is the value generated by the labor of workers minus the wages paid to them.

            If the wages paid to workers were not less than the value generated by their labor, then the business could not generate a profit.

            The reasoning is so simple that a child could understand it, and you could understand it too, if you were not so pigheadedly anchored to your narrative about “idiotic communist BS” and “everyone had nothing”.

            I have friends and family who care about me. work is about producing an income to do the things I want to do in life.

            Unless your friends and family would be willing to pay you as much as your income from your job, you profoundly misapprehended the meaning of my comments.

            The very instant conditions change such that your labor is no longer profitable for a company, you lose.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                A business owner takes a risk. They supply the capital to run the company.

                the owner loses his whole investment and possibly his home.

                Business owners don’t “supply” capital. Business owners own capital.

                Anyone who has access to capital is far less vulnerable generally than workers, who have no capital.

                Workers live under continuous precarity.

                What is the net worth of the owner of your company? What is the motive for being a business owner? Do you really think you are less likely to become homeless than him or her?

                The whole the “business owners take all risk” is just some tired neoliberal apologia that is intended to mislead.

                • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They supply the capital. That is why they are the owner.

                  WOrkers have capital. Who do you think money, car, homes, etc are?!?!? I am a worker and I have a fair amount of capital saved up.

                  The company I work for is about 28 billion. My share is about 1 million. The company I own is worth about 28 million. I started with the capital from my day job and grew it and in the beginning, I was taking on a lot of risk.

                  The owner/shareholders are the ones who take all the risk. The worker has zero risk. If times get bad, they can go get another job. The company I work at could go bankrupt tomorrow and I would be fine.

                  • Zorque@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s not capital, that’s just things. Capital is material wealth that gives you bargaining power on a larger scale. You don’t have that bargaining power just because you “own” a car or a house. In most cases, the bank essentially owns those things, and lease them to you for the interest rate it charges.

                    The worker has zero risk. If times get bad, they can go get another job.

                    If you think that’s true, you haven’t been paying attention to the job market at all.

                    The company I work at could go bankrupt tomorrow and I would be fine.

                    And ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the shareholders and owners will be fine as well. They’ll have insurance, or backup plans. Or they’ll foist all the debt onto the workers. The only time they’d truly feel it, is if they’d make monumentally stupid financial decisions.

                  • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Owning is not supplying. Owning is holding. Supplying is transferring possession to another party. When you hold ownership of a business, you maintain control of the business, as it operates, and you collect profit from its operation. You never deplete the supply of the business you own as a natural consequence of its operation.

                    Capital is assets that have productive value, such as businesses or rented properties. Cars and homes that are used by their owners are not capital, and neither is cash deposited in a bank. Most capital is owned by a very small cohort of society.

                    Business owners own capital. Workers own essentially none.

                    You have very deep confusion about extremely basic concepts, a condition that is not being helped by your snarkiness and hostility