LogFAQs > #926305442

Zeus posted...

Do you really think that they should be impacted equally?

You're the one who equivocated them.

Zeus posted...

More importantly, the employer has a greater stake in his business than the employee. If a company fails, all that happens to the employees is that they lose their job. A company failing has far more dire prospects for the employer. Given the imbalance, the employer needs to be able to protect his business.

Nobody's saying a company shouldn't be able to fire somebody who's driving the company into the ground (like anything, there are examples of unions pushing too far and doing just that, but you can't use extreme examples to invalidate an entire concept). The far more common situation is that employers overwork their employees to unhealthy degrees and/or treat them poorly because the threat of being unemployed (and potentially unemployable, depending on the industry and how easily the employer can badmouth them to other employers in the area) keeps them from objecting. Taking away that threat is the only way to improve those conditions, and that's what unionizing does.

Zeus posted...

And an employee's personal circumstance isn't the business's concern.

Which is why unions and regulations are needed to force businesses to consider such things. Otherwise you just get a workforce full of people being treated like garbage, which is bad for everyone except for the handful of people at the top living off of the money they didn't have to give their employees.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.