That stuff is so wild to me. Here in Germany you don’t just have the unions that represent you as a worker in a general gield of work, but there are also “Betriebsräte” (worker councils) in most large companies that are made up of employees representing the employee’s interests in front of the company leadership. They are not HR, because they are not totally aligned with the leadership’s interests. They are not unions, because they are more specialized.
From personal experience, working conditions in a company with worker councils or many unionized workers are IMMENSELY better than in companies without such institutions.
Worker’s councils are even somewhat in the interest of a company owner, as happy employees and a good working environment are drivers of productivity and are otherwise hard to implement.
I’m a union organizer in an adjacent industry (video games). This is a very common anti-union talking point amongst bosses and managers that want to look progressive. The underlying message is “I’m ok with unions, but not here”.
With respect, I would disagree. Taking it personally is a problem. Expecting everyone else to ‘just trust me bro’ is a problem. Look at it another way- ‘if my staff unionize and anything needs to change then I’ve already failed as a boss’
This seems like a weird interpretation, at least based on the paraphrasing above. There’s no implicit anti union sentiment, it’s just acknowledging he has an obligation to be a good steward for his employees?
It’s wrong in the sense that he apparently believes that he is able to provide everything that a union does, which is hilarious.
A union has hundreds or thousands of specialist employees working full time for the members, and this guy is like: “yeah I can do that while also managing my company”.
At best he is saying “I’m willing to pay people to shut the fuck up.”
In reality he probably doesn’t even have a clue about what a union is about.
TBH, that’s a fair assessment… In an ideal world they shouldn’t be needed. We don’t live in one.
The problem comes in where bosses either from the start or over time lose touch and stop listening to their workers. Her posts clearly show why they are needed.
That’s not a fair assessment at all. Not at face value, and especially not with deeper scrutiny.
It’s not about him. It’s about the employees. If the employees have reasonable and actionable grievances and demands, Linus does not get to preempt any of it by making it about his personal failings.
It’s also a negative public statement made by the owner of the company. No matter how cautiously worded or carefully framed, he’s still ultimately putting out there that there is consequence to his employees unionizing. Even if it’s nothing more than hurting his feelings, that’s still manipulative.
Really should be the opposite. “If I start a company and it’s so successful that the employees believe in the company enough to want to engage further in how labor is managed and compensated, so that they are able to lead better lives, I have succeeded as a boss.”*
I would make for a shitty executive.
*Predicated upon the idea that the boss is attempting to lead benevolently.
He claims “if my staff have to unionize, I’ve already failed as a boss”
That stuff is so wild to me. Here in Germany you don’t just have the unions that represent you as a worker in a general gield of work, but there are also “Betriebsräte” (worker councils) in most large companies that are made up of employees representing the employee’s interests in front of the company leadership. They are not HR, because they are not totally aligned with the leadership’s interests. They are not unions, because they are more specialized.
From personal experience, working conditions in a company with worker councils or many unionized workers are IMMENSELY better than in companies without such institutions.
Worker’s councils are even somewhat in the interest of a company owner, as happy employees and a good working environment are drivers of productivity and are otherwise hard to implement.
Which is a totally acceptable point of view. He’s even said he won’t make any moves to stop them from unionizing.
Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you, but I don’t think anything he’s said on the topic is ethically wrong.
I’m a union organizer in an adjacent industry (video games). This is a very common anti-union talking point amongst bosses and managers that want to look progressive. The underlying message is “I’m ok with unions, but not here”.
NIMBY doesnt ever end.
With respect, I would disagree. Taking it personally is a problem. Expecting everyone else to ‘just trust me bro’ is a problem. Look at it another way- ‘if my staff unionize and anything needs to change then I’ve already failed as a boss’
This seems like a weird interpretation, at least based on the paraphrasing above. There’s no implicit anti union sentiment, it’s just acknowledging he has an obligation to be a good steward for his employees?
It’s wrong in the sense that he apparently believes that he is able to provide everything that a union does, which is hilarious.
A union has hundreds or thousands of specialist employees working full time for the members, and this guy is like: “yeah I can do that while also managing my company”.
At best he is saying “I’m willing to pay people to shut the fuck up.”
In reality he probably doesn’t even have a clue about what a union is about.
TBH, that’s a fair assessment… In an ideal world they shouldn’t be needed. We don’t live in one.
The problem comes in where bosses either from the start or over time lose touch and stop listening to their workers. Her posts clearly show why they are needed.
That’s not a fair assessment at all. Not at face value, and especially not with deeper scrutiny.
It’s not about him. It’s about the employees. If the employees have reasonable and actionable grievances and demands, Linus does not get to preempt any of it by making it about his personal failings.
It’s also a negative public statement made by the owner of the company. No matter how cautiously worded or carefully framed, he’s still ultimately putting out there that there is consequence to his employees unionizing. Even if it’s nothing more than hurting his feelings, that’s still manipulative.
Really should be the opposite. “If I start a company and it’s so successful that the employees believe in the company enough to want to engage further in how labor is managed and compensated, so that they are able to lead better lives, I have succeeded as a boss.”*
I would make for a shitty executive.
*Predicated upon the idea that the boss is attempting to lead benevolently.
deleted by creator