Why do they prefer spending time and money in anti-union law firms instead of investing in their workers? Also why are labor rights up to discussion in these times?
In: 3
Lots of answers saying “it’s cheaper in the long run” and that’s true, but not the whole story.
Publicly traded companies are not owned by the people who run them. They are owned by *the shareholders*. These shareholders have rights protected by law. They have rights to protect their profits, and can determine company policy based on those rights. This is what “Capitalism” (with a big ‘C’) means.
Unions forming and striking and winning encourages *other* businesses and industries to do so as well. If one big strike wins significant concessions from a strike, others will follow. This could cost the shareholders across their entire investment portfolio.
This is why it’s worthwhile to hire anti-union firms, even if the cost is more than conceding to the workers. If they don’t nip the problem in the bud, it could have a domino effect and lose them millions.
Latest Answers