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
If unionization will cost an employer $10M/year in extra wages/benefits, but an anti-union firm will charge $5M/year to delay unionization. If they can successfully ward off a union for even 10 years, then that firm saved them $50M dollars.
So it’s a simple cost analysis. “What will cost us less.”
It’s way cheaper to keep replacing low paid workers than to unionize and need to pay higher wages and benefits.
Companies have been fighting unions for 150 years, because they make higher profits, at least in the short term, by keeping the unions out of their business.
Labor rights are a luxury they don’t feel they need to pay for. While there are some ethical employers, most will give their employees the minimum needed to maximize profits and no more.
The only big difference is how long of a time scale that profitability is calculated on.
Because a union sticks up for the employees of a company, and makes it hard for the company to exploit them. Companies are always ultimately controlled by investors. Investors only care about money, so they prefer employees live harder lives so they can have slightly more money. If investors allowed unions to form, they’d be slightly less rich and powerful, and nothing is more frightening to the rich and powerful than the idea that they’d become slightly less rich and powerful.
Latest Answers