Every power dynamic is inherently unbalanced and unfair to at least some degree, but I agree you want it to be as fair as possible as often as possible.

I'd much rather see greater employee ownership in companies though rather than unions. Union and management negotiations are often a zero sum game. A win for one side is a loss for the other. And in between you can have damaging strikes or a breakdown in relationships. It's an us vs. them mentality, which isn't great for teamwork.

Employee ownership however aligns everyone's interests in the growth and profitability of the company. It puts everyone in the company on the same team and creates and us vs. them mentality with the competition instead which seems like healthy capitalism.

I guess I agree in theory, but if ownership doesn't want to deal with a union, what makes you believe that your idea would be an easier sell? Unions are basically the compromise.

> I'd much rather see greater employee ownership in companies though rather than unions. Union and management negotiations are often a zero sum game. A win for one side is a loss for the other. And in between you can have damaging strikes or a breakdown in relationships. It's an us vs. them mentality, which isn't great for teamwork.

While this is generally true in the US system, it's not inherently true. It's like any other relationship - if there is trust and mutual understanding, then a good union can make a company better than it would have otherwise been. If the union exists as a response to abusive ownership, then it should hardly be surprising that the parties go to war, but it's ownership that drives that divide.

Good points. I suppose employee ownership is better institutional policy from the outset. I'm not sure it would be an easy transition later in the life of the business.

I have actually seen that a few times, but it's mostly small local businesses. Modern Times Brewery recently implemented that kind of program. At the end of the day, the owners have all the power to make that decision.