> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients

I don't agree with that assessment. If Google employees have a strong opposition to working with, say, federal agencies to share data they've gathered on users, then I think it makes perfect sense for them bring that concern to the table.

Honestly, I don't see why a union shouldn't have the ability to bargain anything it wants to try and bargain. I'm open to someone changing my mind on that.

I think the appropriate way for the employees to have a say in the direction of the company is probably to give them voting shares. Otherwise the employees may end up disagreeing with a decision that the shareholders voted on and that seems like a recipe for a bad situation. I could be wrong, but I believe the officers and directors of a C corporation (unlike a B corp) owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders so to some extend they must prioritize growth over social purposes

Edit: to clarify, letting the employees of a public corporation decide the direction/priorities would be like if the employees of a non-profit had a union which could force the non-profit to change from planting trees to something unrelated like washing dogs. The people who donated money would probably be upset that they were deceived about what the donation would be used to accomplish.

> to clarify, letting the employees of a public corporation decide the direction/priorities would be like if the employees of a non-profit had a union which could force the non-profit to change from planting trees to something unrelated like washing dogs.

Who's forcing anyone? If the company doesn't want to play ball they are free to hire replacements when the workers strike. If the workers don't care enough to risk their jobs over it then their bluff has been called.

If the company does play ball and the shareholders don't like it they are free to elect a new board or sell their shares.

> Otherwise the employees may end up disagreeing with a decision that the shareholders voted on and that seems like a recipe for a bad situation.

Yes, this is where negotiation between owners & the union comes in. Sometimes reality can disagree with a decision shareholders voted on and that is okay.

And that’s why the Earth will collapse on humanity, growth over everything else..

Money is not the only value here, so I don’t see why it has precedence over what other’s find valuable?

This is not my area of expertise so I could be 100% wrong, but the idea is basically you have to do what you've advertised to your shareholder that you're doing so growth is valued in a C corp over everything else because that's what the shareholders want and expect. If you want your company to value something over money you could establish a non-profit or a B corp and that's equally acceptable, but you can't just decide one day that growth isn't the primary goal of a C corp because then you've misled your shareholders. The same way if you established a non-profit or B corp with a specific social purpose and then decided to prioritize growth over accomplishing that social purpose, that would be misleading your donors/shareholders

But doing things the way in line with what is “acceptable” for your employees could be seen as a cost that should be substracted from the profits as any other cost is. I don’t see why would it be bad? We already don’t do things like working children (unfortunately we still do it in third world countries) and the like, even though it could increase margins.

I commented exactly the same last time this subject came up last week or so.

IANAL, but I did some research then, and my understanding is that the Supreme Court has ruled that to the extent that a union spends money on political activities, the dues they collect are no longer mandatory.

The point being that it’s not just a moot point whether they are actually a PAC. It is recognized in law that the purpose of a union is for collective bargaining in the workplace, and some of the special legal protections that a union holds (like mandatory dues and legal immunity) can fall away when the union is actually operating like a PAC.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25634087

They are engaging in collective bargaining. And they are bargaining around how the wealth and power they help generate is used in the broader society.

A union is a PAC. It's a PAC that allows the workers to exercise some level of collective control over the business they create through their work. It's not just about bargaining for better pay or working conditions - that's a fabrication of the propaganda spread in the US as part of the effort to dismantle our labor movement.

If you look at the history of labor organizing, it's always been about power - whether power is held in the hands of those with capital, or whether it's shared with those who do the work.

I'd argue it's more fashion than a lack of courage. Amazon's equivalent group is called Amazon Workers for Climate Justice - they regularly pressure Amazon on topics that have nothing to do with climate justice, but climate change was a trendy topic when they first organized. Sponsorship and support from the CWA is another factor, although I don't know if it's public how much the AWU is actually getting from that relationship.

> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients, it's plain insubordination especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own compensations or work conditions.

A union can negotiate on whatever the workers want to negotiate.