Why not take power that is available to you? Management certainly exercises every bit of power that they are able to.
The relationship between a company's stockholders and a company's employees is part competitive and part collaborative. Ignore either at your own peril.
I see your point but at the same time this can create an adversarial dynamic between managers and junior employees, which is toxic even if junior employees get what they want.
>Management certainly exercises every bit of power that they are able to.
I'm a manager and my proudest moments have been those of restraint, not force. Regardless of whether or not unions can and should be formed, organizations with employees feeling compelled to unionize should be hiring better managers.
"organizations with employees feeling compelled to unionize should be hiring better managers."
This is a fantastic observation - and I believe it holds true. I've been in some very demanding technology roles, long hours, with competitive peers. A great leader is worth much more than some Union would have been (anecdotally).
This is true, but my personal support for collective organizing stems from a belief that there's a material constraint on the "quality" of managers, and we can effectively surpass that upper limit only through collective action.
> Why not take power that is available to you? Management certainly exercises every bit of power that they are able to.
This isn't true. Management only exercises every bit of power once the relationship becomes hostile. There are tons of things management could do to me to make their jobs easier (e.g. standups twice a day at 8am and 4:45pm with mandatory, in-person attendance) that they don't leverage.
Unionizing when there isn't already a hostile relationship is sure a way to bring hostility into it.
The relationship between a company's stockholders and a company's employees is part competitive and part collaborative. Ignore either at your own peril.