Maybe so. I think it’s more a matter of company owners having to educate themselves instead of playing God towards their employees.
It’s becomes very evident when you look into psychological interactions in companies. It seems soo unnecessary - until you look at the results. Companies that actively work to prevent demotivating behaviour also produce better results at the bottom of their financial statements.
Just similar to how violent behaviour resulted in people not working due to broken arms, demotivating behaviour stops employees from doing the job well. You can see it in the contemporary term “Silent quitting” which is a result of poor management. People do minimum work because they are only motivated to as they’re told and don’t get a say in how they do it.
Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.
Unions exist because serious workers actually like doing their job well.
Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.
Nah. There’s a cut off point somewhere between “making a profit” and “making a large scale company”. The personally owned and personally controlled companies that are happy with turning a profit using whatever means they think are necessary will never be able to buy out the companies that are controlled by an elected board who knows that it is necessary to invest in their staff. Quite the contrary. The professional businesses buy out the smaller ones.
Despite Musk being extremely wealthy, he’s still acting like he’s running a family business in the most unprofessional manner. Tesla had a good run disrupting the industry being first with long range batteries, but the larger car manufacturers have caught up and they have the infrastructure to back it up and staff that will do their job. Unlike Tesla currently.
In Euro scale so it is. The family businesses are the ones that steal from the tip jar, while the big companies are generally more lawful and democratic.
This is because of unions. It’s easy to cheat one guy on a payslip. It’s impossible to cheat on 100 payslips of which 80 of them are in a union. When caught it’s easy to pay off one guy whatever is owed. It’s a stupid bet to try and cheat 100 guys who have a union to pay for their lawyers even if it’s just a minor mistake. Big companies in Europe need to play by the rules for their own sake and not create risky situations like Musk is doing now. Musk might be smarter than a car mechanic but he can’t “outsmart” an entire sector of mechanics.
Of course, big companies might be bad for other reasons, like for smaller entrepreneurs, just the same as everywhere, but they’re generally better for the employees.
You are too idealistic for an actual conversation
If what you said was true then there would be no need for unions
Maybe so. I think it’s more a matter of company owners having to educate themselves instead of playing God towards their employees.
It’s becomes very evident when you look into psychological interactions in companies. It seems soo unnecessary - until you look at the results. Companies that actively work to prevent demotivating behaviour also produce better results at the bottom of their financial statements.
Just similar to how violent behaviour resulted in people not working due to broken arms, demotivating behaviour stops employees from doing the job well. You can see it in the contemporary term “Silent quitting” which is a result of poor management. People do minimum work because they are only motivated to as they’re told and don’t get a say in how they do it.
Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.
Unions exist because serious workers actually like doing their job well.
Which companies do because….
It benefits them
Only in the short term. It’s not sustainable against competitors who does otherwise.
If you make more money than your competitors in the short term then you can buy them out
Nah. There’s a cut off point somewhere between “making a profit” and “making a large scale company”. The personally owned and personally controlled companies that are happy with turning a profit using whatever means they think are necessary will never be able to buy out the companies that are controlled by an elected board who knows that it is necessary to invest in their staff. Quite the contrary. The professional businesses buy out the smaller ones.
Despite Musk being extremely wealthy, he’s still acting like he’s running a family business in the most unprofessional manner. Tesla had a good run disrupting the industry being first with long range batteries, but the larger car manufacturers have caught up and they have the infrastructure to back it up and staff that will do their job. Unlike Tesla currently.
Can’t say I’ve ever heard someone argue that the mega corps are the good guys and the family companies are the bad ones
In Euro scale so it is. The family businesses are the ones that steal from the tip jar, while the big companies are generally more lawful and democratic.
This is because of unions. It’s easy to cheat one guy on a payslip. It’s impossible to cheat on 100 payslips of which 80 of them are in a union. When caught it’s easy to pay off one guy whatever is owed. It’s a stupid bet to try and cheat 100 guys who have a union to pay for their lawyers even if it’s just a minor mistake. Big companies in Europe need to play by the rules for their own sake and not create risky situations like Musk is doing now. Musk might be smarter than a car mechanic but he can’t “outsmart” an entire sector of mechanics.
Of course, big companies might be bad for other reasons, like for smaller entrepreneurs, just the same as everywhere, but they’re generally better for the employees.