878
Choosing to lose $300M to $500M to break unions
(sh.itjust.works)
a community focused on union news, info, discussion, etc
Friends:
Nah, the history of labor relations is the owner's willingness to implode things. Like when the deli at walmart formed a union and walmarts response was to stop having delis. They lost a lot of money, but they would rather lose than share.
They likely did the math and the potential loss of money if unionization took hold and shutting it down is the better financial option in the long run.
'They did the math' implies a level of competence and foresight that I think it's foolish to ascribe to the rich. They are humans, just like anyone. They are not perfect and they make mistakes. They certainly don't all exhaustively analyze every decision to maximize profits. Many of them are just arrogant and go with how they feel. Even those that might do a bit of research are hampered by the yes-men they surround themselves with.
Lots and lots of companies make decisions solely because some execs ego was involved.
No one can do that math; that's nonsense. They knew they might have to share and did what any money-addicted psychopath does and hurt everyone to win.
I think they wanted to stop the spread of unions to other parts of Walmart, which could cost them some unknown amount of money.