George Takei 
🏳️🌈🖖🏽Stop blaming strikes for economic damage. Strikes are a logical response to overreach and greed from corporations and the wealthy. If there is resulting economic damage, look to those who drove the workers to strike in the first instance.
Fr. Marty@georgetakei isn't economic damage the whole point of a strike?
Judy Olo 🚫⚠️kakistocracy🌊@frmarty @georgetakei
No, it is to show your value to the company. I was/am a union member. We had a strike in the 80s. The last thing on our minds was damaging the company. We just wanted them to pay decent wages and have health care.
No, it is to show your value to the company. I was/am a union member. We had a strike in the 80s. The last thing on our minds was damaging the company. We just wanted them to pay decent wages and have health care.
@JudyOlo @georgetakei Decent wages and health care are damaging to the company economically, by definition. Sadly, that is our system - companies want to pay as little as possible for the means of production. Workers want a fair portion of that production (and in my opinion, are entitled to it). But when negotiations fail, economic damage in the form of a strike occurs. Without economic damage in the form of lost production (sales), what leverage does a strike hold?
Pamela Ehn@frmarty @JudyOlo @georgetakei absolutely not! When companies pay adequately, they actually make more money, from higher productivity of employees, goodwill of their brand and lower hiring costs. I do think it’s unfair that benefits are paid by companies rather than universally offered by the government. Everyone needs those benefits and that’s an unfair burden to companies. But companies like that because they can treat you like shit and you’re locked in because benefits. But companies who don’t have to use economic coercion to keep employees do make more money.
@cadenza @JudyOlo @georgetakei Unfortunately, only the most progressive companies operate that way. Having been a former CFO, the discussion in the CEO suite isn't about fairness and equity for employees - otherwise CEO pay would not be hundreds of times worker pay, and the increased productivity of the past 30 years would be reflected in worker's pay increases. I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I left corporate America, except that isn't reality. Walmart is prime example.
@frmarty @JudyOlo @georgetakei I’m not saying that corporations who use an exploitative model don’t make money. They definitely do. Just that in the long run, corporations that treat their employees fairly tend to do better. Mostly because they don’t have to treat fines and judgments as the cost of doing business.
@cadenza @JudyOlo @georgetakei You are absolutely correct in everything you are saying, and studies support that conclusion. Except companies still don't buy it, and still won't implement it. example: WalMart. If that concept were adopted globally, there would be no need for employees to strike. But very, very few companies adopt that strategy.
@frmarty @JudyOlo @georgetakei well, you can’t account for greed and stupidity, and it seems that the wealthier people are, the more greedy and stupid they are. The big downside of CEO pay being 351x the lowest paid worker is that it puts them grievously out of touch not only with their workers, but their consumers as well. I mean, studio heads were surprised that the post they released about starving workers out of their homes backfired. They have no clue.