I agree, if one wants to avoid the conflict of a union a work place should be at least 51% employee owned. Short of having mandatory employee ownership unions are the next best thing, and one is far easier in the US.
Otherwise we have what we have now, rampant unfairness and tension but no conflict because the board can get away with whatever conditions PR allows them to get away with.
There are so many issues with simply saying 'workers should own 51% of the company'. That statement and causes so many issues in every aspect of how companies are now run an financed, its hard to even imagine what such a regulation would mean or how it would work in practice.
> Short of having mandatory employee ownership unions are the next best thing, and one is far easier in the US.
Again, just saying this is easy but what is the meaning of union in this context? What a union is and what it does has been wildly different thought history, form country to country and form industry to industry.
What are the exact powers of that union mandatory union?
These discussions are always so abstract, union are almost an article of faith for some people.
Because it is an unequal relationship to begin with. Finding consensus in a 100% worker controlled organization is already a lot of work. We know capital is pretty okay with propagandizing if you look at current unionbusting practices, and they likely have more capital (haa) to do it.
Otherwise we have what we have now, rampant unfairness and tension but no conflict because the board can get away with whatever conditions PR allows them to get away with.