Why is it "mgt vs. labor"? It should be "workers (mgt+labor) vs. owners" [View All]

[NAO]

Ok, here's a thought: why are labor disputes always portrayed as "management vs labor"? Why aren't managers, who work for a living, rather than live off the labor of others, part of labor unions?

Imagine the collective bargaining power of ALL of the people on payroll, both blue collar AND white collar workers.

Blue collar employees AND white collar managers have the following in common:

- they work for a living.

- they are paid a salary which is negotiable.

- their earnings are related to, and contingent on, their labor, not the labor of others.

- their employment (and thus their livelihood) can be arbitrarily terminated at any time by capricious or just plain greedy owners.

- they are subject to the attempts of owners to get the most work out of them possible, for the least amount of money and benefits possible.

It would be a major adjustment for union workers to solicit and include management in their membership. But when rightly considered, they really should. Managers are really in the same boat as workers...they ARE workers. Their jobs include setting salaries and overseeing people, but they HAVE JOBS. They WORK FOR the company.

Management employees are part of the group that works but does not own, rather than the group that owns but does not work. The pitting of management against labor is artificial. It should be "employees vs. owners". If the owners need someone to bargain with the unions, let them hire consultants. Don't let them use some workers (management) against other workers (labor) when both groups are at their mercy and have the same need for collective bargaining to prevent brutal exploitation for greed.