You’re presenting your theory of union power as if it’s the only allowable theory. I support a different view. Workers do not own the company and should not directly steer it, although they can influence it and the union should of course ensure that they are treated fairly.
The point of a private company is that it is owned and steered by the private owners, while a public company is owned and steered (through the board) by public investors. Now you may say that neither of these models should exist, but if that’s your position then the public should put it to a vote. Capturing and subverting companies through the back door inverts the entire ownership model without democratic input.
I actually do think that we should consider rewriting the model for public companies, at least, but it should be done democratically unless we’re opening the door to ending the current Constitutional order. Which may also be a possibility, but until then, the country still nominally operates under that framework.
Also, Wikipedia is “owned” by a nonprofit foundation governed by bylaws and values aligned with the public interest. This is much better than being fully private.
I missed the part on your previous reply about having a union rep on the board. This is foreign to me as a US citizen so perhaps my vision is blinkered by the horrible state and history of labor relations here.
In a US context, with none of these kinds of arrangements in force, I do not accept arguments against much anything restricting worker's rights to organize here as there is so little alternative and even after organizing, true collective bargaining can be thwarted almost indefinitely (look at Amazon warehouse union efforts for examples of post-formation stonewalling).
In the German case or wherever there is a seat at the table for unions, a discussion can indeed be had. Here, I have zero sympathy for management which holds all the cards most of the time. Wikipedia in particular engaged a notorious anti-labor lawfirm to help their noble effort so I do not trust them in any way.
While I understand the difficulty, companies pushing back against and even actively disrupting organizing (illegally) doesn’t imply that corporate governance structure should change post-union. (Except for some kind of legally mandated representation like the German solution, and policy changes to accommodate the union.) A public company is still a public company, etc.
I do think more union rights need to be enshrined in law, and the only way to get there may be mass protest like a general strike, but it would need to be politically well-timed. Unions in the US are anemic by design.
The point of a private company is that it is owned and steered by the private owners, while a public company is owned and steered (through the board) by public investors. Now you may say that neither of these models should exist, but if that’s your position then the public should put it to a vote. Capturing and subverting companies through the back door inverts the entire ownership model without democratic input.
I actually do think that we should consider rewriting the model for public companies, at least, but it should be done democratically unless we’re opening the door to ending the current Constitutional order. Which may also be a possibility, but until then, the country still nominally operates under that framework.
Also, Wikipedia is “owned” by a nonprofit foundation governed by bylaws and values aligned with the public interest. This is much better than being fully private.