Background
The formation of unions by employees has posed a great challenge to the employees and businesses. In this regard, the formation of these unions has been the centre of much controversy between the employees and employers. This paper seeks to identify some of the arguments posed by employers against the formation of the employees’ unions and proceed to develop a counter argument for them
Arguments by Employers
Employers consider the high wage negotiations by the unions as the imposition of taxes to the investments made. In this regard, the employers respond to this taxation by reducing the investment for the company. In addition, the employers argue that the negotiations for high prices do not either increase profits or bring new investments for everyone else who is not covered by the unions. As such, employers consider the unions as counterproductive elements in the business arena. Secondly, employers argue that unions compress wages by reducing the wages for the competent and proficient employees while those of less competent ones are increased. It is therefore difficult to attract or retain the more competent employees in companies that operate under unions. These are some of the most fundamental arguments which are put across by the employers against unions
Counter Arguments
In perspective, these arguments are baseless and should not be taken seriously when it comes to making the decision of whether to let employees form unions or not. In regard to the first argument, although employers suggest that unions negotiate for high prices at the expense of investments, it cannot be disputed that non-unionized companies also increase investments at the expense of their employees’ welfare. The unions therefore play a crucial role to ensure that the exploitation is eliminated. In regard to the second argument, the equalization of wages between the competent and less-competent should be the reason as to why employers should embrace unions. If companies were all unionized, competent employers would not have to take what is given by the employers. In addition, companies must look at equitability from a broad livelihood perspective because it helps to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
