"In the name of jobs" seems pretty darn critical to the purpose of unions. What would be the point of a union that didn't protect the jobs of their workers?
It's pretty clear why Amazon and WalMart dislike unions. Unions make things more expensive (and less efficient) for the owners. The converse is that unions can make things better for the employees. There are a lot more people who work at Amazon and WalMart than there are who meaningfully own those companies.
I think there's an ideal balance and unions can be a part of that. On one end, inefficiency kills the company and costs everyone jobs and money. On the other companies are brutally efficient, like Amazon, and most workers live and work in poor conditions. We should try to find something in the middle rather than optimize for efficiency.
It's possible to protect the jobs of your members while looking down the road and not making decisions that cause those jobs to be eliminated entirely because you refuse to adapt.
It's pretty clear why Amazon and WalMart dislike unions. Unions make things more expensive (and less efficient) for the owners. The converse is that unions can make things better for the employees. There are a lot more people who work at Amazon and WalMart than there are who meaningfully own those companies.
I think there's an ideal balance and unions can be a part of that. On one end, inefficiency kills the company and costs everyone jobs and money. On the other companies are brutally efficient, like Amazon, and most workers live and work in poor conditions. We should try to find something in the middle rather than optimize for efficiency.