A Research Project

I believe that workers don't want a union under normal circumstances. They're expensive, and they create an antagonistic environment in the workplace that nobody wants. They also end up supporting mediocrity because they have to; it's their job. Imagine a steward in a meeting with a foreman, defending a guy who doesn't and never will work hard and do his job. Most of the time, the steward doesn't want that guy there either; but he's bound to defend him through the process.

Furthermore, companies want to be fair. It's just bad business not to be; even without the threat of having to deal with a union, being capricious causes disruption in the workplace that can get expensive in a hurry. Someone brooding about about the wrong you just did to them is hardly likely to put 100% of his focus on the job that day.

The reason they end up supporting unions is that management has so upset them about something that don't see a choice. The question I want to explore is, what are those things that upset workers enough to seek collective bargaining, and how can companies avoid doing those things? If companies can avoid doing those things, management and workers can stay on the same team, and the company can remain an optimally efficient, profit-making enterprise.

Edited to fix typos.

Welcome

Welcome to Attempted Polymathematica, a place for me to share my attempts to grow as a scholar and a writer with the internets. It's private-public for now, I am hoping that by the time people figure out that this is here, I'll have figured out what I'm doing with it. Wish me luck with that!

Topics will include labor relations and management, Asia-Pacific relations, theology, Cleveland sports, and other things of interest to me. I have a fairly wide set of interests, hence the title.

By the way, I am Brian Saxton, I'm getting my MBA at Cleveland State right now. I'm hoping to start a Ph.D. in labor relations in the fall of '08.