Dunno if I've said this in mastodon yet, so here goes:
EVERY union should have an explicit goal for % of board seats to control and the funding for this should be separate from all other pooled funds.
This may mean stock purchases on the open market, it may mean negotiating with institutional investors to punch above your weight. For unions at privately held companies, you should be first in line any time there is a whiff of equity being raised OR credit being sought.
@rataflechera it wouldn't create any conflicts of interest, no. There is nothing wrong with employees owning equity. In fact, at the executive level, long term goals are often rewarded with equity.
But to "why" ... At its core, organization (unions) is a way of leveraging small amounts of power. It's also backed by a one-time ultimatum: meet our demands or we walk. The Board, among other things, hires the CEO. So it's a large amount of power and it's backed by power that isn't an ultimatum. It's "which CEO should we hire?" or "meet our demands or *you* walk"
@nomi the probable conflict of interests is that union members in the board might choose to favor their interests as board members over their interests as union leaders, for example profitability of the corporation over wellbeing of the employees.
@rataflechera oh absolutely. The members selected to the board will not have an easy time. But! It's not about whether there will be conflict, but about being better to have no representation or conflicted representation? (Using conflict of interest in a colloquial and non-legal sense)
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
Wouldn't this create some conflict of interests?