Every union should have an explicit ownership target. Ie: Starbucks union should say, "our goal is to own 2% of $SBUX stock". Optimally, you'd want enough to secure a board seat
The bosses are less likely to toss your ideas when you get a say in which bosses are hired
@nomi is that lawful? I know there are rules against a company sponsoring a union, because it creates a potential conflict of interest. If a union is getting a dividend, they could conceivably find themselves in a similar place where winning a concession for their members hurts their finances.
@nomi the point is that in negotiation, the union's incentives no longer line up with its members'. E.g. "sure, we could play hardball and wring a better offer out of the company, but it'd cut the company's profit (and thus our dividend) down so we've decided to just accept management's proposal."
@khird
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the unions incentives don't line up with it's members" here. The union is the members, so any benefit flows thru to them. As opposed to a corporation where the employees do not receive benefits to the corporation.
It's not clear to me *who* is getting the dividend in your scenario. It seems like it would go into a fund managed my the union, just like anything else
@khird
That's a good conflict to have. Sometimes a company may be struggling or in an industry undergoing transformation. The answer may be, there is no more money, so now what?
That's exactly where you want the most union input. If the pie is getting smaller, some "investors" aren't invested in the ongoing operations