Company benefits should preclude unionization
Here, Iverson explains his opposition to unionization within his company. His employees could expect fairness, loyalty, and rewards in proportion to the company's progress. In Iverson's view, his business model made unions unnecessary.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Kenneth Iverson, June 11, 1999. Interview I-0083. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
JM: Another issue [is about] -- stepping back to again a broad philosophical question -- the role of unionization in American labor and capitalist enterprise. You obviously had a certain model of operating the business that made it not so difficult for you to encourage workers to the view that unions weren't necessarily something that they needed to see their interests well represented.
KI: That's right.
JM: Maybe if you would, reflect broadly on that question of unionization. Do you see it as useful in some places?
KI: There are companies that need unions where management is really not very good and where there ends up policies that are unfair to the workers and so on. I think sometimes they need a union. But I don't think we have--. We treat our people fairly. We've always had a profit sharing program for them. We're very loyal to our people. We don't lay off anybody. We haven't laid off anybody. We haven't had a lay off, across the board, ever in the company. So we don't lay people off. We reward them for--. The whole idea is you get rewarded for what progress the company makes and what your proportion is of that progress.