141–150 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In British Columbia, unions have a really interesting precedent in free association: union members do not cross picket lines. Not just their own picket line, but anybody's picket line.
Actually, no one should cross a picket line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad comparison because the power dynamics are wildly different. To quote another commenter: > Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971
I will never understand this concept of power imbalance. You are working because you don't have power, so you rely on others with power to give you power (money in this situation). If the power was even, why would I need to work in the first place?
As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary . When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.
It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising. It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of hi…
There is an incredible amount of leeway here; He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits.
But that further solidifies your last point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. At the minimum there should be a $Duration long waiting period.
> I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?
If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then.
Edit: To elaborate, companies seem to want it both ways. They want a large consumer base with a lot of disposable income that will buy their stuff, but they also want to treat their own employees like shit and pay them the minimum they can get away with. This can't work forever. If you push to shrink/eliminate the middle class, eventually there will be no one left to buy your overpriced "beverages" and you'll go out of business.
Unfortunately modern business practice is to limit your thinking to the next quarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad comparison because the power dynamics are wildly different. To quote another commenter: > Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971
I will never understand this concept of power imbalance. You are working because you don't have power, so you rely on others with power to give you power (money in this situation). If the power was even, why would I need to work in the first place?
Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively…
Won't happen without workers having bargaining power.
> Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place
Won't happen without workers having bargaining power.
> Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs
Won't happen without workers having political power.
Legally protected worker rights are how you get all of these solutions. Please explain how we get there without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot "free association" your way out of legally required actions. You can't, say, refuse to deal with the IRS because it's your right not to associate with them.
That's different. IRS is an extension of the U.S. Government itself, and as a Citizen/resident, you are required to work with them. You are absolutely free to never associate with them as an employee, however. Important distinction.
My point is that the freedom of negative association does not supersede legally required actions whose performance involves associating with an individual or group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not.
The person you replied to used the phrase 'the help' rather than staff or workers. I take it to indicate sarcasm.
Someone was concerned that management was being too influenced by the suggestions of labor, and that's just not how chain of command works.
Companies shouldn't forced to permit the creation of unions. Unions are a tumor and it only makes sense for a company to remove it. If employees want to be able to threaten to quit employers should be able to threaten to fire them. The negotiation power should go both ways.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand unions and the worker-corporation relationship. Historically, and through to today, corporations have most/all of the power. Which is why things like child labor, 16 hour work days, etc. were very common, until workers unionized, effectively pooling their power in order to negotiate with corporations. If you didn't have to work as a child, or don't have to work longer than 8 hours, thank a union.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was so universally easy, why aren't more people doing it?
Because he's full of it. I was unemployed last year. It took me 6 weeks to land an in-demand tech job; mostly because of the layer of interviews. I think it was an average of 3 interviews for each job. I eventually had 6 or 7 similar offers and a couple bad ones. I also cut short several processes because I knew they were a month away from an offer. Meanwhile, my wife tried to land a part time retail job. She got 3 o…
If you're talking about say a 6 figure federal contractor job then sure it's gonna take awhile, but that's not really an apt comparison.