Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 150 posts

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#31

Post by bryanrasmussen »

nickpp wrote: post #28
krageon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.

Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?

I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid of getting the union angry, as this is not the case something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot, at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose.

That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#32

Post by willcipriano »

anshumankmr wrote: post #29
frippertronics wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).

Weren't the Teamsters also super corrupt? (My only knowledge comes from watching The Irishman)

Philly roofers union firebombed my grandfathers truck beacuse he was non-union.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#33

Post by dfxm12 »

nickpp wrote: post #28
krageon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.

Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?

What is keeping Unions in check then?

Poor media coverage: https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues

Conservative judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME

Right to work laws

Corporations, like Apple, Amazon, etc.

Even "The Most Pro-Union President You’ve Ever Seen" couldn't bring himself to side with the rail union. The sad part is despite this, even though he isn't the most pro union president, he might be up there. That is to say, our federal government in general is very pro corporate.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#34

Post by bmicraft »

nickpp wrote: post #23
wccrawford wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.

Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal. Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters. So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.

Which is good because corporations aren't people. If company goes under its owner(s) arn't usually weeks away from being on the street.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#35

Post by phone8675309 »

halpmeh wrote: post #13

> The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies. So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.

It just works

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#37

Post by dccoolgai »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15
danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you…

Many companies also do things that are a lot worse, like taking massive profits and then laying off the people that gave up time with their families and other opportunities to create those profits. I heard they also do things like give executives that don't do a great job millions while stiffing the individual contributors. Unions can help companies run better by forcing them to take a "longer than 2 year" view on decisions.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#38

Post by Bilal_io »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #14
winReInstall wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy entirely and push some ursurper on a throne. After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway. What has democracy ever done for us?

That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)

Is it really?

There is nothing wrong with fighting for workers rights while automation is not here yet.

The problem is that automation has to be taxed accordingly to allow us to live with dignity when there is no job to occupy (i.e UBI), and guess who's against taxation? "The left" would be the wrong answer.

I don't see any paradox. 1.Tax the rich now. 2. Improve worker rights which will push us faster towards automation. 3. Prepare legislation to tax automation and implement UBI.

What happens if we don't do that?

1. The rich will continue to take advantage of people's labor while paying them peanuts. 2. The middle class disappears, we end up with a system of two classes, the slaves and the lords. 3. Automation will come regardless and we won't be ready for it regulation wise, and people will die from hunger.

Pick

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#39

Post by purple_ferret »

wccrawford wrote: post #8
danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.

Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union?

I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc.

The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#40

Post by eastbound »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15
danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you…

Unions or union managers are sometimes paid by the company to provide a business-friendly outcome.
Post reply on HN