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

Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 623 posts

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#571

Post by neolog »

sjwright wrote: post #515
neolog wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other side of the coin is why should people who don't want to collectively bargain have a veto over the people who do? (Since that's what happens when management can circumvent the union -- the union loses its bargaining power.) As for how to choose, I'm not sure.

It is unreasonable to equate imposing something upon others and "imposing" nothing upon others. When all else is equal, the higher bar ought to be placed upon the imposition of additional layers of bureaucracy in other people's lives.

But all else is not equal. Unionized negotiations change a lot of things.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#572

Post by LB232323 »

Labor was once fighting for their rights with rifles and unprecedented multicultural unity. Workers knew their enemy very clearly and knew how to attain their goals. The alternative was starvation and corporate enslavement.

Now the concern is deleting tweets. Embourgeoisiement has slowed and confused the struggle of labor. The reckoning of the owner class is long overdue, as evidenced by this typical hubris.

In today's world, this reckoning must be at once international and complete. We have the infrastructure for liberation on a global scale.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#573

Post by loceng »

LeanderK wrote: post #562
loceng wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't have access to stock options if they make a decision to unionize. It's simple but people seem to be trying to make it seem convoluted to try to maintain confusion to make it look like they have a case to call it a threat. It's ridiculous. The actual solution in fact is to take the burden off of employers: we need adequate UBI so people don't need to work to survive (including covered healthcare etc), there…

I don't get it. Are you saying that unionised employees are unable to get stock options? It's meant in a literal sense? I thought this was about unions not liking stock options or something like this. How can this be legal in america? Isn't it pressuring the workers not to unionise?

I'm not sure if it's the union who prevents stock from being part of the negotiations and/or Tesla, however to me it doesn't make sense to be illegal: if you have two choices for jobs at different companies and they both offer good incentive packages, both are good offers but in different ways - there will be pressure depending on what you value more. Perhaps you'll value higher immediate payout vs. long-term payout via a stock that you believe will go up - and you're willing to take that risk because you believe in what the company is doing - and you'll be working there to help make sure that it happens.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#574

Post by utrechtsouth »

LB232323 wrote: post #572

Labor was once fighting for their rights with rifles and unprecedented multicultural unity. Workers knew their enemy very clearly and knew how to attain their goals. The alternative was starvation and corporate enslavement. Now the concern is deleting tweets. Embourgeoisiement has slowed and confused the struggle of labor. The reckoning of the owner class is long overdue, as evidenced by this typical hubris. In today…

It's ironic that these workers "liberation" movements have resulted in the worlds largest slave labor camps and poverty on a scale never seen in free market countries. Not to mention genocide on a scale surpassing the nazis.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#575

Post by LeanderK »

loceng wrote: post #573
LeanderK wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Are you saying that unionised employees are unable to get stock options? It's meant in a literal sense? I thought this was about unions not liking stock options or something like this. How can this be legal in america? Isn't it pressuring the workers not to unionise?

I'm not sure if it's the union who prevents stock from being part of the negotiations and/or Tesla, however to me it doesn't make sense to be illegal: if you have two choices for jobs at different companies and they both offer good incentive packages, both are good offers but in different ways - there will be pressure depending on what you value more. Perhaps you'll value higher immediate payout vs. long-term payout…

I can't understand the reasoning. It's tesla directly denying options to unionised employees, this is direct pressure. It's like denying a promotion based on whether you're unionised or not. Or denying certain benefits based on whether you're unionised, or closing a unionised brach etc. This has nothing to do with the choice between different companies. Tesla shouldn't be allowed to directly influence the establishment of unions using pressure. I really can't believe that this would be possible. It's madness. A company shouldn't be able to pressure workers into not joining the unions. A lesson learned through a lot of blood and loss of life in the late 19th, early 20th century.

A company can care enough for its workers so that they don't see value in unions. But it can't force them via pressure.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#576

Post by cwhiz »

anoncake wrote: post #549
cwhiz wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy in the workforce would be giving employees an option to join a union, or not.

No, that is not democracy. Democratic decisions, by definition, are made by multiple people together.

What you’re describing is much closer to tyranny.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#577

Post by anoncake »

cwhiz wrote: post #576
anoncake wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is not democracy. Democratic decisions, by definition, are made by multiple people together.

What you’re describing is much closer to tyranny.

The hell? Any decisions that involve more than one person involve tyranny?

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#578

Post by sjwright »

neolog wrote: post #571
sjwright wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unreasonable to equate imposing something upon others and "imposing" nothing upon others. When all else is equal, the higher bar ought to be placed upon the imposition of additional layers of bureaucracy in other people's lives.

But all else is not equal. Unionized negotiations change a lot of things.

It's easy to see all the change caused by a union; it's harder to see all the change that didn't happen because of the union.

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#579

Post by youeseh »

AlexandrB wrote: post #472
youeseh wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What riches, exactly? Why the hate?

I'm not sure why people hate unions exactly. Seems weird to have "freedom of assembly" but then hate those that practice it for better negotiating leverage.

This isn't about "freedom of assembly". I'm extremely pro freedom of assembly. "Unions = always good" is just as harmful as "Unions = always bad" as "Rich man evil" or "Rich man good".

Re: Elon Musk’s anti-union tweet from 2018 must be deleted: U.S. labor board

#580

Post by sjwright »

iamacyborg wrote: post #191
optimiz3 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon isn't hired management. He built the company, and risked all of his personal assets in doing so.

From what I understand, Musk as an already wealthy man would be able to easily protect his personal assets if Tesla were to declare bankruptcy. He would be fine, employees, living paycheck to paycheck, would not be.

And that appears to be another non sequitur. It was Elon's personal assets which caused those paychecks to exist in the first place. Elon has risked over 100% of his personal wealth on multiple occasions and there are moments in Tesla's history where if the company had failed, Elon would have fallen back into deep debt.
Post reply on HN