Sorry, are you suggesting that coercion is, by definition, illegal?
No.
I am however stating that having to listen to the corporation sales pitch is not coercion or threats.
Look I can complain about the electoral college but I’m not going to whine that an election was unfair and stolen because the other side lost the popular vote and won by way of the EC … or claim a result is invalid because Citizens United allowed money for the other side that I don’t think is right to be allowed.
Trump beat Clinton. Biden beat Trump. Workers rejected the unionization effort by much larger margin than either.
…but that isn’t the only power a union has. It’s a very American centric view and it ignores the point that in the absence of a union or an agent to negotiate on their behalf the average employee is at an incredible disadvantage in comparison to a billion dollar company. A union has the resources to deploy lawyers and to understand health and safety laws and are in the position to protect and stand up for the employees if the local laws allow it.
But right now you have 100 workers who effectively have zero ability to negotiate. That isn’t better. That results in the sort of enquities that we are seeing at the moment.
And it really doesn’t address the question. If 2 employees want a union to represent them: why not? Even if it turns out to be a losing proposition for them, why should they not have the right to do so?
ISTM that the operative term of having to pretty much fits the description of of what makes it coercive (and therefore coercion). I’d be hard-pressed to characterize it as performance of one’s job duties.
I’m also hard-pressed to characterize such a session as a “sales pitch.”
Coerced to attend a meeting is not equal to coerced to vote a particular way. Coercion to vote one specific way is the issue. C’mon.
SHOULD the corporation have that ability to force workers to hear their side of the argument? I’d say only if the union was allowed equal time.
But changing that requires getting something to change it through the Senate in filibuster proof numbers. Not likely to happen soon.
And given that such is the current rule Amazon would be expected to do so. Saying the election is invalid because they took advantage of the opportunity to force their pitch to be heard is silly. I hear ads all the time; the ads do not force me to buy the product or vote for a specific candidate.
Apropos of nothing in particular, etiquette demands that after moving the goal posts, one should replace the divots.
Given that the goalpost was this claim:
Yes I think your reminding yourself of that rule is quite apropos.
Nice temper tantrum it’s like watching my two year old but with naught language. Thanks for starting my week with a laugh though.
Thanks for doing the work on New Zealand he wasn’t capable of.
It seems like a workable solution. Whoever wants to can form a union and the company can sit down and tell them they get the same as everyone else or not depending on what the actual bargaining power of the union is.
…nice tone policing. It’s the fucking pit. What the fuck were you expecting?
It was just funny watching a toddler swear. I have no greater expectations of you.
Nitpick about numbers:
Of the ~5,800 eligible workers, there were 1798 counted votes against, 738 for, 500 or so challenged ballots, and the rest didn’t vote.
So between 13 and 21% of eligible workers voted for unionization, depending on the makeup of the challenged ballots. If someone knows more about the challenging process, I’m interested in learning more.
As for members-only/minority unions, they’re a thing. They were more common here before NLRA.
And to keep with the spirit of things, everyone who posts in this thread is a poophead.
Can you reduce my ignorance on the history of how the majority vote becoming the more standard came to be? Was it something more desired by Labor or management?
And how does the alternative work here?
If I understand passing the 50% vote mandates management recognition? Does it accomplish anything else?
Or should these go in GQ?
Probably; I’m not much use here, sorry. There’s a brief wikipedia article on the topic that left me with more questions than answers. But I haven’t looked at it in years so maybe it’s fleshier now.
And it seems like other countries have very different models than how we do it.
you just called yourself a poophead. Just sayin’.
My clients pay well for my poophead style.
If there is a better line to include on a business card, I don’t know what it is.
My feeling regarding unions is that companies like Amazon have entire departments devoted to studying market forces and human psychology to determine how to get the most work out of their workers for the least amount of money. They know exactly how much larger your value to them is compared to little they can provide and still keep you marginally happy enough to keep working.
Meanwhile the average worker knows next to nothing about Amazons profit per work hour and overall projections of the labor market, that’s not their job. Going up to Amazon and trying to get paid what their worth is like challenging a lord who has Ser Gregor Clegane on their pay roll. In order to have a chance you need be able to hire a champion of your own.
One thing a union will have is a perspective of the industry as a whole - so there will be knowledge of comparative roles along with how pay formulas are applied in such workplace assessments as Job Evaluation Schemes.
Individuals working in one company in a largely one company town - not so much
I guess Amazon has a right to decide on what it chooses to fund as worker benefits, however I am of the opinion that companies should consult with their workforce on a ‘without prejudice’ position when deciding on the future funding.
Withdrawal of previously funded worker benefits seems to me to run the risk of breach of contract.
So why make this comment - well how about that Amazon meeting for their workers to present their case against having a union? Seems that withdrawing Health benefits was one of those proposals/threats.
The ‘proposal’ by Amazon to reduce or withdraw Medical Insurance benefits seems to be an extremely persuasive measure.
My own view of Universal Healthcare is that the current US system hurts the US economy, because it limits the numbers of workers who feel they have the flexibility to change employer for fear of working under a new Healthcare Insurance regime that would exclude a whole list of previously known conditions.
In other words US healthcare provision reduces workforce flexibility.
As to the rights and wrongs of Amazons position to its own workforce - seems to be to be a bit of a stink to me - but Libertarians would likely say that Amazon is free to do what it wants with its own money.
Money eh? Wonderful lever to use against your own workforce, something to be proud of.
Pity they lost. Hope they’ll keep fighting.