Right, so let’s say that they wanted to be able to bring firearms to work, and the owner, a liberal gun hater, wouldn’t let them. They banded together and threatened to take some organized action in order to achieve their desires, and in response the owner shut the company down.
Could we expect a similar “hah hah” thread from you?
Not always, no. Humans are like that. Sometimes union demands are capricious and unrealistic. The opposite case is also commonly true. The essential premise of egalitarian democracy is power-sharing on a massive scale. It is not more efficient, or smarter, necessarily. It is more just.
You can’t bargain on your knees, all you can do is beg. No man is entitled to make another man beg.
I’d certainly agree that their actions weren’t in what I perceive their best interests to be. . . but of course, since gun owners tend to be squared away, rational analysts, I’d expect this scenario to remain hypothetical.
But yeah, if it happened, I’d have a similar reaction. I don’t regard the general right of people to own and carry guns to trump (ha!) the right of a property owner to forbid them on his private property. If that standoff occurred, my sympathies would lie with the owner.
What the heck are you talking about?
I’m entitled to try to make you beg any time I please. The law limits what sort of inducements I can bring to bear on the matter, but if Bricker Labs wants t start a research project into neutrino oscillation and my chief researcher thinks the money is better spent on high-temperature superconductors, I am entitled to make him beg as a condition of adopting his plan. He may refuse and quit, of course, but that’s the level of pressure we’re talking about here already: quit or get laid off, or abandon your desired outcome.
This is some rule you created or heard about somewhere and decided to announce as if it were handed down to Moses on Sinai. It has no force. It’s just some stuff you’re saying and hoping the gravitas of the words provide a substitute for analytical rigor.
Good one.
Similar reaction, sympathies… I asked if you’d come here and start this same thread. I posit that you wouldn’t. I’d posit that nobody would be spreading that functionally equivalent story around the right-wing blogosphere because it doesn’t serve to spread the same “unions are evil” message.
Just my speculation of course… obvious strawman is obvious.
If it’s an economic decision to fire employees, then there ought to be evidence; otherwise, it’s a decision intended to break unions.
In reality, though, good luck fighting it out in court. Even in a pro-labor administration, it can take a while for cases to wind their way through the system. People need to pay the rent in the meantime. In 2017, under this administration, I’d say they’re screwed.
Labor is going to get schlonged by the Republicans and unlike in the past, the courts will probably defend management.
That sounds like very good advice. People should start their own business. Pool their money and buy/create a business.
What advice would you give Ricketts? Should he continue to fund these unprofitable businesses? Are these businesses, or are they a hobby? How long should he continue to toss good money after bad?
Thought we already did that:
Then the decision to talk with full mouth seems against their best interests, at least as I perceive those interests to be.
If this story happened three weeks earlier instead of when it did, I might not have posted the thread either. Starting any thread is a function of free time, interest, and ease of necessary research. So I have no idea.
Well sure. Maybe he’s going to tell the employees how often they should trim their nose hairs too.
So what? Even if the boss says, “I did this to break the union, neerner neener neener, and I will swear to this motive on a stack of Bibles,” what do you think that rock-solid evidence will do?
How will it help “get through the courts,” precisely?
If the chap ran the companies by his own fiat, as above, “As long as it’s my money that’s paying for everything, I intend to be the one making the decisions about the direction of the business.” without any putative union, then the non-profitability is down to him alone; his workers cannot share the blame so long as they obeyed his orders.
Possibly all such businesses are non-viable — which begs the question of why he bought The Gothamist earlier this same year — but evidently he alone was incompetent to run the company.
He seems eminently successful in other businesses, and is no doubt a shining light in Little Jackson Hole. So he bit off more than he could chew.
Bricker, I think we’re all entirely agreed that if continuing employment with a capricious and dictatorial boss, who has no legal or financial incentive to refrain from shutting down the whole workplace if employees cross him in any way, is assumed to be in the employees’ best interests, then it would indeed be against the employees’ best interests to cross the boss in any way.
ISTM that the more interesting questions here are:
Is it really necessary or desirable to structure employment on this kind of “Tyrant Boss” model, where any attempt to challenge the boss’s decisions on any workplace policy is likely to bring the whole enterprise crashing down when the affronted boss flips the table and shuts down the business?
Since markets currently fail so drastically at sustaining high-quality local journalism, so that journalists and consumers are forced to depend on this kind of money-losing and unreliable “Tyrant Boss” setup to produce it, what alternatives should we consider as a better way of supporting high-quality local journalism?
No man is entitled to demand payment for services no longer desired or contractually obligated.
If Tyrant Boss is an inefficient way to run a business competing business models should drive it out of business. All this demonstrates is that certain activity has low market value.
Maybe high quality journalism is dead outside government subsidies.
I think NPR is best in class as far as high quality local, national and international journalism. If people are serious about supporting news organizations, they’d be hard pressed to find a better place to put their money.
Maybe he is. So what?
If I had a boss that presumed to treat me like that, I’d quit, not demand that the government protect my job while I refused to work.
I know the question wasn’t addressed to me, but the “Writer’s Co-Op” model proposed earlier seemed intriguing to me.
Once again, octopus, it doesn’t appear that anybody in this thread is actually disagreeing with this profound observation.
Yes, that’s what’s supposed to happen when markets work properly. But there are lots of goods and services for which real-world markets don’t work properly.
That’s one possible explanation. Certainly the advent of free online news has severely altered its revenue stream.
Is “demanding that the government protect your job while refusing to work” your understanding of what union organizing is?