Virtually all companies oppose unionization. Am I to believe that all these companies are doing so out of sheer incompetence?
In the old days, when First International and IWW was created, unionization efforts were to "set the bosses house on fire, with them in it", "pass out rifles to all workers and shoot up the bosses house", assaults, bombs.. you name it.
That's also where we have the paramilitary force, Pinkertons. They were hired by the bosses to do the same thing to the union organizers.
These companies have NO problem violating the meager federal law protections for workers. And to boot, there's basically no penalties. When things get bad enough, just watch for the "whoopsies", subvert sabotage, and direct violence against bosses and against property.
Companies have forgotten about the older pact with unions to remove violence, and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc). Maybe they should be reminded?
This is a new one. Thanks for sharing...
Not that I’m fully endorsing unions. In my particular part of the world (Netherlands) unions lack broad support but are the only laborers party bargaining collective labour agreements. The good thing is that those agreements are inclusive. The fun is where the unions members interest differ from genpop. You get things like union contributions paid for by employers, or worse like agreements that favor the old whom are more likely to be a member.
> Companies have forgotten about the older pact with unions to remove violence, and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc). Maybe they should be reminded?
And perhaps companies can go back to WHY the NLRB was created, and what the before-times was like. I particularly don't want to go back to that.
And you can be reminded with a history lesson and education, and not shooting up the bosses house. You all also broke HN guidance by assuming the worst of me too.
And the thing is that even people in dark corners usually don’t react darkly. That’s pretty much what saves civilization imho. That even the bottom 1% doesn’t go all out on the rest. People stand a lot of abuse and still keep their head up. I agree that workers right shouldn’t be an afterthought.
I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council. Go study your union history. Teach it to colleagues. Understand your rights as non-union worker and union worker. And, unionize. (A company would consider that violent, given how they respond with illegal actions.)
And, you'd be surprised just how effective a PEACEFUL protest at the sidewalk at the bosses' house is. Ive seen a variation of that with a peaceful protest of our mayor doing dumb shit. The grievances got solved real quick.
So what did you mean by "Maybe they should be reminded?"
> I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council.
Reminding people of the "history" that violence and terrorism have (occasionally, arguably) been effective still comes across as an implicit threat. If you were advocating violence but trying to disingenuously pretend otherwise, you would have used the exact same words. I can and will assume good faith here, but you need to be a lot more careful about the implications of what you're saying here. Moreover, that kind of rhetoric normalizes the use of violence and terrorism to achieve social/economic/political goals.
At any rate, while we are having a dispassionate discussion of history, I would also point out that violence doesn't always work out for the left/labor side of the equation. Sometimes populists use public fear of that terrorism to justify right-wing authoritarian regimes. Sometimes those regimes start throwing the leftists out of helicopters. Sometimes catastrophic world wars break out between leftist-revolutionary dictatorships and right-populist dictatorships. And to me, the moral of that long and bloody story is that you do not normalize or advocate violence as a means of achieving social/economic/political goals.
Which is still around, though now a child company of Securitas.
If you’re in a fight and you have a weapon but your opponent is unarmed, of course you would oppose your opponent being given a weapon as that’s not in your best interest. Your opponent may see things differently, just as the employer and employees see things differently in this situation. Apple's opponent is currently unarmed, and Apple doesn't want to see them armed with the weapon of collective bargaining.
In the USA. It is different in other countries, it could be better in the USA also.