5 ms·
"the union will not in fact see a single additional job as a result of what happened" That assumes that all union organizing will now cease or come to nothing,
by blacksqr 8y ago
"the union will not in fact see a single additional job as a result of what happened"
That assumes that all union organizing will now cease or come to nothing, and the unions will get no benefit from keeping a huge, dedicated anti-union company out of their back yard.
- tptacek 8y agoNo, it just means that this particular transaction was net-negative for unions.
- blacksqr 8y agoSo your argument is that the unions should have just taken the deal as dictated to them without considering their larger self-interest?
- tptacek 8y agoYes? "As dictated to them" is a weird way of putting it, since they were the ones making the demands.
- blacksqr 8y agoDear workers: you must remain poor and powerless forever, for the greater good.
- tptacek 8y agoOnce again, we don't have to wonder whether this particular strategy worked. It demonstrably did not. Workers in NY state and at Whole Foods are worse off than they would have been. This is a setback for the effort to unionize Whole Foods.
- blacksqr 8y agoYou seem to be confusing strategy (long term thinking) with tactics (short term thinking) I wish I could understand why you seem to think it's a no-brainer that workers should unilaterally resign what they see as their long term interests to accept unquestioningly a corporate agenda with uncertain benefits for them in an indeterminate future.
- tptacek 8y agoIt doesn’t matter who’s side we’re on. I think Whole Foods should unionize. What was done here to try to accomplish that backfired, spectacularly. Labor will have less of a voice in similar negotiations in the future.
- blacksqr 8y agoWhat is keeping unions from continuing to try to organize Whole Foods in New York?