4 ms·

Maybe consider "offensive" under its "aggressive" definition. It's a plainly worded discouragement from participating in unionization.

sverige 7y ago
I don't see any aggression. What is "aggressive" about pointing out that for the cost of paying a union boss to negotiate for you, you could buy a video game system instead? Maybe more to the point, what's wrong with a company discouraging employees from participating in a union? It's against the company's interests. They have a right to try to persuade their employees with posters, just as the union has a right to promote their position with their own propaganda.
- luckydata 7y ago
  Oh wow, who would ever infer that there might be consequences for doing something the company you work for hates so much they bothered making flyers against? Nobody in their right mind would think that's the first of many, many hints for people that can't catch the drift.
- gowld 7y ago
  Frankly it's none of their business, just as the company shouldn't lobby their employees on who to vote for. > It's against the company's interests. The fact that it's a baseline assumption that a company's interests is opposed to the interests of the employees who create the company's value is exactly why employees and their unions need political protection.
  - sverige 7y ago
    It's definitely the company's business, since unions add another layer of management to their business processes. And these days it's generally assumed that a union is opposed to the company's interests because unions by definition are there to extract money from both the company and its employees.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Unions are nonprofit, they don't exist to "extract money" from anybody. They exist to act on the behalf of all their members in negotiations, to increase wages and to provide employment-related services like labor lawyers in case of a wrongful firing. In the airline industry, Union workers make on average $12k more than non-union workers, which more than makes up for the $700 dues.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rhizome 7y ago
  >I don't see any aggression. You're taking it too literally. I'm distinguishing the definitions of "offensive" between the "smells bad" kind and the "attacking" kind.
darawk 7y ago
And how is that offensive? They don't want their employees to unionize. Are they not allowed to express that opinion?
- salawat 7y ago
  Thou dost protest too much. In human interaction, it is often the case that specific exhortations not to do something with only concessions explaining why it's so great for the non-exhorting party tends to be interpreted as the exhorter having something to gain by doing so. In a mutually beneficial contract like employment, if someone specifically went out of their way to tell me not to unionize, that's the first sign a Union might be a damn good idea. Given that as time goes on, and unions fade further and further from the limelight as youngsters take over who have never had much union interaction except through stories from grandparents, it strikes me as disingenuous to acknowledge the company's right to post backhanded smears of the right of labor to organize without tempering it with a bit of perspective. The fact this campaign puts off such slimy vibes (I've seen less slimy cigarette ads, and that's saying something) entitles Delta to be treated with whatever scorn and loss of goodwill this move generates. Free country and all, right?
  - darawk 7y ago
    > In human interaction, it is often the case that specific exhortations not to do something with only concessions explaining why it's so great for the non-exhorting party tends to be interpreted as the exhorter having something to gain by doing so. So what? > In a mutually beneficial contract like employment, if someone specifically went out of their way to tell me not to unionize, that's the first sign a Union might be a damn good idea. Given that as time goes on, and unions fade further and further from the limelight as youngsters take over who have never had much union interaction except through stories from grandparents, it strikes me as disingenuous to acknowledge the company's right to post backhanded smears of the right of labor to organize without tempering it with a bit of perspective. What perspective is that, exactly? There's no smear here. They're stating their view. > The fact this campaign puts off such slimy vibes (I've seen less slimy cigarette ads, and that's saying something) entitles Delta to be treated with whatever scorn and loss of goodwill this move generates. All you've done here is re-assert your negative emotional valence. Not given any sort of explanation for it.
bargl 7y ago
>What's truly offensive, and downright nefarious here,... From context I don't think that definition works. What's truly aggressive and evil vs What's truly unpleasant and evil. I think the second works better. Either way it was an offensive attack on the union which this person found offensive and nefarious. I think if your union can't hold up to a simple attack like this then you have no business unionizing. The union poster should read something like, our union got you an extra $1 an hour. That's about $2,080 a year. In which case your dues are well worth it.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > The union poster should read something like, our union got you an extra $1 an hour. That's about $2,080 a year. In which case your dues are well worth it. Great idea... as long as the union did actually manage to achieve something as concrete as that. If not then maybe the Delta poster has a point.

sverige 7y ago

I don't see any aggression. What is "aggressive" about pointing out that for the cost of paying a union boss to negotiate for you, you could buy a video game system instead? Maybe more to the point, what's wrong with a company discouraging employees from participating in a union? It's against the company's interests. They have a right to try to persuade their employees with posters, just as the union has a right to promote their position with their own propaganda.

luckydata 7y ago
Oh wow, who would ever infer that there might be consequences for doing something the company you work for hates so much they bothered making flyers against? Nobody in their right mind would think that's the first of many, many hints for people that can't catch the drift.
gowld 7y ago
Frankly it's none of their business, just as the company shouldn't lobby their employees on who to vote for. > It's against the company's interests. The fact that it's a baseline assumption that a company's interests is opposed to the interests of the employees who create the company's value is exactly why employees and their unions need political protection.
- sverige 7y ago
  It's definitely the company's business, since unions add another layer of management to their business processes. And these days it's generally assumed that a union is opposed to the company's interests because unions by definition are there to extract money from both the company and its employees.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Unions are nonprofit, they don't exist to "extract money" from anybody. They exist to act on the behalf of all their members in negotiations, to increase wages and to provide employment-related services like labor lawyers in case of a wrongful firing. In the airline industry, Union workers make on average $12k more than non-union workers, which more than makes up for the $700 dues.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 7y ago
>I don't see any aggression. You're taking it too literally. I'm distinguishing the definitions of "offensive" between the "smells bad" kind and the "attacking" kind.

darawk 7y ago

And how is that offensive? They don't want their employees to unionize. Are they not allowed to express that opinion?

salawat 7y ago
Thou dost protest too much. In human interaction, it is often the case that specific exhortations not to do something with only concessions explaining why it's so great for the non-exhorting party tends to be interpreted as the exhorter having something to gain by doing so. In a mutually beneficial contract like employment, if someone specifically went out of their way to tell me not to unionize, that's the first sign a Union might be a damn good idea. Given that as time goes on, and unions fade further and further from the limelight as youngsters take over who have never had much union interaction except through stories from grandparents, it strikes me as disingenuous to acknowledge the company's right to post backhanded smears of the right of labor to organize without tempering it with a bit of perspective. The fact this campaign puts off such slimy vibes (I've seen less slimy cigarette ads, and that's saying something) entitles Delta to be treated with whatever scorn and loss of goodwill this move generates. Free country and all, right?
- darawk 7y ago
  > In human interaction, it is often the case that specific exhortations not to do something with only concessions explaining why it's so great for the non-exhorting party tends to be interpreted as the exhorter having something to gain by doing so. So what? > In a mutually beneficial contract like employment, if someone specifically went out of their way to tell me not to unionize, that's the first sign a Union might be a damn good idea. Given that as time goes on, and unions fade further and further from the limelight as youngsters take over who have never had much union interaction except through stories from grandparents, it strikes me as disingenuous to acknowledge the company's right to post backhanded smears of the right of labor to organize without tempering it with a bit of perspective. What perspective is that, exactly? There's no smear here. They're stating their view. > The fact this campaign puts off such slimy vibes (I've seen less slimy cigarette ads, and that's saying something) entitles Delta to be treated with whatever scorn and loss of goodwill this move generates. All you've done here is re-assert your negative emotional valence. Not given any sort of explanation for it.

bargl 7y ago

>What's truly offensive, and downright nefarious here,... From context I don't think that definition works. What's truly aggressive and evil vs What's truly unpleasant and evil. I think the second works better. Either way it was an offensive attack on the union which this person found offensive and nefarious. I think if your union can't hold up to a simple attack like this then you have no business unionizing. The union poster should read something like, our union got you an extra $1 an hour. That's about $2,080 a year. In which case your dues are well worth it.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> The union poster should read something like, our union got you an extra $1 an hour. That's about $2,080 a year. In which case your dues are well worth it. Great idea... as long as the union did actually manage to achieve something as concrete as that. If not then maybe the Delta poster has a point.