3 ms·

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 s

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.

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.