4 ms·

> 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-exhor

by 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.

salawat 7y ago
>So what? So people should consider the source, and what said source would prefer you not do with 700 dollars a year. There is something they have to gain by doing it, why else invest the man hours in the propaganda? Therefore, prudence cautions that one should look into whether or not this so called union may be a net positive thing to contribute to. >What perspective is that, exactly? There's no smear here. They're stating their view. No, they aren't. A statement of their actual view would be "Work with us! Cut out the middle man! Don't make it difficult for us to work with you by bothering with one of those fangled Unions (who can actually fact check us, and wield enough leverage where we might actually have to take you seriously). It's much easier on us to sweep your complaints under the rug, or make decisions effecting you if we don't have to deal with a collective bargaining unit!" Let's be honest, Delta gives not a care about the worker's entertainment habit. The message is clearly "don't unionize". Which is a fundamental right of the labor force. It's like a company looking you in the face and saying "You don't need that free speech, freedom of assembly, right to be free of religion based discrimination, and right to due process or civil redress anyway. Just leave those all at the door." While many will contend the Bill of Rights only covers the government; in general, operating in such a way that civil rights are violated openly merely because you are a private entity tends to be a newsworthy event, and invites scandal, protest, and worker discontent; which makes unionization all the more likely of an eventual outcome. The perspective that must be tacked on, is that laborer's have as much a right to organize themselves to deal with their employers (who have entire departments dedicated to making sure they can get the most work for the lowest price, and put up a substantial legal defense of it if neceossary). This has been necessary before, and may very well be again. >All you've done here is re-assert your negative emotional valence. Not given any sort of explanation for it. I asserted it's a free country, and just as the employee is free to not unionize if things seem to be going well enough, the company is free to run poor taste campaigns against labor organization which really accomplish nothing but making people realize that maybe a Union would be a good idea, and that you're telegraphing to your customer base (who may include Union members in other industrial verticals) just what your stance on worker's rights are. This means you are also free to suffer the consequences of said customer's getting miffed, and taking their business elsewhere on principle. Seems a bit odd to have to spell it out, but I appreciate your point, even if I do think you may need to pay a bit more attention to the forces at play in the world around you if you've not experienced any of the above yet.

by darawk 7y ago

salawat 7y ago

>So what? So people should consider the source, and what said source would prefer you not do with 700 dollars a year. There is something they have to gain by doing it, why else invest the man hours in the propaganda? Therefore, prudence cautions that one should look into whether or not this so called union may be a net positive thing to contribute to. >What perspective is that, exactly? There's no smear here. They're stating their view. No, they aren't. A statement of their actual view would be "Work with us! Cut out the middle man! Don't make it difficult for us to work with you by bothering with one of those fangled Unions (who can actually fact check us, and wield enough leverage where we might actually have to take you seriously). It's much easier on us to sweep your complaints under the rug, or make decisions effecting you if we don't have to deal with a collective bargaining unit!" Let's be honest, Delta gives not a care about the worker's entertainment habit. The message is clearly "don't unionize". Which is a fundamental right of the labor force. It's like a company looking you in the face and saying "You don't need that free speech, freedom of assembly, right to be free of religion based discrimination, and right to due process or civil redress anyway. Just leave those all at the door." While many will contend the Bill of Rights only covers the government; in general, operating in such a way that civil rights are violated openly merely because you are a private entity tends to be a newsworthy event, and invites scandal, protest, and worker discontent; which makes unionization all the more likely of an eventual outcome. The perspective that must be tacked on, is that laborer's have as much a right to organize themselves to deal with their employers (who have entire departments dedicated to making sure they can get the most work for the lowest price, and put up a substantial legal defense of it if neceossary). This has been necessary before, and may very well be again. >All you've done here is re-assert your negative emotional valence. Not given any sort of explanation for it. I asserted it's a free country, and just as the employee is free to not unionize if things seem to be going well enough, the company is free to run poor taste campaigns against labor organization which really accomplish nothing but making people realize that maybe a Union would be a good idea, and that you're telegraphing to your customer base (who may include Union members in other industrial verticals) just what your stance on worker's rights are. This means you are also free to suffer the consequences of said customer's getting miffed, and taking their business elsewhere on principle. Seems a bit odd to have to spell it out, but I appreciate your point, even if I do think you may need to pay a bit more attention to the forces at play in the world around you if you've not experienced any of the above yet.