4 ms·

I'm not sure I follow your logic. You present as evidence that we see no unions forming. Wouldn't that equally well support the hypothesis that there is union b

I'm not sure I follow your logic. You present as evidence that we see no unions forming. Wouldn't that equally well support the hypothesis that there is union busting behavior going on (to great success)? You are also ignoring that Google is enlisting a union-busting consulting firm[1]. This seems like furher evidence that union-busting is happening. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-consultant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...

ggggtez 7y ago
Not so. I don't present it as evidence, but I present it as a startling lack of evidence. Take the other news story in the news today, about someone at Google who made a notification about something to do with labor organizing I guess. I read the blog post and the news article, and I'm just not convinced by the union-busting argument. I keep seeing things like "X behavior is like posting a flyer on a public bulletin board". So where are the articles talking about people getting fired for actually putting up flyers on a public bulletin board? That's the thing I don't understand. There is a startling lack of unionizing going on in these supposed cases of union busting. To bring it back to this article, do I think the ruling is bad? Yeah I do. I disagree with the ruling a lot. Maybe there should be some kind of organization where workers could fight against that sort of thing... Hmmm...