6 ms·
> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? They don't have a right to combat them at all. Union organizing is literal
by CamTin 6y ago
> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them?
They don't have a right to combat them at all. Union organizing is literally a human right. Of course ownership doesn't want them -- the feelings of ownership are (supposed to be) irrelevant.
- dcgudeman 6y agoIt really amazes me what some people think qualifies for a “human right”. If you are paying someone and they are doing something you told them not to do isn’t it your “human right” to stop paying them? Where do you draw the line with what a “human right” is?
- PhasmaFelis 6y ago> If you are paying someone and they are doing something you told them not to do isn’t it your “human right” to stop paying them? Obviously not. Real-world cases in point: * Firing people for being queer * Firing people for objecting to sexual harassment * Firing people for going to the bathroom
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoJust to add, most of the bathroom related ones are other employees complaining, not management. Management has to respond to that. This is because US culture insists on separate gender bathrooms.
- klyrs 6y agoIn the context of Amazon, though, performance quotas are inhumane, warehouses are huge, bathrooms are sparse, so employees aren't able to use the bathroom without taking performance demerits. So you get people passing out due to dehydration because they don't want to need the bathroom.
- burkaman 6y agoThink about it this way: both sides have the right to freely negotiate a contract, and then decide whether or not to enter into it. The CEO can't prevent the workers from talking to each other and figuring out what they think a fair contract would be, and the workers can't prevent the CEO from talking to other CEOs for the same reason. The specific human right is usually referred to as "freedom of association". You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
- throwawaysea 6y agoSure but if both sides have the human right to freely associate, then the employer should surely have the right to reject associating with the union at all. But that's not afforded to them under US law, per my understanding.
- burkaman 6y ago"Associate" has a specific definition here that's a little narrower than normal conversation. It refers to being a member of a group, not just being connected to it in some way. The CEO is free to not join the union if they don't want to. They can also quit if they don't want to deal with it at all.
- lacker 6y agoBy the same token, the company’s management is free to fight union creation, by sharing anti-union messages. Freedom of speech and assembly on both sides.
- CamTin 6y agoI think this is legally the case in most places, but IMO it is extremely unfair to give ownership acting through the corporate entity the same rights as employees, which are actual people.
- burkaman 6y agoAgreed, but in the American context, "fighting" union creation usually means a little more than just sharing informative messages.
- Frondo 6y agoWho do these people, the "United Nations", writing their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," think they are with declaring union organizing a human right? (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ - article 23) FWIW, You can pick out any other number of declarations of human rights and the right to form and join trade unions is in them. It's very widely considered to be a human right, not some fringe thing.
- Mauricebranagh 6y agoIts in the UN declaration of human rights and also if you think about it, in the Declaration of Independence. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Its in the UN declaration of human rights This is, legally speaking, a meaningless document.
- CamTin 6y agoSo is the Declaration of Independence. So is Matthew 5. What's your point?
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoHis point is it doesn't matter what you are "guaranteed" simply because if the real world was so black and white in regards to how laws were interpreted and followed, we wouldn't be having these arguments.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bildung 6y ago* Where do you draw the line with what a “human right” is?* By looking into the declaration of human rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoWhich is even more unenforceable than the 4th amendment.
- andybak 6y agoIt still has value even if enforcement is imperfect and selective.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoIn the real world, "rights" are not inalienable. I mean, who among the lower classes wrote the US constitution? Not a single one. That's because it was written by the bourgeoisie who were protecting their interests.
- busrf 6y agoYou are paying someone to work 18 hours a day, every day. They would like to not work 18 hours a day anymore, and stop working at a mere 12 hours; they are even willing to accept less pay. You fire them, because you clearly told them not to do that. They organize with other workers and demand the right for a 12 hour day, with this right enshrined in law and with penalties for employers who do not comply. You say “they are free to work for someone else or quit if they don’t like it!” Fast forward many decades later. This is a right you and I both enjoy. (This is also why we both have time to shitpost on HN.) If there was a serious proposal to take it away, you and I would probably be standing side by side on the street demanding our rights back. It’s easy to talk a big game about human rights when your rights aren’t on the line.
- TheCoelacanth 6y agoIf Mr. Bezos wants to operate a business in a country, he needs to follow its laws. If he doesn't like them, he can take his business somewhere else.
- missedthecue 6y agoEasier just to change the law.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y ago> They don't have a right to combat them at all. This is simply not true. Amazon have a right to argue against unionisation in order to combat it.