6 ms·

Huh? Don't roads exist to facilitate vehicle transportation? If you need to do construction in order to make roads, what exactly is the point of them? I don't

Huh? Don't roads exist to facilitate vehicle transportation? If you need to do construction in order to make roads, what exactly is the point of them? I don't understand what your thinking here is. You're comparing the expected results of a thing existing with possible actions to facilitate conditions for that thing to exist. Why are these supposed to be somehow equivalent or comparable?

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think their point is that the American form of unionization is bunk. If you look to Europe workers are free to choose between many associations of voluntary unions which advocate for their specific interests. They are not forced to have a single representative for negotiations with their employer and are free to abstain from of participation as well.Much like the American voting system and American Congress, unions are winner take all majority rule. If you are in the minority of a union it may not advocate for your interest and you have no option to turn to.
- pjc50 6y ago
  The term for this is "closed shop". I've no idea why the US unions tend to be closed-shop, possibly because the high antagonism from employers makes it the only stable solution.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    The Taft-Hartley Act banned closed shops in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States It's literally the first line of that section.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      So why are so many people in this thread complaining about "having" to join a union?
      - opencl 6y ago
        The law bans employers from requiring people to be union members before they are hired. In states without right to work laws it is still legal to require employees to join the union after being hired.
        pjc50 6y ago
        So it's still a closed shop in practice? Was the only point of passing this law to confuse the issue?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        No. It's legal to require non members to pay an agency fee for the services the union is required to provide them.[1] [1] https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-member...
      - makomk 6y ago
        On paper, that means you don't have to join the union in order to get a job - just pay the union fees and work under the union contract (which is to say, almost all the downsides of joining but without any actual say in how the union is run). In practice, I think people who do this tend to get blacklisted by the union and have trouble getting jobs in future. I know the Hollywood unions in particular are very aggressive and public about threatening anyone who takes that option with blacklisting, and there are zero consequences for them for doing this.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        As a counterpoint, in my unionized school district, both options were quite popular and you didn't need to pay the full dues, only like 70%.
- foerbert 6y ago
  I don't see how that could be their point. They said nothing about multiple unions, nor is the article in any way related to it.
- mola 6y ago
  American mentality embraces zero sum game as the only possibilty, so the end game is usually bad but stable results.
fastball 6y ago
I guess I don't understand the bad behavior here. Tesla is allowed to not give anything they want to unionized workers. If you want to force companies to capitulate to unions, cut out the middleman and just force companies to give things directly to workers.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  The workers aren’t unionized yet. What the law is clear about, is that you’re not allowed to threaten workers for the act of trying to unionize the workplace.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    “We give our workers stock options now. We do not expect to do so under a union contract.” I don’t see that as “threatening workers”, but as a reasonable communication between employer and employees and a proper counterbalance against union claims that the workers will be better off if they unionize. “We give our workers stock options now. No other automaker working under a union contract does so.” is something that I don't think anyone could reasonably find as threatening (even I don't think the first one is either, some may). As an employee, I benefit from more information from both sides of the issue rather than having the union organizers be able to communicate unfettered and the company communications be restricted from pointing out any possible or foreseeable downsides.
    - foerbert 6y ago
      That's real easy to say when there isn't a union yet. And the company has zero incentive to give any kind of realistic and useful information in this situation. They can say whatever they want, and it doesn't mean anything. They don't even know what the non-existent union will want or care about later, so how they can have any accurate expectations even if they are perfectly rational and honest. The only purpose these statements serve is to try to prevent unionization. Part of why this is not a simple "both sides" issue is because we're talking about one side that exists and one side that might one day exist. The non-extant union can't weigh in on company statements or make any statements of their own. So these rules exist to help ensure the workers are not unduly influenced by the company when they consider making that union finally exist. I don't see a problem with this.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think their point is that the American form of unionization is bunk. If you look to Europe workers are free to choose between many associations of voluntary unions which advocate for their specific interests. They are not forced to have a single representative for negotiations with their employer and are free to abstain from of participation as well.Much like the American voting system and American Congress, unions are winner take all majority rule. If you are in the minority of a union it may not advocate for your interest and you have no option to turn to.

pjc50 6y ago
The term for this is "closed shop". I've no idea why the US unions tend to be closed-shop, possibly because the high antagonism from employers makes it the only stable solution.
- Frondo 6y ago
  The Taft-Hartley Act banned closed shops in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States It's literally the first line of that section.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    So why are so many people in this thread complaining about "having" to join a union?
    - opencl 6y ago
      The law bans employers from requiring people to be union members before they are hired. In states without right to work laws it is still legal to require employees to join the union after being hired.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        So it's still a closed shop in practice? Was the only point of passing this law to confuse the issue?
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        No. It's legal to require non members to pay an agency fee for the services the union is required to provide them.[1] [1] https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-member...
    - makomk 6y ago
      On paper, that means you don't have to join the union in order to get a job - just pay the union fees and work under the union contract (which is to say, almost all the downsides of joining but without any actual say in how the union is run). In practice, I think people who do this tend to get blacklisted by the union and have trouble getting jobs in future. I know the Hollywood unions in particular are very aggressive and public about threatening anyone who takes that option with blacklisting, and there are zero consequences for them for doing this.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        As a counterpoint, in my unionized school district, both options were quite popular and you didn't need to pay the full dues, only like 70%.
foerbert 6y ago
I don't see how that could be their point. They said nothing about multiple unions, nor is the article in any way related to it.
mola 6y ago
American mentality embraces zero sum game as the only possibilty, so the end game is usually bad but stable results.

fastball 6y ago

I guess I don't understand the bad behavior here. Tesla is allowed to not give anything they want to unionized workers. If you want to force companies to capitulate to unions, cut out the middleman and just force companies to give things directly to workers.

URSpider94 6y ago
The workers aren’t unionized yet. What the law is clear about, is that you’re not allowed to threaten workers for the act of trying to unionize the workplace.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  “We give our workers stock options now. We do not expect to do so under a union contract.” I don’t see that as “threatening workers”, but as a reasonable communication between employer and employees and a proper counterbalance against union claims that the workers will be better off if they unionize. “We give our workers stock options now. No other automaker working under a union contract does so.” is something that I don't think anyone could reasonably find as threatening (even I don't think the first one is either, some may). As an employee, I benefit from more information from both sides of the issue rather than having the union organizers be able to communicate unfettered and the company communications be restricted from pointing out any possible or foreseeable downsides.
  - foerbert 6y ago
    That's real easy to say when there isn't a union yet. And the company has zero incentive to give any kind of realistic and useful information in this situation. They can say whatever they want, and it doesn't mean anything. They don't even know what the non-existent union will want or care about later, so how they can have any accurate expectations even if they are perfectly rational and honest. The only purpose these statements serve is to try to prevent unionization. Part of why this is not a simple "both sides" issue is because we're talking about one side that exists and one side that might one day exist. The non-extant union can't weigh in on company statements or make any statements of their own. So these rules exist to help ensure the workers are not unduly influenced by the company when they consider making that union finally exist. I don't see a problem with this.