3 ms·
No absolutely the government should enforce legal agreements via the legal system. But that's not what this is suggesting, right? This is suggesting the govern
by fastball 6y ago
No absolutely the government should enforce legal agreements via the legal system.
But that's not what this is suggesting, right? This is suggesting the government should treat unions preferentially, not equitably.
- tsimionescu 6y agoNo, this is suggesting that government should enforce workers' rights to decide freely if they want to unionize. Companies routinely skirt this right by taking explicit anti-unionization efforts, and there are many firms specializing in this.
- fastball 6y agoWhat is required for "free" decision-making?
- tsimionescu 6y agoMaking sure no one is strong arming or threatening, harassing, or bribing the ones who have to make that decision, nor thought leaders among them.
- fastball 6y agoYes, I would say that is kinda a given. Don't think Elon's tweet counts as any of these things though.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> This is suggesting the government should treat unions preferentially, not equitably. Equity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see how this law is treating unions preferentially, and am interested in how you distinguish it with the aforementioned minority shareholder protections.
- fastball 6y agoThe idea here seems to be that unions can interfere with the running of a business however they want (strikes, etc), but businesses should not be allowed to "interfere" with the formation of union, where "interfere" seems to be a very low bar in terms of what is unacceptable. When I say equitable treatment, I'm looking for symmetry, and I'm not seeing it here.
- cma 6y agoSeems like you are saying owners of small businesses can get together and collude under a combined business, with shares and voting, but individual workers must be atomized or if they do try to coordinate to bargain against the businesses, they get no similar help to do so as the shareholders get.