5 ms·

Maybe those information sessions should be allowed, but require the company to give equal speaking to union representatives.

pmiller2 6y ago
That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opinion down peoples' throats. Make them invite in a union rep and give them equal time, and I'd be good with it.
- SllX 6y ago
  Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year. Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year. It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking. Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... ) Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.
    - SllX 6y ago
      Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all. That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down. Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        No, it wouldn't. They could still host sessions outside of work, and make them truly voluntary. There is no particular reason Amazon must speak their message in their house, under threat of dismissal, except to coerce employees into listening.
        SllX 6y ago
        When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages, but there isn’t a legal problem with it. Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        > When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. This is correct. The employer's ability to de facto force someone to sit and listen to a prescribed message, while the union doesn't have the same ability is precisely why either both sides should have that power, or neither. > Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages.... Are you against fairness? > Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon. Or are you somehow missing or overlooking the fact that I'm literally proposing a change to what the law is?
        SllX 6y ago
        Not missing or overlooking it; disagreeing with your proposed change to the law. I’m against prescribed fairness written into statute.
imwillofficial 6y ago
And why should an employer pay for something against their interests?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Because they shouldn't be able to abuse the power asymmetry in the employer / employee relationship to advocate for their position, while denying the union an equal opportunity. Alternatively, they don't have to pay for it. They can choose to just not have the "information" sessions.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. As an employer, if I’m paying I can do whatever I want within the law. Who says a third party acting against my interests should get any air time at all?
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      That depends. Are you in favor of coercively using your influence over your employees to get what you want, or would you rather have them have all the information and arguments on both sides?
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        Are you saying that the employees of Amazon are not intellectually capable to determine when they are being told an untruth? How are you able to determine, when they are not?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        No, I'm saying they should see all the information both sides have. Are you in favor of suppressing information on either side?
        6y ago
wiredone 6y ago
To be fair, they’ve been “having their time” for months, potentially years. Here’s the million dollar question: do we believe that a union is going to make it easier for a delivery driver in Idaho to find a bathroom?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  How long has Amazon "had their time?"
- tyingq 6y ago
  "do we believe that a union is going to make it easier for a delivery driver in Idaho to find a bathroom?" I believe they would put in a grievance process that makes it painful for Amazon to set unrealistic quotas, etc, yes. Separate from whether there's a bathroom in a rural area, if that's what you mean.
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago
    Why not require Amazon to build bathrooms every 2 miles. Everything is possible under socialism. Just command it.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      Unions are socialism?
      - psychiatrist24 6y ago
        OK fair enough - workers uniting to have better negotiating power are not automatically socialism. In my country the special legal protections for unions are socialism (special worker rights in general are). And so is the claim that workers are being exploited and employers have all the power and so on. That's straight from the socialist propaganda booklets.

pmiller2 6y ago

That would be fair. When I said "this practice should be banned," I meant the way it is now, where the employer gets to abuse their position to shove their opinion down peoples' throats. Make them invite in a union rep and give them equal time, and I'd be good with it.

SllX 6y ago
Well about that. There is presently a case before SCOTUS regarding a law in California that allows union organizers to go onto private farm property and sell their message to the workers there if the workers quarters are not accessible to organizers otherwise up to some defined amount of time for up to some defined amount of days out of the year. Google tells me 3 hours a day, 120 days a year. It is being argued by the property owner’s that this is a taking. Not even a regulatory taking, just a straight up taking. Here we go: Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cedar-point-nurs... ) Oral arguments were heard last Monday. Advisory Opinions (a podcast) had a pretty good take on the oral arguments, but SCOTUS hasn’t put out an opinion yet.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  If that's the way it falls, then ban all "information sessions" during work hours altogether. I'm fine either way.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Arguably that would infringe on Amazon’s own First Amendment interest. Their house after all. That said I have no idea how this case is going to turn out. I’m not sure if they would have been better off arguing it was a regulatory taking because there was some indication they could have narrowly won that. SCOTUS may not issue an opinion, but punt this back down. Arguing that it was a taking was a bold move. I can see it, but that is a tough argument to make and win on.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      No, it wouldn't. They could still host sessions outside of work, and make them truly voluntary. There is no particular reason Amazon must speak their message in their house, under threat of dismissal, except to coerce employees into listening.
      - SllX 6y ago
        When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages, but there isn’t a legal problem with it. Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        > When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the agreement. This is correct. The employer's ability to de facto force someone to sit and listen to a prescribed message, while the union doesn't have the same ability is precisely why either both sides should have that power, or neither. > Certainly it would be fairer to the union organizers for Amazon to not spend work time on anti-union messages.... Are you against fairness? > Amazon’s house, Amazon’s choice. The union has to work with the time people are willing to give them outside of the time they sell to Amazon. Or are you somehow missing or overlooking the fact that I'm literally proposing a change to what the law is?
        SllX 6y ago
        Not missing or overlooking it; disagreeing with your proposed change to the law. I’m against prescribed fairness written into statute.

imwillofficial 6y ago

And why should an employer pay for something against their interests?

pmiller2 6y ago
Because they shouldn't be able to abuse the power asymmetry in the employer / employee relationship to advocate for their position, while denying the union an equal opportunity. Alternatively, they don't have to pay for it. They can choose to just not have the "information" sessions.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. As an employer, if I’m paying I can do whatever I want within the law. Who says a third party acting against my interests should get any air time at all?
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That depends. Are you in favor of coercively using your influence over your employees to get what you want, or would you rather have them have all the information and arguments on both sides?
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      Are you saying that the employees of Amazon are not intellectually capable to determine when they are being told an untruth? How are you able to determine, when they are not?
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        No, I'm saying they should see all the information both sides have. Are you in favor of suppressing information on either side?
        6y ago

wiredone 6y ago

To be fair, they’ve been “having their time” for months, potentially years. Here’s the million dollar question: do we believe that a union is going to make it easier for a delivery driver in Idaho to find a bathroom?

pmiller2 6y ago
How long has Amazon "had their time?"
tyingq 6y ago
"do we believe that a union is going to make it easier for a delivery driver in Idaho to find a bathroom?" I believe they would put in a grievance process that makes it painful for Amazon to set unrealistic quotas, etc, yes. Separate from whether there's a bathroom in a rural area, if that's what you mean.
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  Why not require Amazon to build bathrooms every 2 miles. Everything is possible under socialism. Just command it.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Unions are socialism?
    - psychiatrist24 6y ago
      OK fair enough - workers uniting to have better negotiating power are not automatically socialism. In my country the special legal protections for unions are socialism (special worker rights in general are). And so is the claim that workers are being exploited and employers have all the power and so on. That's straight from the socialist propaganda booklets.