4 ms·

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 e

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?
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        Please don't try to play rhetorical games like that. I asked that of you, since you implied that the workers at Amazon cannot determine what you have been able to discern. You are the person with 40 comments on this page repeating what is essentially the same comment.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I said that they should have all the information, regardless of whether they are able or not. That's not for me to judge. What more do you want? So, do you want them to have all the information or not?
        imwillofficial 6y ago
        Define “all the information.” Because they can’t have it all... So should I facilitate people working counter to my interests?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        All the information both sides want to offer. Are you in favor of coercing workers to watch anti-union propaganda without giving the union an equivalent opportunity to persuade them?

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?
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      Please don't try to play rhetorical games like that. I asked that of you, since you implied that the workers at Amazon cannot determine what you have been able to discern. You are the person with 40 comments on this page repeating what is essentially the same comment.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I said that they should have all the information, regardless of whether they are able or not. That's not for me to judge. What more do you want? So, do you want them to have all the information or not?
        imwillofficial 6y ago
        Define “all the information.” Because they can’t have it all... So should I facilitate people working counter to my interests?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        All the information both sides want to offer. Are you in favor of coercing workers to watch anti-union propaganda without giving the union an equivalent opportunity to persuade them?