3 ms·

I know they're not. I am literally arguing that if they're going to sit there and say "nice job you've got there... wouldn't it be too bad if you lost it," and

I know they're not. I am literally arguing that if they're going to sit there and say "nice job you've got there... wouldn't it be too bad if you lost it," and then "invite" you to a "mandatory information session," which you can "freely" choose not to attend, then the union should get equal time at this session.

gruez 6y ago
>then the union should get equal time at this session. Why? They're not footing the bill. I'd agree with giving the union the option to do this, if they can compensate amazon equal to the hourly wage that the workers are paid, but I doubt labor unions have enough of a bankroll to make this viable.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  They're also not literally threatening the employees' jobs if they don't attend.
  - meddlepal 6y ago
    It's not a threat. It literally has to be mandatory since the decision will have large impacts on the current employees and the company. Employees need to know what they are voting on. It's not as simple as union good, company bad and you're being disingenuous painting it as such.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Yes, they need to know what's being voted on. But that's not the purpose of company-sponsored, mandatory "information" sessions. The purpose is to coerce employees into sitting down and listening to anti-union propaganda, and you know it. Would you be in favor of the union being able to hold a mandatory information session, also under threat of dismissal? Why or why not?
psychiatrist24 6y ago
How can it be a "mandatory session" that people can freely choose not to attend? That's impossible.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  It's "mandatory" if they want to keep their jobs, but they can "freely" choose to quit. Or, so the party line goes. It's also "mandatory" that you drive on the correct side of the road, but you can "freely" choose not to, and risk arrest, injury, or death.
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago
    But do they officially make the claim that they would fire anybody who doesn't attend? I personally would want to fire anybody who wants to form a union, if I was in the situation. Why should anybody be forced to employ somebody who wants to make trouble in their organization?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Yes. They officially used the word "mandatory."

gruez 6y ago

>then the union should get equal time at this session. Why? They're not footing the bill. I'd agree with giving the union the option to do this, if they can compensate amazon equal to the hourly wage that the workers are paid, but I doubt labor unions have enough of a bankroll to make this viable.

pmiller2 6y ago
They're also not literally threatening the employees' jobs if they don't attend.
- meddlepal 6y ago
  It's not a threat. It literally has to be mandatory since the decision will have large impacts on the current employees and the company. Employees need to know what they are voting on. It's not as simple as union good, company bad and you're being disingenuous painting it as such.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Yes, they need to know what's being voted on. But that's not the purpose of company-sponsored, mandatory "information" sessions. The purpose is to coerce employees into sitting down and listening to anti-union propaganda, and you know it. Would you be in favor of the union being able to hold a mandatory information session, also under threat of dismissal? Why or why not?

psychiatrist24 6y ago

How can it be a "mandatory session" that people can freely choose not to attend? That's impossible.

pmiller2 6y ago
It's "mandatory" if they want to keep their jobs, but they can "freely" choose to quit. Or, so the party line goes. It's also "mandatory" that you drive on the correct side of the road, but you can "freely" choose not to, and risk arrest, injury, or death.
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  But do they officially make the claim that they would fire anybody who doesn't attend? I personally would want to fire anybody who wants to form a union, if I was in the situation. Why should anybody be forced to employ somebody who wants to make trouble in their organization?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Yes. They officially used the word "mandatory."