4 ms·

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

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.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      So, you're in favor of employers being able to threaten their employees' survival in order to get what they want? Because that's de facto what happens. Sure, it's not the anarcho-capitalist definition of "coercion," but that's a ridiculous concept, anyway.
      - SllX 6y ago
        I’ve been in that position. If you work for someone that is threatening your livelihood, it’s time to start looking somewhere else for a new job, and renegotiating the terms of your employment. One of the things my first boss told me at my interview was: if you want to just be a body, you can be a body and there is plenty of work out there for bodies. How well represented you are really depends on how much you step up for yourself. Unionizing is a legitimate option for private sector employees, but they don’t need to expend their employer’s resources to accomplish it. If you view everyone else around you as just an easily programmed droid, then sure, fairness might matter. I don’t see people that way: they’re free agents and they can make their own choices. Not choosing to unionize is also a legitimate choice, and this vote could go either way.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Why do I have to assume everyone's a preprogrammed droid in order to want everyone to have a fair choice? Why wouldn't you rather just be presented with a fair choice to begin with? Should I have to question your motives whenever you offer me a choice between A or B? Your M.O. just seems like it would have you bouncing from job to job forever, until you exhaust the labor market, because, if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that if there's a power imbalance in an economic relationship, it will eventually be exploited for profit. To not exploit it would be economically irrational. And, to be clear, if the workers did freely choose not to unionize, after being presented with all the information on the same terms by both sides, good on them. That's a decision I respect. But, back to the actual point, why would you support the employer's right to de facto coerce employees in any way?
        6y ago

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.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    So, you're in favor of employers being able to threaten their employees' survival in order to get what they want? Because that's de facto what happens. Sure, it's not the anarcho-capitalist definition of "coercion," but that's a ridiculous concept, anyway.
    - SllX 6y ago
      I’ve been in that position. If you work for someone that is threatening your livelihood, it’s time to start looking somewhere else for a new job, and renegotiating the terms of your employment. One of the things my first boss told me at my interview was: if you want to just be a body, you can be a body and there is plenty of work out there for bodies. How well represented you are really depends on how much you step up for yourself. Unionizing is a legitimate option for private sector employees, but they don’t need to expend their employer’s resources to accomplish it. If you view everyone else around you as just an easily programmed droid, then sure, fairness might matter. I don’t see people that way: they’re free agents and they can make their own choices. Not choosing to unionize is also a legitimate choice, and this vote could go either way.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Why do I have to assume everyone's a preprogrammed droid in order to want everyone to have a fair choice? Why wouldn't you rather just be presented with a fair choice to begin with? Should I have to question your motives whenever you offer me a choice between A or B? Your M.O. just seems like it would have you bouncing from job to job forever, until you exhaust the labor market, because, if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that if there's a power imbalance in an economic relationship, it will eventually be exploited for profit. To not exploit it would be economically irrational. And, to be clear, if the workers did freely choose not to unionize, after being presented with all the information on the same terms by both sides, good on them. That's a decision I respect. But, back to the actual point, why would you support the employer's right to de facto coerce employees in any way?
        6y ago