6 ms·

> I, for one, can’t see anything particularly wrong with this tweet and don’t really care what the law says you really don't see the difference between just an

> I, for one, can’t see anything particularly wrong with this tweet and don’t really care what the law says you really don't see the difference between just anyone saying this and the employer saying this? what you personally feel about unions is irrelevant; there is a very clear imposition of power over the employee here and manifestly why the laws are as strict as they are. just so no one willfully misconstrues what i'm saying: what's at issue here is that the employee's continued employment is contingent on their employer's opinion of them hence this is tantamount to an overt threat. saying you don't see anything wrong with what he said is like saying you see anything wrong with a teacher implying quid pro quo for sexual favors from students.

temp8964 6y ago
Is quid pro quo for sexual favors from students legal? Is change payment schedule after unionization legal?
- seoaeu 6y ago
  Neither is legal, I'm not sure what your point is?
  - temp8964 6y ago
    No. The second is legal.
    - seoaeu 6y ago
      Cutting workers' pay as retaliation for unionizing is illegal.
      - temp8964 6y ago
        It is not retaliation at all. Unionization changes how the company works, payment can be changed accordingly.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/Pages/preventunionorganization.aspx https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/hr-... > The acronym TIPS can help remind employers not to: > * Threaten—never threaten to retaliate against employees by terminating them or reducing pay or benefits. > * Interrogate—do not interrogate employees about their activities or activities of co-workers. > * Promise—do not promise anything to employees, such as promotio ns or benefits, in exchange for not supporting the union. > * Surveillance/Spying—never spy on union activities.
        temp8964 6y ago
        The tweet didn't do any of those.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Repeatedly asserting that doesn’t make it true.
    - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
      There's a list a mile long of court cases at all federal levels that disagree with you. So I'm just curious according to what definition of legal do you think it's legal?
brokenkebab 6y ago
>there is a very clear imposition of power over the employee here Hm, where is this imposition of power? I see what could be clearly called bargaining. Btw, my apologies if this sounds too harsh, but comparing it to "sexual favors" not only absolutely meaningless, but probably qualifies as a dirty emotional trick aimed at ungrounded shaming of those who disagree with you.
- anon_tor_12345 6y ago
  >Hm, where is this imposition of power? I see what could be clearly called bargaining. Isn't this ironic? The whole point of a union is collective bargaining power; individual employees do not have any bargaining power so how exactly is musk engaging in bargaining? With whom is he bargaining? >but comparing it to "sexual favors" not only absolutely meaningless, They're both examples of coercion by someone with power over a subordinate, they both involve trading your body (in the form of labor or sex) for money (or some sort of compensation), and they're both generally recognized as exploitative. These are three obvious features that make them analogous propositions.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > They're both examples of coercion by someone with power over a subordinate, No, the teacher is (indirectly) your employee and it doesn't matter. If they threaten to withhold a grade you've earned it's clearly criminal, regardless of the threat used. > they both involve trading your body (in the form of labor or sex) for money (or some sort of compensation) If prostitution and a job are the same then it means prostitution isn't bad. But maybe your equivalency is wrong. > they're both generally recognized as exploitative I bet you'd say that letting your starve by not hiring you would be exploitative too.
    - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
      literally every single rebuttal you've written here is a red herring.
      - 6y ago
colechristensen 6y ago
The union is trying to exercise power as well, I have no problem with Elon saying that, and that it is a far cry from... actual anti union tactics. Preventing propaganda campaigns, threats, lies, etc shouldn’t be lumped in with making a straightforward argument against unions — when that point is reached i think union power has gotten too strong and i no longer support it.

temp8964 6y ago

Is quid pro quo for sexual favors from students legal? Is change payment schedule after unionization legal?

seoaeu 6y ago
Neither is legal, I'm not sure what your point is?
- temp8964 6y ago
  No. The second is legal.
  - seoaeu 6y ago
    Cutting workers' pay as retaliation for unionizing is illegal.
    - temp8964 6y ago
      It is not retaliation at all. Unionization changes how the company works, payment can be changed accordingly.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/Pages/preventunionorganization.aspx https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/hr-... > The acronym TIPS can help remind employers not to: > * Threaten—never threaten to retaliate against employees by terminating them or reducing pay or benefits. > * Interrogate—do not interrogate employees about their activities or activities of co-workers. > * Promise—do not promise anything to employees, such as promotio ns or benefits, in exchange for not supporting the union. > * Surveillance/Spying—never spy on union activities.
        temp8964 6y ago
        The tweet didn't do any of those.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Repeatedly asserting that doesn’t make it true.
  - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
    There's a list a mile long of court cases at all federal levels that disagree with you. So I'm just curious according to what definition of legal do you think it's legal?

brokenkebab 6y ago

>there is a very clear imposition of power over the employee here Hm, where is this imposition of power? I see what could be clearly called bargaining. Btw, my apologies if this sounds too harsh, but comparing it to "sexual favors" not only absolutely meaningless, but probably qualifies as a dirty emotional trick aimed at ungrounded shaming of those who disagree with you.

anon_tor_12345 6y ago
>Hm, where is this imposition of power? I see what could be clearly called bargaining. Isn't this ironic? The whole point of a union is collective bargaining power; individual employees do not have any bargaining power so how exactly is musk engaging in bargaining? With whom is he bargaining? >but comparing it to "sexual favors" not only absolutely meaningless, They're both examples of coercion by someone with power over a subordinate, they both involve trading your body (in the form of labor or sex) for money (or some sort of compensation), and they're both generally recognized as exploitative. These are three obvious features that make them analogous propositions.
- Rule35 6y ago
  > They're both examples of coercion by someone with power over a subordinate, No, the teacher is (indirectly) your employee and it doesn't matter. If they threaten to withhold a grade you've earned it's clearly criminal, regardless of the threat used. > they both involve trading your body (in the form of labor or sex) for money (or some sort of compensation) If prostitution and a job are the same then it means prostitution isn't bad. But maybe your equivalency is wrong. > they're both generally recognized as exploitative I bet you'd say that letting your starve by not hiring you would be exploitative too.
  - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
    literally every single rebuttal you've written here is a red herring.
    - 6y ago

colechristensen 6y ago

The union is trying to exercise power as well, I have no problem with Elon saying that, and that it is a far cry from... actual anti union tactics. Preventing propaganda campaigns, threats, lies, etc shouldn’t be lumped in with making a straightforward argument against unions — when that point is reached i think union power has gotten too strong and i no longer support it.