3 ms·

You have to understand that it's as close to a threat as they can legally write, likely after significant consultation with an anti-union consultant. And much o

You have to understand that it's as close to a threat as they can legally write, likely after significant consultation with an anti-union consultant. And much of it is an outright lie: If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
It's not in the same universe as a threat! The only negative thing the letter says is that unionizing will mean the CWA has exclusive representation rights. They don't suggest that there will be any negative effects on wages or employment practices or retention. I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty confident it's possible to continue a unionization drive indefinitely or drop it and restart it later. Restrictions come into play only at later steps in the process; until the CWA gets enough union authorization cards to petition for an election or ask for voluntary recognition, there's no deadlines or cooldown periods involved.
ozzythecat 5y ago
I don’t see how it’s a “threat” or anywhere near a threat. Many people will sign a document because someone else says, “it’s good for you”. It’s good to know that you’re signing a legally binding document. >If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way. That’s besides the point. Should people sign a document without knowing it’s legally binding or understanding what it entails, simply because the union vote might not happen again later? Btw your post makes it sound as if the company is inherently evil or trying to screw its workers. Many capitalist businesses don’t want a union. And many unions are actually not effective. I’m not in favor nor against this unionization, but there’s a clear bias here and attempt to manufacture outrage.
- assbuttbuttass 5y ago
  > Many capitalist businesses don't want a union. understatement of the year
- brightstep 5y ago
  Every decision a company makes is about maximizing profit. that necessarily means saving on labor costs, which means firing people, paying as little as possible, extracting unpaid overtime (e.g. "crunch"), etc. That being the case, most every decision made by a company is about screwing its workers. You can argue about whether that's "evil", but it's an economic fact.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    How amazing is it that I have served on the ELT for multiple companies and not once in a single meeting was it ever discussed how we could screw over the folks that worked for us?

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

It's not in the same universe as a threat! The only negative thing the letter says is that unionizing will mean the CWA has exclusive representation rights. They don't suggest that there will be any negative effects on wages or employment practices or retention. I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty confident it's possible to continue a unionization drive indefinitely or drop it and restart it later. Restrictions come into play only at later steps in the process; until the CWA gets enough union authorization cards to petition for an election or ask for voluntary recognition, there's no deadlines or cooldown periods involved.

ozzythecat 5y ago

I don’t see how it’s a “threat” or anywhere near a threat. Many people will sign a document because someone else says, “it’s good for you”. It’s good to know that you’re signing a legally binding document. >If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way. That’s besides the point. Should people sign a document without knowing it’s legally binding or understanding what it entails, simply because the union vote might not happen again later? Btw your post makes it sound as if the company is inherently evil or trying to screw its workers. Many capitalist businesses don’t want a union. And many unions are actually not effective. I’m not in favor nor against this unionization, but there’s a clear bias here and attempt to manufacture outrage.

assbuttbuttass 5y ago
> Many capitalist businesses don't want a union. understatement of the year
brightstep 5y ago
Every decision a company makes is about maximizing profit. that necessarily means saving on labor costs, which means firing people, paying as little as possible, extracting unpaid overtime (e.g. "crunch"), etc. That being the case, most every decision made by a company is about screwing its workers. You can argue about whether that's "evil", but it's an economic fact.
- kcplate 5y ago
  How amazing is it that I have served on the ELT for multiple companies and not once in a single meeting was it ever discussed how we could screw over the folks that worked for us?