5 ms·
1- Yes, most of us on the pro-labor side consider any effort to dissuade people from joining a union "union busting" generally. They're trying to "bust" the uni
by moate 4y ago
1- Yes, most of us on the pro-labor side consider any effort to dissuade people from joining a union "union busting" generally. They're trying to "bust" the union by stopping people from joining. This isn't misrepresentative semantics, this is saying they oppose the union by their actions. The literal definition of union busting is "the activity of reducing or destroying the power of a trade union or trade unions". So yes, literally anything other than immediately embracing a union by management is, by definition, "union busting".
2- The first paragraph of the article says that not only did Apple not immediately embrace the unionization of their labor force, but according to the filing, violated US Labor law. I can accept this weird pro-management twisting of the definition of "union busting" to exclude legal opposition, but I do not understand how anyone in good faith can say that illegal union opposition techniques don't fit a personal definition of "union busting". You can argue that the investigation may determine otherwise, but the title does say "alleges" to hedge that.
- randerp 4y agonot familiar with the details of organizing so there might be some naïvety here. are you saying it is a complete one way street? unions can not be opposed under any circumstances? if some employees meet to discuss the power of "individual agency" that is considered union busting? there can be no competing ideologies?
- moate 4y agoThere is a binary: Pro-union, anti-union. That's it. It's that simple. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to oppose unions, either ideologically or legally. If a jobsite is trying to organize, employees discussing "individual agency" is fine. But there are only 2 competing ideologies "union" or "no union". There are plenty of people who would accept the viewpoint that members of the labor unit cannot themselves engage in "union busting" because they aren't part of the management group (there would also be hardliners who feel that all people of all levels of the organization that undermine the union are attempting to union bust, myself among them, but I'm fine pointing out that there is another viewpoint) That said, any action that an employer takes to prevent unionization, legal or illegal, fun or boring, is engaging in "union busting". They have ways in which they are legally allowed to do this, but any attempt to describe anti-unionizations efforts taken by management as somehow not being "union busting" is disingenuous based on the definition of the term.
- randerp 4y agohmm. im not a fan of zero sum, "with us or against us" mentality in general, i would guess this could border on coercion, along with hostility towards non union employees (scabs). for example, someone not personally against organizing but who declines union membership is seen as an enemy with this mentality, a gross mischaracterization id say.
- robonerd 4y agoI've 'learned' that there are always two kinds of workers; those who agree with the union, and those who've been brainwashed. There is never room for those who simply have another opinion.
- missedthecue 4y agoYou think it's logically impossible for anyone to have a good faith reason not to support unionization?
- robonerd 4y ago""Learned""
- tqi 4y ago> There is a binary: Pro-union, anti-union. That's it. It's that simple. ...and "anti-union" = "union busting"?
- daniel-cussen 4y agoOne weakness in the discourse is assuming a union will solve all your problems, where as really it will only solve half your problems at work.