3 ms·
“It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers” is probably the point that was being made. It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers; it shouldn’t be dras
by chipotle_coyote 4y ago
“It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers” is probably the point that was being made. It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers; it shouldn’t be drastic for a union—or in this case, a union organizing effort—to have lawyers as well.
- tiffanyh 4y agoIf you feel like you have lawyer-up just to go to work, that’s probably a signal you shouldn’t be working there.
- roguecoder 4y agoIf one party doesn't have a lawyer look over legal contracts they are signing and the other party does, all they are doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage in a business relationship. I see why that is advantageous for companies that get to employ workers at a disadvantage. I don't understand why it would be good for workers.
- jacobolus 4y agoSo in other words companies should pay teams of legal experts to fight against workers’ interests, but if workers want to hire an expert of their own to prevent themselves from being exploited they “shouldn’t be working there”?
- skybrian 4y agoIt depends what you mean by "lawyer up." Having a lawyer look at any contracts you sign isn't a bad idea. (Not that I've done it.)