3 ms·

Or they are afraid of retaliation and losing their jobs? Amazon hits them with anti-union propaganda from day one. We’ve seen Walmart close locations that plan

Or they are afraid of retaliation and losing their jobs? Amazon hits them with anti-union propaganda from day one. We’ve seen Walmart close locations that plan to unionize. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-activism/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores...

trasz 4y ago
This could be easily fixed by introducing a law forcing companies to give out half of company’s shares to the union. The only reason this doesn’t happen is political - peoples votes don’t matter, what matters is company lobbying.
- mmcdermott 4y ago
  Confiscating ownership of 50% of a company seems like a pretty big line to cross. I don't think it's purely about political imaging. That would have all kinds of ripple effects, both in terms of the direct results of doing it and of the indirect results of setting the precedent.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Questioning pope’s infallibility used to be a pretty big line too, and now we know it was all just bluff; there was never a proper reason not to cross it. To put it differently: the law must keep up with times. The law we have wasn’t designed for the business models we have today, from Facebook to Uber.
- vanjajaja1 4y ago
  This line of thinking is so out of the ordinary for me. I'm sure you could fix one side of the equation by forcefully taking from the other... but on what ethical grounds?
  - trasz 4y ago
    Ethically the company is not a human, and thus doesn’t have any inherent rights. The only rights it can have are those that were granted to benefit society - or because of corruption/lobbying.
- WillAdams 4y ago
  Amazon used to provide one unit of stock to each full-time employee --- folks gave that up for a higher base salary and other compensation. Kind of silly to be complaining that the employees don't own enough of the company when they gave that ownership up as a bargaining position.
  - stewartmcgown 4y ago
    employees are able to collectively bargain at any time for better compensation though, that's the point of a union

trasz 4y ago

This could be easily fixed by introducing a law forcing companies to give out half of company’s shares to the union. The only reason this doesn’t happen is political - peoples votes don’t matter, what matters is company lobbying.

mmcdermott 4y ago
Confiscating ownership of 50% of a company seems like a pretty big line to cross. I don't think it's purely about political imaging. That would have all kinds of ripple effects, both in terms of the direct results of doing it and of the indirect results of setting the precedent.
- trasz 4y ago
  Questioning pope’s infallibility used to be a pretty big line too, and now we know it was all just bluff; there was never a proper reason not to cross it. To put it differently: the law must keep up with times. The law we have wasn’t designed for the business models we have today, from Facebook to Uber.
vanjajaja1 4y ago
This line of thinking is so out of the ordinary for me. I'm sure you could fix one side of the equation by forcefully taking from the other... but on what ethical grounds?
- trasz 4y ago
  Ethically the company is not a human, and thus doesn’t have any inherent rights. The only rights it can have are those that were granted to benefit society - or because of corruption/lobbying.
WillAdams 4y ago
Amazon used to provide one unit of stock to each full-time employee --- folks gave that up for a higher base salary and other compensation. Kind of silly to be complaining that the employees don't own enough of the company when they gave that ownership up as a bargaining position.
- stewartmcgown 4y ago
  employees are able to collectively bargain at any time for better compensation though, that's the point of a union