3 ms·

> half of Amazon warehouse workers have been successfully propagandized into not supporting unionization Isn't it possible that they're adults who carefully co

> half of Amazon warehouse workers have been successfully propagandized into not supporting unionization Isn't it possible that they're adults who carefully considered the pluses and minuses and made their own decisions? Or are you saying a No vote could only be explained by denying any agency to the workers?

bluefirebrand 4y ago
> Isn't it possible that they're adults who carefully considered the pluses and minuses and made their own decisions? Of course it's possible. It just seems unlikely that they are carefully considering unbiased plusses and minuses, and instead have been fed an astonishing amount of propaganda designed to massively inflate the amount of minuses. You could argue that pro-union stuff is propaganda as well, but it doesn't come with an underlying threat of "we will try to fire you if you don't support us" that the anti-union stuff does.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  > been fed an astonishing amount of propaganda designed to massively inflate the amount of minuses Can you demonstrate that the pro-union forces are prevented from countering this propaganda, calling it "lies," etc.? In other words, maybe the workers heard the other side and didn't agree. Is that not allowed? As for the "underlying threat" -- how is it "underlying"? Aren't the union elections by secret ballot? Are you saying they're not really secret, or what?
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    > Can you demonstrate that the pro-union forces are prevented from countering this propaganda, calling it "lies," etc.? Easily. Companies do everything in their power to discourage pro unionizing talk from happening. They hire specialized union-busting PR firms whose job it is to spread anti-union rhetoric and prevent pro-union voices from being heard. The mere existence of these PR firms shows how much of an uphill battle any kind of pro union movement has. > In other words, maybe the workers heard the other side and didn't agree. Is that not allowed? Of course it's allowed. It's just not likely that it's actually happening this way. > As for the "underlying threat" -- how is it "underlying"? Aren't the union elections by secret ballot? Are you saying they're not really secret, or what? The election is only a tiny piece of the process of unionizing. What about people vocally supporting unionizing to their other coworkers? Or putting up pro-union posters on break room bulletin boards, or any other public pro union activity? You know, trying to get their voices heard and convince people to vote their way? In theory those people are protected by laws but it's easy enough for a company to fire them for "performance reasons" or whatever else. You're coming across incredibly naive to the reality of how cutthroat corporations really are. They don't play fair, especially not when someone threatens their control by talking about unionizing.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      When you've had Democratic control of the NLRB for at least 17 years since 1990, and their appointees bend over backwards to make it easy for the unions, there should have been a lot more union victories. I think you need to face up to the fact that most private sector workers nowadays see no value to it. "You're coming across incredibly naive" - maybe I just don't agree with you. Is that not allowed?
likeclockwork 4y ago
I don't think it's a coincidence that proles are getting juiced liked lemons in a country where everyone is taught to hate anything that even resembles socialism.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  > everyone is taught to hate anything that even resembles socialism And yet polls show that the younger population has a largely positive opinion of socialism, or at least, much more positive than it used to be. So is this "teaching" ineffective, or what?

bluefirebrand 4y ago

> Isn't it possible that they're adults who carefully considered the pluses and minuses and made their own decisions? Of course it's possible. It just seems unlikely that they are carefully considering unbiased plusses and minuses, and instead have been fed an astonishing amount of propaganda designed to massively inflate the amount of minuses. You could argue that pro-union stuff is propaganda as well, but it doesn't come with an underlying threat of "we will try to fire you if you don't support us" that the anti-union stuff does.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
> been fed an astonishing amount of propaganda designed to massively inflate the amount of minuses Can you demonstrate that the pro-union forces are prevented from countering this propaganda, calling it "lies," etc.? In other words, maybe the workers heard the other side and didn't agree. Is that not allowed? As for the "underlying threat" -- how is it "underlying"? Aren't the union elections by secret ballot? Are you saying they're not really secret, or what?
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  > Can you demonstrate that the pro-union forces are prevented from countering this propaganda, calling it "lies," etc.? Easily. Companies do everything in their power to discourage pro unionizing talk from happening. They hire specialized union-busting PR firms whose job it is to spread anti-union rhetoric and prevent pro-union voices from being heard. The mere existence of these PR firms shows how much of an uphill battle any kind of pro union movement has. > In other words, maybe the workers heard the other side and didn't agree. Is that not allowed? Of course it's allowed. It's just not likely that it's actually happening this way. > As for the "underlying threat" -- how is it "underlying"? Aren't the union elections by secret ballot? Are you saying they're not really secret, or what? The election is only a tiny piece of the process of unionizing. What about people vocally supporting unionizing to their other coworkers? Or putting up pro-union posters on break room bulletin boards, or any other public pro union activity? You know, trying to get their voices heard and convince people to vote their way? In theory those people are protected by laws but it's easy enough for a company to fire them for "performance reasons" or whatever else. You're coming across incredibly naive to the reality of how cutthroat corporations really are. They don't play fair, especially not when someone threatens their control by talking about unionizing.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    When you've had Democratic control of the NLRB for at least 17 years since 1990, and their appointees bend over backwards to make it easy for the unions, there should have been a lot more union victories. I think you need to face up to the fact that most private sector workers nowadays see no value to it. "You're coming across incredibly naive" - maybe I just don't agree with you. Is that not allowed?

likeclockwork 4y ago

I don't think it's a coincidence that proles are getting juiced liked lemons in a country where everyone is taught to hate anything that even resembles socialism.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
> everyone is taught to hate anything that even resembles socialism And yet polls show that the younger population has a largely positive opinion of socialism, or at least, much more positive than it used to be. So is this "teaching" ineffective, or what?