3 ms·

> 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

> 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?

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?