3 ms·
I mean you’re right — that’s why Amazon and Starbucks aren’t fighting unionization drives that hard, or why US police departments have famously weak unions of t
by maybelsyrup 4y ago
I mean you’re right — that’s why Amazon and Starbucks aren’t fighting unionization drives that hard, or why US police departments have famously weak unions of their own, or why the Pinkertons still exist after over a century, or why reactionaries still make regular targets of schoolteachers, or why this very HN thread only exists because unionized rail workers pose such a threat to American money and security that the federal government writes laws prohibiting them from striking.
- no_wizard 4y agoThe police don't have weak unions though. Evidence suggests otherwise, see my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33991186#33992777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33991186#33992777
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago(the comment you were replying to was sarcastic, though they accidentally dropped the sarcastic negation of the examples they brought up halfway through the list)
- danaris 4y agoYes. That's the point. That is exactly the case with everything in their fully tongue-in-cheek comment. "Unions are for losers" is the propaganda of the capitalist class. Unions are how we exercise and defend our rights.