5 ms·

Why does an employer need to lend anything to union work or organizing? Work resources are usually only for work, not for any other activity. I'm not implying

by clnq 3y ago

Why does an employer need to lend anything to union work or organizing? Work resources are usually only for work, not for any other activity. I'm not implying there's a right or wrong here, just trying to understand the arguments.

dccoolgai 3y ago
Workers communicating and coordinating with each other for their own safety, well-being, and ability to retain some of the vast wealth they create for their employers benefits their employers just as much as them. How do you like having a weekend? Or not having your 9-year-old child work in a dangerous mine? Everyone benefits from that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hellojesus 3y ago
  I believe the Wagner Act is unconstitutional.
  - clnq 3y ago
    Why?
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Section 1 Article 8 of the Constitution does not grant congress the power to regulate how private parties can bargain amongst themselves. Nor does it grant Congress the power to set minimum wage laws. The SC relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause to bless it. The Commerce Clause is well known to be misinterpreted and widely abused by the federal government to do many unconstitutional things. See also Filburn vs Wickard for an example. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/wickard-v-filburn https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-cour...
- valianteffort 3y ago
  I think you're overestimating how much warehouse workers are actually generating for amazon. They could have a totally viable business automating their warehouse and reducing inventory to only the most purchased items. Might even cut costs massively by saving warehouse space.
35997279 3y ago
>Why does an employer need to lend anything to union work or organizing? The complaint alleges that Amazon prevented employees from posting union-related material in a non-work area during non-work hours, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Basically, Section 8(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with or restrain employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, such as the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to engage in collective bargaining, or to engage in other concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  I don't think OP is asserting that amazon didn't violate a statute that factually exists on the books today. He's asking a philosophical question of why employees get the protection of using company resources to do a potentially anti-company or company-undermining activity.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Because we can be sure that all the while -- companies are using their resources to engage in potentially anti-employee and employee-undermining activities. And in some cases not just potentially, but manifestly. So it's to level the playing field, as least a tiny bit.
    - nyokodo 3y ago
      > companies are using their resources Precisely the OP’s point it seems. The company is using the company’s own resources whereas the employees are using someone else’s resources ie the company’s resources. Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns?
      - csb6 3y ago
        > Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable, including requiring certain safety measures or working conditions or permitting health/safety inspectors access to workspaces without agreement of the property owner. Some libertarians do hold these views, but I think it is important to note that these consequences are what that logic implies. The argument against absolute deference to property rights is that under the U.S. legal framework employees also have rights, which in some cases (in diminishing number) are given more importance than the company’s property rights. According to legislation, this includes the ability to organize labor unions and communicate with organizers during non-work hours.
pg_1234 3y ago
Union organizing is part of the job ... just not a part the employer likes.

by clnq 3y ago

dccoolgai 3y ago

Workers communicating and coordinating with each other for their own safety, well-being, and ability to retain some of the vast wealth they create for their employers benefits their employers just as much as them. How do you like having a weekend? Or not having your 9-year-old child work in a dangerous mine? Everyone benefits from that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hellojesus 3y ago
I believe the Wagner Act is unconstitutional.
- clnq 3y ago
  Why?
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Section 1 Article 8 of the Constitution does not grant congress the power to regulate how private parties can bargain amongst themselves. Nor does it grant Congress the power to set minimum wage laws. The SC relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause to bless it. The Commerce Clause is well known to be misinterpreted and widely abused by the federal government to do many unconstitutional things. See also Filburn vs Wickard for an example. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/wickard-v-filburn https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-cour...
valianteffort 3y ago
I think you're overestimating how much warehouse workers are actually generating for amazon. They could have a totally viable business automating their warehouse and reducing inventory to only the most purchased items. Might even cut costs massively by saving warehouse space.

35997279 3y ago

>Why does an employer need to lend anything to union work or organizing? The complaint alleges that Amazon prevented employees from posting union-related material in a non-work area during non-work hours, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Basically, Section 8(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with or restrain employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, such as the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to engage in collective bargaining, or to engage in other concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.

missedthecue 3y ago
I don't think OP is asserting that amazon didn't violate a statute that factually exists on the books today. He's asking a philosophical question of why employees get the protection of using company resources to do a potentially anti-company or company-undermining activity.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Because we can be sure that all the while -- companies are using their resources to engage in potentially anti-employee and employee-undermining activities. And in some cases not just potentially, but manifestly. So it's to level the playing field, as least a tiny bit.
  - nyokodo 3y ago
    > companies are using their resources Precisely the OP’s point it seems. The company is using the company’s own resources whereas the employees are using someone else’s resources ie the company’s resources. Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns?
    - csb6 3y ago
      > Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable, including requiring certain safety measures or working conditions or permitting health/safety inspectors access to workspaces without agreement of the property owner. Some libertarians do hold these views, but I think it is important to note that these consequences are what that logic implies. The argument against absolute deference to property rights is that under the U.S. legal framework employees also have rights, which in some cases (in diminishing number) are given more importance than the company’s property rights. According to legislation, this includes the ability to organize labor unions and communicate with organizers during non-work hours.

pg_1234 3y ago

Union organizing is part of the job ... just not a part the employer likes.