5 ms·

This is not some fancy new phone...this is an almost permanent obligation you are placing on the company, the employees and future employees. The decision to j

This is not some fancy new phone...this is an almost permanent obligation you are placing on the company, the employees and future employees. The decision to join a union should be placed on facts and only facts.

Timon3 3y ago
> This is not some fancy new phone... Wow, so you seriously just ignore it all. Why do you think that humans are susceptible to marketing in the context of a phone, and not in unionization? Where is the difference? > this is an almost permanent obligation you are placing on the company, the employees and future employees. The decision to join a union should be placed on facts and only facts. Sure, but what if you suppress delivery of facts about unions while supplying your own counter-facts?
- j_walter 3y ago
  On company time/property...why is that wrong? Unions can approach employees anywhere off company property...but the company can only do it while on company property. Who has the advantage?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Timon3 3y ago
    Now you are switching up your argument. Do you now agree that marketing etc. are also an important factor in these kinds of decisions? > On company time/property...why is that wrong? Earlier you said that employees should make these decisions on facts, and facts alone. It's wrong because companies have a lot of power to distort these facts because of company time/property. If you really want employees to make these decisions just on facts, why would it be bad for the company if unions are allowed to market in breakrooms etc.? > Unions can approach employees anywhere off company property...but the company can only do it while on company property. Who has the advantage? Very, very clearly the company. Because the company can also approach employees outside of company property, but the union can't on company property. This means the company has full control over more than half an employees waking hours, whereas unions have control over exactly nothing.

Timon3 3y ago

> This is not some fancy new phone... Wow, so you seriously just ignore it all. Why do you think that humans are susceptible to marketing in the context of a phone, and not in unionization? Where is the difference? > this is an almost permanent obligation you are placing on the company, the employees and future employees. The decision to join a union should be placed on facts and only facts. Sure, but what if you suppress delivery of facts about unions while supplying your own counter-facts?

j_walter 3y ago
On company time/property...why is that wrong? Unions can approach employees anywhere off company property...but the company can only do it while on company property. Who has the advantage?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Timon3 3y ago
  Now you are switching up your argument. Do you now agree that marketing etc. are also an important factor in these kinds of decisions? > On company time/property...why is that wrong? Earlier you said that employees should make these decisions on facts, and facts alone. It's wrong because companies have a lot of power to distort these facts because of company time/property. If you really want employees to make these decisions just on facts, why would it be bad for the company if unions are allowed to market in breakrooms etc.? > Unions can approach employees anywhere off company property...but the company can only do it while on company property. Who has the advantage? Very, very clearly the company. Because the company can also approach employees outside of company property, but the union can't on company property. This means the company has full control over more than half an employees waking hours, whereas unions have control over exactly nothing.