4 ms·

This not some dirty tactic, it is specifically how all breakdowns in employer/union negotiations go. Union withdraws their labour until their demands are met,

This not some dirty tactic, it is specifically how all breakdowns in employer/union negotiations go. Union withdraws their labour until their demands are met, employer doesn't agree until their demands are met. As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does. If you don't approve of this, you don't approve of unionization. Because this is how it works.

ohgodplsno 3y ago
You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things. But then again, defenestration of a bunch of execs might just be the exact thing the world needs to put some fear back into these ghouls again.
- gruez 3y ago
  > You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things. Weird, my definition of "unionization" is "workers bargaining collectively". It doesn't involve any veiled threats of violence.
  - jamiek88 3y ago
    Violence begets violence. Pretty simple.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    That is what it means, but it's an arrangement that replaces the previously "we'll resolve this with violence" situation. If one party wants to dump the "new" way of doing things, mostly likely it just goes back to the "old" way.
- ninth_ant 3y ago
  Life threatening solutions? Let’s cut the hyperbole please. You are the one making threats here, no one else is. They have made an offer of employment to the union, following the legal framework in the country. It’s the same predicament any striking worker has. Each party is applying significant financial pressure on each other to get what they hope will be a better deal than the current offer. How… how do you think this works in other strikes?
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    "It's legal" is about the most basic, dogshit argument you can ever use. When there are livelihoods at stake, when we have emails of execs explicitly wanting to wait it out so their writers get evicted, when Bob Iger makes the GDP of a small African country and refuses to give anything even close to acceptable, it's not a threat of violence. It is actual violence, but you've been conditioned to only see violence as the physical act. Abusing the massive wealth imbalance to force people back to work under your own terms is violence. They should be happy people haven't actually resorted to violence in return. How it works in other strikes? It'll depend on the context. Your small company that can't afford everyone striking for a month will go to the negotiation table and reach a deal. Other companies? In my lifetime, I have seen offices destroyed, CEOs sequestrated. And you know what? It worked.
bluefirebrand 3y ago
> As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does. Historically when the key demand is "we want fair pay" versus "we are not giving you another dime", this strategy from the employer ends in violence. So, not a great plan for employers tbh

ohgodplsno 3y ago

You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things. But then again, defenestration of a bunch of execs might just be the exact thing the world needs to put some fear back into these ghouls again.

gruez 3y ago
> You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The current state of things has been reached as kind of a gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction, tarring, and other fun things. Weird, my definition of "unionization" is "workers bargaining collectively". It doesn't involve any veiled threats of violence.
- jamiek88 3y ago
  Violence begets violence. Pretty simple.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  That is what it means, but it's an arrangement that replaces the previously "we'll resolve this with violence" situation. If one party wants to dump the "new" way of doing things, mostly likely it just goes back to the "old" way.
ninth_ant 3y ago
Life threatening solutions? Let’s cut the hyperbole please. You are the one making threats here, no one else is. They have made an offer of employment to the union, following the legal framework in the country. It’s the same predicament any striking worker has. Each party is applying significant financial pressure on each other to get what they hope will be a better deal than the current offer. How… how do you think this works in other strikes?
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  "It's legal" is about the most basic, dogshit argument you can ever use. When there are livelihoods at stake, when we have emails of execs explicitly wanting to wait it out so their writers get evicted, when Bob Iger makes the GDP of a small African country and refuses to give anything even close to acceptable, it's not a threat of violence. It is actual violence, but you've been conditioned to only see violence as the physical act. Abusing the massive wealth imbalance to force people back to work under your own terms is violence. They should be happy people haven't actually resorted to violence in return. How it works in other strikes? It'll depend on the context. Your small company that can't afford everyone striking for a month will go to the negotiation table and reach a deal. Other companies? In my lifetime, I have seen offices destroyed, CEOs sequestrated. And you know what? It worked.

bluefirebrand 3y ago

> As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial way before their side does. Historically when the key demand is "we want fair pay" versus "we are not giving you another dime", this strategy from the employer ends in violence. So, not a great plan for employers tbh