4 ms·

> What you're really saying is that employers should be allowed to form a large powerful collective organization but employees shouldn't. That's not what he sa

by jdasdf 3y ago

> What you're really saying is that employers should be allowed to form a large powerful collective organization but employees shouldn't. That's not what he said, but you'll ignore it anyway. If employees want to form a union, they are welcome to do so. If employers want to fire everyone that is in a union, they too should be welcome to do so.

nullindividual 3y ago
If the employer can fire the lot of them, then we are back to square one with the employer holding all of the bargaining power, thus no need for a union.
jqpabc123 3y ago
If employers want to fire everyone that is in a union, they too should be welcome to do so. Just a variation on a theme. Corporations should have the power to destroy unions but unions should not have the power to destroy corporations. When employees do good, executives get 40 percent raises, employees get 2 percent. Anything that doesn't help make the rich and the powerful even more so is unacceptable ... because that's how fairness works in a lords and peasants system.
Certhas 3y ago
> If employers want to fire everyone that is in a union, they too should be welcome to do so. But... why? What would that achieve? You seem to essentially be asking that unions should not have any legal protections to redress the intrinsic power imbalance between employers and employees. But you fail to give any argument for why it should be _good_ that this power imbalance should not be addressed legally.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  This is the right wing mind virus that has infected the peasants leading them to promote the best interests of the lords over their own. The most telling aspect that this really is a "virus" is the fact that they've adopted this mentality and course of action without the results even being fully considered. Here is a clue to the results --- peasants get perpetually screwed. Lords get 40 percent raises, peasants get 2 percent. Now get back to work wage slave and don't forget to convince yourself that this is somehow "fair".

by jdasdf 3y ago

nullindividual 3y ago

If the employer can fire the lot of them, then we are back to square one with the employer holding all of the bargaining power, thus no need for a union.

jqpabc123 3y ago

If employers want to fire everyone that is in a union, they too should be welcome to do so. Just a variation on a theme. Corporations should have the power to destroy unions but unions should not have the power to destroy corporations. When employees do good, executives get 40 percent raises, employees get 2 percent. Anything that doesn't help make the rich and the powerful even more so is unacceptable ... because that's how fairness works in a lords and peasants system.

Certhas 3y ago

> If employers want to fire everyone that is in a union, they too should be welcome to do so. But... why? What would that achieve? You seem to essentially be asking that unions should not have any legal protections to redress the intrinsic power imbalance between employers and employees. But you fail to give any argument for why it should be _good_ that this power imbalance should not be addressed legally.

jqpabc123 3y ago
This is the right wing mind virus that has infected the peasants leading them to promote the best interests of the lords over their own. The most telling aspect that this really is a "virus" is the fact that they've adopted this mentality and course of action without the results even being fully considered. Here is a clue to the results --- peasants get perpetually screwed. Lords get 40 percent raises, peasants get 2 percent. Now get back to work wage slave and don't forget to convince yourself that this is somehow "fair".