4 ms·
The more I think about this the less I understand what the employees were trying to accomplish. Let's say that somehow they somehow get the government (whicheve
by tifik 3y ago
The more I think about this the less I understand what the employees were trying to accomplish. Let's say that somehow they somehow get the government (whichever level of it) to force Google to sit at the table with them.
The union states their terms. Google just says 'no'.
"Uh.. then we'll all quit!"
"ok"
I guess they could go on a strike so Google would still be on the hook for paying them? A strike has to be disruptive to the company to have any effect though... they'd all just be made redundant and let go anyway.
Seems to me like they didn't really have a viable end game.
- justinclift 3y agoIsn't that why government labour boards exist, so the company just saying 'no' forever isn't an option?
- paxys 3y agoThe company can always say no forever. It's just that doing so normally causes major disruptions in operation and so isn't really an option at companies where a critical chunk of the labor force is unionized. If it's just 10 out of 100,000 employees participating and they can be easily fired and replaced then the union is always going to be toothless. For example I am a union of 1 at my company and can try to negotiate "collectively" but the company can also say no and fire me.
- lupire 3y agoIn a "closed shop", which is sometimes mandated by law, all replacement employees would still be in the union, so the work would never get done until an agreement formed or some other loophole was found, like management doing the work.