5 ms·
There are some pretty significant differences between Twitter employees and federal government employees, starting with the fact that a lot of latter group are
by justin66 2y ago
There are some pretty significant differences between Twitter employees and federal government employees, starting with the fact that a lot of latter group are part of a powerful union.
- toss1 2y agoSure, but even in a normal situation, all the Union can do is provide greater resources to initiate legal and possibly work actions. Which, in a normal situation might be very effective. This is NOT anything resembling a normal situation; to treat it as such is merely an exercise in normalcy bias. Under an authoritarian regime, as is being setup as we type, legal actions are irrelevant as the judicial and legislative branches lose independence and serve the executive. Work actions likely result in the union being decertified and dissolved.
- root_axis 2y agoLet's see what happens. At this point, I'm not convinced the union has any leverage.
- bmitc 2y agoThe federal employee unions have incredible power, often to the detriment of the government.
- root_axis 2y agoLike I said, at this point I'm not convinced they have any leverage.
- delfinom 2y agoPretty sure they will just executive order the unions are void, Congress won't do a thing and the courts may get to it in 3 decades.
- flustercan 2y agoThat power comes from the idea that the federal employees can shut down government operations if they stop working. This administration (supposedly) wants dearly to shut down government operations, so the union doesn't have any power.
- tencentshill 2y agoWhat good is a lawsuit if He decides to ignore it and not pay? One side of that battle is ultimately backed up by the military.
- dullcrisp 2y agoWhich side?
- dehugger 2y agoMilitary members are government employees. I imagine they would be extremely circumspect of being deployed against other government employees who were cheated by a bad-faith deal.
- maronato 2y ago“I’m just following orders” has been a successful moral defense for centuries. I wouldn’t bet on it losing its effectiveness this time.
- rchaud 2y agoThere is no "they". The military adheres to the law for only as long as those laws are enforced. If the US military can commit war crimes abroad and be protected from outside prosecution, there is nothing stopping them from doing the same inside the US. All it takes is for one person in charge to ignore charges in a military court, or simply not comply with a legal summons in civilian court. Look at how the US treats the International Criminal Court today, a legal body it itself helped create after WWII. Not a huge leap to think they will ignore state courts in the US. Who's going to arrest them?
- root_axis 2y ago> I imagine they would be extremely circumspect of being deployed against other government employees who were cheated by a bad-faith deal Why would they be?
- dehugger 2y ago
- Maxatar 2y agoDidn't President Reagan fire almost every air traffic controller in thr 80s? Weren't they unionized as well? My understanding is that the consequences of that decision is being felt even to this day. I only know about it because of the recent airplane accident
- ahi 2y agopatco was also a powerful union. Trump has already declared he will nullify the AFGE contract (legality be damned).
- bongodongobob 2y agoYeah well some dude from South Africa is running around in government buildings fucking with computers and no one seems to be doing anything about it. Anything goes these days. Union or not.
- elicash 2y agoThey are part of a union (actually, different unions, plural). But none of those unions are among the more powerful unions.