4 ms·

Target shows its employees anti-union propaganda videos. It's interesting how it presents a union as a big bad "other" that would necessarily work against its m

by tveita 12y ago

Target shows its employees anti-union propaganda videos. It's interesting how it presents a union as a big bad "other" that would necessarily work against its members' interests, and to see many of the familiar arguments cast in a ham-handed way towards retail employees. Do we also believe in the 10x retail employee, or do we agree that retail is a sector where employees have a lot to gain from collective bargaining? http://gawker.com/5811371/heres-the-cheesy-anti-union-video-all-target-employees-must-endure http://gawker.com/5811371/heres-the-cheesy-anti-union-video-... http://gawker.com/behold-targets-brand-new-cheesy-anti-union-video-1547193676 http://gawker.com/behold-targets-brand-new-cheesy-anti-union...

mc32 12y ago
When i was putting myself thru college there was a time I worked at a job which required I join a union. I detested them very much. They were a bunch of fat cats who did nothing for the regular workers and much less for a part-timer[1]. all they cared was the organization itself. the workers were there as a necessary ingredient to keep the organization alive --rather then actually do anything for the workers. So, to this day, I loathe unions, in practice, perhaps not in theory, but in practice I do. I also did not enjoy the 'machismo' that happens in unions. [1] I sprained my ankle at work while doing work and yet they did nothing for me. I had to pay the xray bills myself (I don't recall how much it was, but they did nothing to make things better for me). So I have little sympathy for the institution.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  Ooh, anecdotes. I worked for an abusive employer once (American corporation, funnily enough), and I joined a union, and it protected me from further abuse because my managers were scared of the union, because it was an activist union. So yeah. My union good, your union bad, let's not make blanket assertions based on one experience...
  - mhuffman 12y ago
    And you believe that using the union as an enforcer or as a protection racket was a good experience for you? Just so I have this straight, you thought that a good outcome was to have your (clearly abusive) manager(s) silently seething with rage against you, but impotent to act on it, because of the union protection? This was a good outcome to you, over, say leaving that hostile environment as fast as humanly possible, or, I don't know, turning in the manager(s) to higher-ups (or to state agencies if the abuse warranted)?
    - zaccus 12y ago
      Whistleblowing on mgmt is a great way to get blacklisted, and one person's ability to quit their job does not address the root cause of the abuse. Why should the burden be on the worker to find a new job anyway? If the abuse is coming from mgmt, it should be their responsibility to make it right.
      - mhuffman 12y ago
        I agree, but how might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up, instead relying on the silent fear of the union to keep it at bay? Do you think that leaving the abusive manager in place, but impotent, is a better outcome? For whom? The company, the employees?
        Devthrowaway80 12y ago
        What makes you think that they were unaware of the abuse? It's a better outcome for the employees. They have more leverage over their managers and are protected from abuse. If the manager is seething and impotent over his inability to mistreat his employees, maybe he can do what others have suggested the employee do and find another job.
        EdwardDiego 12y ago
        > How might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up The entire management structure in place was the problem. Are you seriously suggesting I should have attempted to contact my manager's boss in the USA, instead of joining a union?

by tveita 12y ago

mc32 12y ago

When i was putting myself thru college there was a time I worked at a job which required I join a union. I detested them very much. They were a bunch of fat cats who did nothing for the regular workers and much less for a part-timer[1]. all they cared was the organization itself. the workers were there as a necessary ingredient to keep the organization alive --rather then actually do anything for the workers. So, to this day, I loathe unions, in practice, perhaps not in theory, but in practice I do. I also did not enjoy the 'machismo' that happens in unions. [1] I sprained my ankle at work while doing work and yet they did nothing for me. I had to pay the xray bills myself (I don't recall how much it was, but they did nothing to make things better for me). So I have little sympathy for the institution.

EdwardDiego 12y ago
Ooh, anecdotes. I worked for an abusive employer once (American corporation, funnily enough), and I joined a union, and it protected me from further abuse because my managers were scared of the union, because it was an activist union. So yeah. My union good, your union bad, let's not make blanket assertions based on one experience...
- mhuffman 12y ago
  And you believe that using the union as an enforcer or as a protection racket was a good experience for you? Just so I have this straight, you thought that a good outcome was to have your (clearly abusive) manager(s) silently seething with rage against you, but impotent to act on it, because of the union protection? This was a good outcome to you, over, say leaving that hostile environment as fast as humanly possible, or, I don't know, turning in the manager(s) to higher-ups (or to state agencies if the abuse warranted)?
  - zaccus 12y ago
    Whistleblowing on mgmt is a great way to get blacklisted, and one person's ability to quit their job does not address the root cause of the abuse. Why should the burden be on the worker to find a new job anyway? If the abuse is coming from mgmt, it should be their responsibility to make it right.
    - mhuffman 12y ago
      I agree, but how might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up, instead relying on the silent fear of the union to keep it at bay? Do you think that leaving the abusive manager in place, but impotent, is a better outcome? For whom? The company, the employees?
      - Devthrowaway80 12y ago
        What makes you think that they were unaware of the abuse? It's a better outcome for the employees. They have more leverage over their managers and are protected from abuse. If the manager is seething and impotent over his inability to mistreat his employees, maybe he can do what others have suggested the employee do and find another job.
      - EdwardDiego 12y ago
        > How might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up The entire management structure in place was the problem. Are you seriously suggesting I should have attempted to contact my manager's boss in the USA, instead of joining a union?