• renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The main issue that this doesn’t deal with is that it in no way stops a company from straight up closing any location that does try to unionize.

          “Oh no, we must recognize your union… and in unrelated news, your location is now closed. Feel free to apply to the new location we’re opening up a block away.”

          • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure they could do that, year after year, but they might as well sink that cost into giving the union what it wants after once or twice

                • eldavi@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s literally why there’s a Starbucks on every corner; they want the option of closing down up to 90% of them to keep away from Unions

          • JamesFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            A) That is union busting

            B) It’s fucking expensive, both in actual costs and lost revenue, to keep doing that. Eventually the company will realize they can’t afford it and stop, or they’ll go bankrupt.

            C) Being forced to recognize the union means you need to negotiate with the union. Which means you need to make a union contract. Which can include language about how closing down locations is handled. Or how opening up new locations is handled. Like, say, they can only hire new union workers. So they can close down 1 location, then they have to hire union anyway at the new location, so what’s the point?

            To be blunt, what you’re describing has exactly 0% chance of working out in the company’s favour over the long term. More than that, it has little chance of even working in the first place. It’s this absurd idea based in nothing.

            • eldavi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I want to believe you but five decades on this earth remind me that what you say is just pie in the sky

    • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nvm I read it. It’s because the managers manage the workers and thus it would be a conflict of interest. The managers are for the company and the workers are the union.

      • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good managers are to protect company interests but not at the expense of the workers. Managers should be making employee work lives easier and better. Take care of your employees and everything else takes care of itself. Problem comes in when managers who don’t know how to manage people get involved. You can manage process well and still suck at the human (more important) side of things.

      • ProperlyProperTea@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve heard it said that this is why, sometimes, a lot of people are given the title "manager’ when they’re not really in any sort of managerial positions. It prevents them from entering unions as easily.

        Take that with a grain of salt though.