You bring up a good point and it’s dumb you’re being downvoted for it. That being said, I don’t think a union would have hurt the shareholders in the same way.
Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that corporations have gutted union rights, laws and the NLRB. Trying to organize a union is a long shot and you’re just as likely to be fired (for something completely unrelated, of course) the first time you start talking to people about unions.
Companies like this can fire low wage employees all day every day for years (look at Amazon’s warehouse turnover rate) just to prevent a union from forming. If they ever get to the point where there will be a union vote the company will pay millions for some union busting firm to come in and suddenly all of the pro-union people’s work is under a microscope, anti-union propaganda is everywhere and they’re scaring the other workers with talks of closing the business if a union happens.
They drag it out until everyone quits, is fired or is scared away from voting. Even if the vote passes the company is under no real obligation to negotiate with the union and the NLRB is effectively toothless. A union can go years and years without seeing any meaningful changes.
Unions and labor rights were the compromise, what this man did is only a small taste of what it was like before the compromise. His target was inventory, not people. That wasn’t always the case.
He could have been part of a unionization effort, instead he chose violence, harmed his peers, and took away that possibility.
Saying that he should have just tried to unionize demonstrates an ignorance of the state of unionization in the US as I outlined in my comment.
He could have begged outside of the headquarters too, for all of the good it would do. Treating unionization as if it were some viable option is not a good point.
I’m not saying that everyone should burn their place of employment down, but he did it in a way that led to nobody being injured and the message resonates with a lot of people. Much like Luigi, it isn’t that what he did is the right thing, but it is undoubtedly a more effective message to the elites than printing union flyers and getting fired.
California has unemployment and, assuming this company cheats their employees by making them all part-time, it pays as much or more than their lost wages.
These kinds of things are going to keep happening as the lower class is squeezed by economic pressures and the elites who control the political system block any attempt at reforms that would benefit the labor class. In the grand scheme of things, the harm suffered here was financial and not measured in human lives.
You bring up a good point and it’s dumb you’re being downvoted for it. That being said, I don’t think a union would have hurt the shareholders in the same way.
It’s not a good point.
Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that corporations have gutted union rights, laws and the NLRB. Trying to organize a union is a long shot and you’re just as likely to be fired (for something completely unrelated, of course) the first time you start talking to people about unions.
Companies like this can fire low wage employees all day every day for years (look at Amazon’s warehouse turnover rate) just to prevent a union from forming. If they ever get to the point where there will be a union vote the company will pay millions for some union busting firm to come in and suddenly all of the pro-union people’s work is under a microscope, anti-union propaganda is everywhere and they’re scaring the other workers with talks of closing the business if a union happens.
They drag it out until everyone quits, is fired or is scared away from voting. Even if the vote passes the company is under no real obligation to negotiate with the union and the NLRB is effectively toothless. A union can go years and years without seeing any meaningful changes.
Unions and labor rights were the compromise, what this man did is only a small taste of what it was like before the compromise. His target was inventory, not people. That wasn’t always the case.
It’s a terrific point. All the people who worked there are now out of work.
The point was:
Saying that he should have just tried to unionize demonstrates an ignorance of the state of unionization in the US as I outlined in my comment.
He could have begged outside of the headquarters too, for all of the good it would do. Treating unionization as if it were some viable option is not a good point.
I’m not saying that everyone should burn their place of employment down, but he did it in a way that led to nobody being injured and the message resonates with a lot of people. Much like Luigi, it isn’t that what he did is the right thing, but it is undoubtedly a more effective message to the elites than printing union flyers and getting fired.
California has unemployment and, assuming this company cheats their employees by making them all part-time, it pays as much or more than their lost wages.
These kinds of things are going to keep happening as the lower class is squeezed by economic pressures and the elites who control the political system block any attempt at reforms that would benefit the labor class. In the grand scheme of things, the harm suffered here was financial and not measured in human lives.