• Sandbar_Trekker@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 hours ago

    From reading the article and watching the video, it didn’t sound like they were refusing the option of having a union. It was more that they wanted to have an official vote on the matter, and didn’t want to be pressured into a decision on the spot:

    [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s a lie to stall for time while the lawyers start gathering personal information from the employees.

    • Dookieman12@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 hours ago

      they wanted to have an official vote on the matter, and didn’t want to be pressured into a decision on the spot

      If workers want to unionize, that’s their business. Workers don’t need anyone’s permission to organize. Unionization means conditions are bad and individual efforts to correct them have failed. The company wanting an “official vote” is just an excuse to add friction to a process that requires none.

        • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Late last year Wikimedia disqualified two potential board members from eligibility days before the vote. They are notable for their push for transparency.

          Wikimedia is moving towards opaque and draconian leadership methods. They are actively taking advantage of the trust we put in them to make disingenuous moves that will prevent Jimmy Wales from losing power over the knowledge. He’s basically one bad decision from partnering with AI and now fewer people can stop him.

          • lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            That’s not union busting, is it? I understand the leadership problems, but we were talking about union busting specifically

        • urushitan 漆たん@kakera.kintsugi.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 hours ago

          In the late 2010s and early 2020s, Jones Day represented several companies in legal proceedings against labor unions, including unions for employees of The Boston Globe in 2018[17] and Slate[18] and Politics and Prose in 2021.[19]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Day#Legal_actions_against_unions

          Littler has been widely described as a union busting firm, and is the largest union avoidance firm in the US. It has counseled and defended companies including Starbucks, Amazon, Nissan, and Delta Air Lines against employees trying to unionize.[5] In 2002, it was hired by Apple Inc. in opposition to Apple’s workers, giving advice to store managers to tell employees that unionizing would lead to worse working conditions: less promotions and inflexible hours.[16] In 2007, Littler stated that it provided services to help with “union prevention tools” and provided “state of the art union avoidance training programs”.[6]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littler_Mendelson

          • Tower@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Delta Airlines

            Wonder if they came up with the “instead of paying union dues, wouldn’t you rather play video games 🎮” posters

    • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Ah, yes, the NLRB under Trump, an agency that was already less labor friendly under Biden, would certainly not betray the workers.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        58 minutes ago

        Of course it wouldn’t. And NLRB was one of the first agencies directly targeted by Musk’s DOGE, which by some bizarre and unrelated coincidence was also involved in a huge multi-year lawsuit against SpaceX at the time, and said to be holding information related to that suit, the same suit that was dropped this year via an interesting ruling involving the NLRB itself. Of course NLRB is still 100% trustworthy, nothing to see here.