9 ms·

I wish the NRLB would be much harsher against business owners and executives who engage in anti-union rhetoric and behaviors. People have the right to form unio

I wish the NRLB would be much harsher against business owners and executives who engage in anti-union rhetoric and behaviors. People have the right to form unions, lying about losing benefits and lowering pay should be handled much more harshly, there should be actual penalties instead of just having to read a statement and delete a tweet.

dnautics 5y ago
for behaviours, yes, but for rhetoric, you're toeing a very dangerous line up against the 1st amendment.
- cma 5y ago
  In the end I think courts will say the promised anti-union rollercoaster and yogurt complexes must be built. Fraudulent promises as part of commerce and labor negotiation are excluded from protection under pretty much every interpretation of the 1st amendment out there. https://elonmusk.today/#frozen-yogurt-rollercoasters https://elonmusk.today/#frozen-yogurt-rollercoasters
  - dnautics 5y ago
    IANAL, but if it's not in writing, I believe you have to prove that musk never intended to deliver, and that's gonna be hard to prove. Otherwise you can nail people down to a few hundred prosecutable offenses a year and that is not a recipe for social success when there are sufficient numbers of vindictive jerks around.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      The article said it was in an email.
- ear7h 5y ago
  The 1st amendment does not and should not apply to business matters. You don't even need to look far from the subject matter, Musk has gotten in trouble before over misleading tweets. I don't see anyone bring up the first amendment when discussing corporate fraud. Why is it that executives can be accountable to shareholders but not workers?
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Because the workers don't own the company. Accountability to shareholders is built upon ownership.
    - vagrantJin 5y ago
      And a phat paycheque.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    "does not and should not apply to business matters" The problem is this: At what point does something become a "business matter"? And yes, I have opined that the SEC is playing with fire and possibly sowing the seeds of its own irrelevance with it's threats to musk.
- eecc 5y ago
  Hey let’s not make it a freedom of speech issue. If you speak the words “if you what I dislike I’ll beat you up” you’re not asserting a 1A right, you’re just a bully
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  ? Not at all. I'm not quite sure why people on HN think the 1st amendment is such a golden bullet, but it is not. There are lots of exceptions, including threatened retaliation, to what might be permissibly said in the workplace. If, for instance, as you were hiring people, you told them "we don't hire black people", even if you did hire black people, you would still be opening yourself up to suit, even with freedom of speech.
- pmiller2 5y ago
  It's not "free" speech when the audience is being coerced into hearing it. Before you say it, yes, the workers are being coerced. The implicit threat is that they will lose their jobs if they don't listen to the employer's anti-union rhetoric. "Oh, but they can just quit and not be forced to listen to it," you say? Well, no, the average American worker can't afford to just walk away from a job. Thus, it's coercion.
  - pmiller2 5y ago
    Would somebody like to explain how a job is a "free association" for people who may not be able to cover a $400 expense without borrowing money? Or are we just interested in hitting that down arrow hard enough to make it all go away?
fastball 5y ago
Isn't the entire point of a union to give you negotiating leverage? If you need the government to effectively do the negotiating for you by levying fines and such whenever the company goes against the union, what exactly is the point of the union?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- foerbert 5y ago
  Huh? Don't roads exist to facilitate vehicle transportation? If you need to do construction in order to make roads, what exactly is the point of them? I don't understand what your thinking here is. You're comparing the expected results of a thing existing with possible actions to facilitate conditions for that thing to exist. Why are these supposed to be somehow equivalent or comparable?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think their point is that the American form of unionization is bunk. If you look to Europe workers are free to choose between many associations of voluntary unions which advocate for their specific interests. They are not forced to have a single representative for negotiations with their employer and are free to abstain from of participation as well.Much like the American voting system and American Congress, unions are winner take all majority rule. If you are in the minority of a union it may not advocate for your interest and you have no option to turn to.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      The term for this is "closed shop". I've no idea why the US unions tend to be closed-shop, possibly because the high antagonism from employers makes it the only stable solution.
      - Frondo 5y ago
        The Taft-Hartley Act banned closed shops in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States It's literally the first line of that section.
londons_explore 5y ago
I mean the quote about options is probably true. It just means employees won't be given any more options. Unionised workers typically get no or very few stock options compared to industries with no unionisation.
- oivey 5y ago
  Unionized workers get what they negotiate for. Given how tech works, a Tesla union very well could demand options. It is absolutely false that unionization precludes employees getting options.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Except they usually don't... Unionized industries tend to be adversarial - if the employees get a better deal, then the employer does less well. Therefore receiving options is a poor negotiation tactic.
    - astrange 5y ago
      Only in the US setup. Europe uses codetermination and other systems that align them with their employers. Although they tend to get paid less than US tech companies, but so does everyone.
      - weyland108 5y ago
        What ? Seems like I am better of without a union if I am getting more pay?. Also where is the conversation around building a better product to add more value in this union debate?
        astrange 5y ago
        > Seems like I am better of without a union if I am getting more pay? Correlation is not causation (they are in different industries.) > Also where is the conversation around building a better product to add more value in this union debate? That's what "codetermination" is. European branches of US tech companies do have works councils, which are like mini-codetermination.
cwhiz 5y ago
I disagree. It should be a free market. If the employees don’t like their treatment they should leave and take a different job. I am sure there is a UAW job out there to be had. The most likely outcome from this is that Tesla moves more and more production out of a California and into a more business friendly state, such as Texas.
- kevinmchugh 5y ago
  The NLRB has jurisdiction in Texas
- ausbah 5y ago
  calling it a free market is laughable naive. the market is lopsided in favor of businesses because many laws at the state and federal are explicitly pro-business and anti-union; see "right to work laws", the 1947 Taft-Harley act, etc. - especially over the past 20 years and saying workers should just go and join a union backed job is even sillier when <15% of all full time workers are apart of a union [1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
  - lukejduncan 5y ago
    Right to work is pro employee. If unions want membership they shouldn’t be able to coerce it. They should have to earn it and compete for it. If a union can’t survive based on voluntary membership then that tells you something.
    - ausbah 5y ago
      it is the state infringing in the market on the side of business and capital by restricting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers workers are less well off but it's ok because "individualism"
      - lukejduncan 5y ago
        No one is being restricted from bargaining collectively. They’re just being given the choice to opt out. Unions just get upset because they lose their monopoly status to police workers voices who disagree with their position and politics.

dnautics 5y ago

for behaviours, yes, but for rhetoric, you're toeing a very dangerous line up against the 1st amendment.

cma 5y ago
In the end I think courts will say the promised anti-union rollercoaster and yogurt complexes must be built. Fraudulent promises as part of commerce and labor negotiation are excluded from protection under pretty much every interpretation of the 1st amendment out there. https://elonmusk.today/#frozen-yogurt-rollercoasters https://elonmusk.today/#frozen-yogurt-rollercoasters
- dnautics 5y ago
  IANAL, but if it's not in writing, I believe you have to prove that musk never intended to deliver, and that's gonna be hard to prove. Otherwise you can nail people down to a few hundred prosecutable offenses a year and that is not a recipe for social success when there are sufficient numbers of vindictive jerks around.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    The article said it was in an email.
ear7h 5y ago
The 1st amendment does not and should not apply to business matters. You don't even need to look far from the subject matter, Musk has gotten in trouble before over misleading tweets. I don't see anyone bring up the first amendment when discussing corporate fraud. Why is it that executives can be accountable to shareholders but not workers?
- emteycz 5y ago
  Because the workers don't own the company. Accountability to shareholders is built upon ownership.
  - vagrantJin 5y ago
    And a phat paycheque.
- dnautics 5y ago
  "does not and should not apply to business matters" The problem is this: At what point does something become a "business matter"? And yes, I have opined that the SEC is playing with fire and possibly sowing the seeds of its own irrelevance with it's threats to musk.
eecc 5y ago
Hey let’s not make it a freedom of speech issue. If you speak the words “if you what I dislike I’ll beat you up” you’re not asserting a 1A right, you’re just a bully
whimsicalism 5y ago
? Not at all. I'm not quite sure why people on HN think the 1st amendment is such a golden bullet, but it is not. There are lots of exceptions, including threatened retaliation, to what might be permissibly said in the workplace. If, for instance, as you were hiring people, you told them "we don't hire black people", even if you did hire black people, you would still be opening yourself up to suit, even with freedom of speech.
pmiller2 5y ago
It's not "free" speech when the audience is being coerced into hearing it. Before you say it, yes, the workers are being coerced. The implicit threat is that they will lose their jobs if they don't listen to the employer's anti-union rhetoric. "Oh, but they can just quit and not be forced to listen to it," you say? Well, no, the average American worker can't afford to just walk away from a job. Thus, it's coercion.
- pmiller2 5y ago
  Would somebody like to explain how a job is a "free association" for people who may not be able to cover a $400 expense without borrowing money? Or are we just interested in hitting that down arrow hard enough to make it all go away?

fastball 5y ago

Isn't the entire point of a union to give you negotiating leverage? If you need the government to effectively do the negotiating for you by levying fines and such whenever the company goes against the union, what exactly is the point of the union?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
foerbert 5y ago
Huh? Don't roads exist to facilitate vehicle transportation? If you need to do construction in order to make roads, what exactly is the point of them? I don't understand what your thinking here is. You're comparing the expected results of a thing existing with possible actions to facilitate conditions for that thing to exist. Why are these supposed to be somehow equivalent or comparable?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think their point is that the American form of unionization is bunk. If you look to Europe workers are free to choose between many associations of voluntary unions which advocate for their specific interests. They are not forced to have a single representative for negotiations with their employer and are free to abstain from of participation as well.Much like the American voting system and American Congress, unions are winner take all majority rule. If you are in the minority of a union it may not advocate for your interest and you have no option to turn to.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    The term for this is "closed shop". I've no idea why the US unions tend to be closed-shop, possibly because the high antagonism from employers makes it the only stable solution.
    - Frondo 5y ago
      The Taft-Hartley Act banned closed shops in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States It's literally the first line of that section.

londons_explore 5y ago

I mean the quote about options is probably true. It just means employees won't be given any more options. Unionised workers typically get no or very few stock options compared to industries with no unionisation.

oivey 5y ago
Unionized workers get what they negotiate for. Given how tech works, a Tesla union very well could demand options. It is absolutely false that unionization precludes employees getting options.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Except they usually don't... Unionized industries tend to be adversarial - if the employees get a better deal, then the employer does less well. Therefore receiving options is a poor negotiation tactic.
  - astrange 5y ago
    Only in the US setup. Europe uses codetermination and other systems that align them with their employers. Although they tend to get paid less than US tech companies, but so does everyone.
    - weyland108 5y ago
      What ? Seems like I am better of without a union if I am getting more pay?. Also where is the conversation around building a better product to add more value in this union debate?
      - astrange 5y ago
        > Seems like I am better of without a union if I am getting more pay? Correlation is not causation (they are in different industries.) > Also where is the conversation around building a better product to add more value in this union debate? That's what "codetermination" is. European branches of US tech companies do have works councils, which are like mini-codetermination.

cwhiz 5y ago

I disagree. It should be a free market. If the employees don’t like their treatment they should leave and take a different job. I am sure there is a UAW job out there to be had. The most likely outcome from this is that Tesla moves more and more production out of a California and into a more business friendly state, such as Texas.

kevinmchugh 5y ago
The NLRB has jurisdiction in Texas
ausbah 5y ago
calling it a free market is laughable naive. the market is lopsided in favor of businesses because many laws at the state and federal are explicitly pro-business and anti-union; see "right to work laws", the 1947 Taft-Harley act, etc. - especially over the past 20 years and saying workers should just go and join a union backed job is even sillier when <15% of all full time workers are apart of a union [1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
- lukejduncan 5y ago
  Right to work is pro employee. If unions want membership they shouldn’t be able to coerce it. They should have to earn it and compete for it. If a union can’t survive based on voluntary membership then that tells you something.
  - ausbah 5y ago
    it is the state infringing in the market on the side of business and capital by restricting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers workers are less well off but it's ok because "individualism"
    - lukejduncan 5y ago
      No one is being restricted from bargaining collectively. They’re just being given the choice to opt out. Unions just get upset because they lose their monopoly status to police workers voices who disagree with their position and politics.