Post #590145

2026-03-08 23:37 UTC

phrasing, phrasing matters quite a lot. I remember that line being followed up by him stating that he wants the employees to express their concerns instead of outright unionizing. I cannot recall precisely but I do think before all of that he also stated that he feels there exists no need for a union if the workplace is welcoming. I don’t at all remember why the topic was brought up in the first place tho. As I mentioned in my prev comment I feel that if your employees feel a need to unionize then they’re past civil discussions and also it feels to me like sweeping the incident under the rug so they don’t land in hot water. but perhaps I am too red pilled by the rest of the bs that’s going on.

Replies (2)

@Lfrith@lemmy.ca 2026-03-09 14:42

I can understand why a boss wouldn’t want a union, since it means less power and more money having to be shared with labor. I’d be the same where I wouldn’t want labor to unionize if I had a business, but not deluded enough to think it’s because I care about them that I’d take it as a moral failure if they unionized. Its because I would prefer to take the position of the benevolent dictator compared to suddenly having the business shift to more of a democracy or republic. So that’s the motivation to be just nice enough for labor to not have thoughts or make moves to take away my power and money. I guess its why I see through the flowery language. But, no boss would freely admit that so don’t really fault that him too much. But, do hope people see through the PR answer just so they too are aware of what’s actually going on in the minds of people they work for.

Open ##600468
@Damage@feddit.it 2026-03-09 17:53

As I mentioned in my prev comment I feel that if your employees feel a need to unionize then they’re past civil discussions Why? Unions are for civil discussion.

Open ##602675