this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
126 points (99.2% liked)
Economics
465 readers
237 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
your hypothetical shows a complete lack of understanding.
if they do these things all the time as you say, you would have a real example rather than a purely hypothetical one.
your delusional fantasy is not reality
Hahaha cheers mate for the laugh. Didn't realize I was wasting my time with you.
You're wasting everyone's time by making up problems with a contract. Multi year contracts are standard. There may be a lot wrong with the contract, but the fact that its a multi year contract like every normal union contract isn't one of them.
No one who negotiates union contracts is worried that an employer might randomly decide to revert a negotiated payscale.
The point I was trying to convey is that companies are run by people and people are corruptable. You're correct to say there's no reason to think any specific contact would be violated. It's folly however, to think companies never take action against a union as a whole or a worker individually.
Given the recent whistleblowers that have stopped being alive in recent Boeing memory, I don't think it's alarmist to suggest they might not be a trustworthy bunch.
Either way, my apologies for the way I half heartedly wrote something the other day.
Yes, companies are corrupt. However, the way you described it cannot happen. Boeing is smart enough to not try to fuck over workers in a way that they are guaranteed to lose and all but ensures an immediate strike.
Even after the contract expires, they have to continue paying at the previous rate. If boeing wanted to pull something they would be smart enough to do it in a more subtle and effective way.
Ah so that's the line you think they won't cross? Glad we were able to narrow that down.
I'm of the opinion there are no lines a company won't cross if there's a dollar to be made, and there's decades of evidence this is the case. It wasn't that long ago that big business would hire people to give a beat down to protesting workers.
It's not my goal to change the minds of people online. Ultimately this conversation has boiled down to me having an opinion based on actions I have seen taken against workers, and you believing there is a line in the sand that "cannot" be crossed because the company is smart enough not to.
We aren't getting anywhere by continuing.
You keep saying there's tons of evidence, yet provided none.
Find me one time an american company unilaterally decreaced the pay of a union contract during its term.
If that was common, we would't negotiate multi-year agreements.
In fact, it would be far easier for them to do that after the contract expires, and a 1 year contract term would give them many more opportunities.
I guess the point I made three times didn't get across to you, did it.
I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yes I think boeing taking am action that ensures a strike and also loses them money for no benefit is not plausible.
Do some cursory reading on the national labor relations act.
I even said:
And yet you continue to harp on about this, and now tell me to go do some reading? Read the comments you're replying to.
You haven't conceded a single thing or even mentioned any of the rebuttals I have made to you points, and you continue to attack what I have repeatedly stated as only being my opinions.
I should have trusted my instinct beforehand. This isn't a discussion. This is a waste of effort.