view the rest of the comments
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
This is not true. What he said is that he would consider it a personal failure if his employees felt the need to unionise, but he would support them in doing so. There is nothing "anti-union" about that sentiment.
Unless of course he also said something else that I don't know about, but then I would love a source.
The problem is the first half. Where he spewa the capatistic view of unions with no question.
It could be a great statement of employee values and empowerment, but instead he takes it as a personal Digg, which has to influence employee views on some level.
The issue is that "finding it a personal failure" is missing the point of a Union and the conversation entirely. The entire point is that there is an inherent power imbalance and with everyone's livelihoods relying on each other having a concrete set of mechanisms in place beyond "trust me brow" is very important.
For the sake of argument let's say that every employee feels 100% comfortable discussing issues with Linus and that he is 100% reasonable in his response such that his statement about feeling like a failure is valid. What if he were to suffer some kind of brain injury where cognitively he seemed to make a full recovery but over the course of a couple of years he seemed to be more selfish, less willing to take feedback, and more willing to order people to do things or they are fired?
It wouldn't be severe enough for family or anyone to legally take control, but it could harm workers, and that is exactly what how a Union could help balance and smooth things out in that scenario.
This is a discussion you can absolutely have. But "missing the point of a union" and being "anti-union" are very different things.
"Anti-union" is Rockstar for firing 31 employees in a union bust, or Amazon for having employees watch mandatory propaganda videos about how unions are evil. Lumping them together with a business owner who basically said "I hope the good relationship I have my employees lasts and nobody starts feeling like they need additional support when talking with me" is at best misleading.
I think your for the sake of the argument example is exactly what Linus had in mind, where he would consider it his failure if it happened and hopes it won't. But if it does and employees unionise, so be it.