Elon Musk has long opposed unions, but now he’s taking his war on workers to an entirely new level.
In Sweden, Tesla wants to blow up the Nordic labor model, while SpaceX is echoing the Federalist Society by trying to destroy the NLRB in the United States. He must be stopped.
https://disconnect.blog/elon-musk-just-escalated-his-war-on-workers/
@parismarx I don’t think workers in any industry have any appetite left for this sort of thing after being shown how expendable they are time and time again. You can only take away so much before people fight back, and employers crossed that line long ago.
@Weedkiller I mean, they have appetite for pay, and that's what the employment relationship is at its heart.
@volkris Well of course. What I meant is that we’re all sick and tired of being bullied into accepting worse and worse conditions and pay.
@Weedkiller it's not bullying.
Here is the pay they offer, and if that's not worth it for you you don't have to take it. If it is enough pay such that you are better off in the end, maybe you might take it.
It's no bullying. It's just an offer that the employee can choose to accept if he wants to.
@volkris @Weedkiller It is bullying if you don't have any other good options. "Work for terrible conditions or starve and die in the streets" isn't exactly a fair and free choice, is it? Particularly when those same bosses do whatever they can to prevent workers from having a modicum of negotiating power.
@chiraag It is a fair and free choice!
A person is free to choose.
And heck, if the work environment is so bad then I would encourage the person to start their own enterprise, where they would easily attract the talent that is being so mistreated elsewhere.
At that point it's a win-win.
@volkris @Weedkiller As for a free and fair choice: no one will choose starvation and homelessness over shitty work conditions, so it absolutely amounts to coersion.
Just because a choice is unlikely to be taken doesn't mean it's not a choice.
As for coercion, which I and Oxford would say say involves threat or force, it's key here that there is on threat or force involved in an employment offer, so no coercion.
The employer offers a chance to improve one's lot.
If, as you say, no one would choose to pass that offer, that just highlights how valued it must be.
@volkris @Weedkiller The threat is absolutely there though! The threat of homelessness, hunger, etc is implicit, not from any given employer, but from the system itself.
If I give you a "choice" between a poison pill and a rotten egg and force you to pick one (otherwise I will shove the poison pill down your throat), that's not really a choice. In this case, the choice is given by the economic system itself, not any specific employer.
@chiraag and no employer is shoving poison pills down anyone's throat.
Fine, complain about the system if you want, but that's not the employer.
The employer is offering nothing but an escape from the bad situation that you're identifying.
The employer isn't making a threat. They are only offering an escape from the threat.
@Weedkiller
@volkris @Weedkiller This all goes back to how "Work or perish" isn't really a choice - it's a threat. Sure, a threat made by the very system rich assholes and gullible goons fight to protect, but a threat nonetheless. And it's disingenuous to call it a choice when _no one_ (except for people who are suicidal, but even they probably don't want to starve slowly to death) would pick "perish".
@volkris @Weedkiller Employers *know this* and exploit it. Why do you think wage theft is rampant when there aren't protections against it? Why do you think corporations ceaselessly fight against anything resembling a living wage? Why do you think they loathe unions with a passion? Because all of those things weaken the employer's grip over the worker's life - they weaken the implicit threat and make the footing just a little more even.
@volkris @Weedkiller If this system were somehow god-given and these employers had no choice but to play within the system, that would be one thing. But most large companies *fight against the very things that would create a floor for people*. They fight against taxation (the revenue could be used to increase the safety net). They lobby against food stamps and other forms of public assistance.
@volkris @Weedkiller They fight for deregulation of all sorts (so that they can exploit both the workers _and_ the environment!). They engage in literal child slavery and prison labor to cut costs (check out the chocolate industry for the former, and Second Thought had a great video about the abuse of prison labor) and have done so for centuries.
@volkris @Weedkiller You're really going to tell me they're neutral actors here? That they're beneficently offering "the poors" a way out of poverty and a chance at a better life? Either you're naive as hell or you're simping for corporations, and I don't know which it is.
@chiraag No I'm not telling you there are neutral actors here.
I don't know where you got that.
I'm telling you that there are actors offering positive options, for their own self-interest of course, but the options they are offering are still positive.
Far from neutral, they are offering ways for a person to better their lives.
That is factually what's going on.
@volkris @Weedkiller And what I'm saying is that those employers are _also_ invested (monetarily and socially) in continuing the conditions that weaken worker bargaining power.
@chiraag Yes but you are factually wrong! That is what I'm trying to express to you here.
They're offering a job. Their incentive is to find somebody to fill the job because they benefit from somebody filling the job.
You don't have to go all conspiracy theory here. You just sound like a kook when you do that.
Here's a job that needs to be done, and here is the compensation that they are offering for anybody who would like to benefit themselves for doing that job, for accepting that compensation in return.
It's no more than that, so it just ends up nutty to start talking about bigger conspiracy theories around it.
@volkris @Weedkiller It's not a conspiracy theory that many employers want to see weaker worker power, holy shit. Have you _seen_ how many companies respond to a union drive? And it was worse a century ago (they'd straight-up send cops to brutalize and kill striking workers and "disappear" union leaders).
@chiraag you are literally describing a conspiracy theory.
You might think it's entirely true, but that doesn't not make it a conspiracy theory. You're talking about a conspiracy. And your theory is pretty out there.
But then all conspiracy theorists promoting their narratives at least say they think their theories are true.
The key is to realize what you're promoting and how you sound to others.
@volkris @Weedkiller The fact that many companies don't like unions isn't "out there". Please, for your own sake, read up on some basic labor history. This isn't fringe stuff. Like, you don't even need to be a leftist to acknowledge the bloody history of labor rights not only in the US, but around the world. Our current labor protections are literally written in blood.
@volkris @Weedkiller Like, literally, the OP is about Tesla disliking unions. It is well known that Ford heavily disliked unions. Walmart and Starbucks have heavily "discouraged" unionization by firing labor organizers. Amazon has famously fought warehouse organization by similarly firing workers at the forefront of the union drive.
@volkris @Weedkiller The only way this is a "conspiracy theory" is if you choose to ignore the ways employers wield their collective power (through money and threat of job loss) to prevent any sort of unionization of workplaces. Again, do you not know of the Pullman strike, where the president *literally used the Army to disband the strike*? I can't imagine the Pullman company was too displeased about it.
@chiraag No you're getting that backwards.
You're saying the only way this is a conspiracy theory is if you ignore the conspiracy, but no, that's exactly why this is a conspiracy theory.
And it's it's bad for workers to promote it.
That's the whole problem.
@volkris @Weedkiller Okay, so you're literally just going to ignore history, ALEC, the Federalist Society, billionaires bankrolling politicians, Super PACs, and literally every other way companies and rich individuals influence and decide the rules of the game.
You don't get to just ignore inconvenient facts by shouting "cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrY". Presumably, if it's a conspiracy theory, the things I mentioned to back up my point would be false or misleading.
@volkris @Weedkiller I mean, again, this is pretty basic shit here. There have been studies showing that, at least in the US, the preferred political outcomes of the top 1% are overwhelmingly more likely to become law than those of any other group ( e.g. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706 ). This clearly includes, among other things, labor law. This isn't complicated - people have studied this stuff.
@chiraag I love that you emphasized the conspiracy in your reply.
@volkris @Weedkiller Bring the facts if you want this to be an actual discussion. I just named several (well-known) rich right-wing groups that have a proven record of authoring legislation. Put up or shut up.
@volkris @Weedkiller Ah yes, telling workers that their employer might be out to screw them and they deserve a seat at the table by building collective power is...bad for workers somehow.
@chiraag that's not what's happening.
@volkris @Weedkiller Simple question: do you support unions?
@chiraag yes, I support unions, though not the legal framework the US has developed to regulate them.
@Weedkiller
@volkris @Weedkiller Except all of this started b/c we were saying that employers are able to *exploit* the lack of an actual choice in order to squeeze workers (more output, less money, or a combo). The employer _uses_ the implicit threat of violence (homelessness, starvation) in order to demand more from the worker.