• Damage@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • sinextitan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I agree, they literally are. but Linus said that he wishes employees personally discuss the matter w him b4 starting a union. which was what I was highlighting. if your employees feel a need to unionize then they’re past civil discussions. does not mean they’re adverse to civil discussions as part of a union tho.

      • Damage@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I mean this matter has been settled a century ago, I don’t really think it’s necessary to explain why employees can’t discuss matters with their employers on a level ground

        • sinextitan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          correct. but counter point, if it were settled a century ago then it should be common knowledge. Linus still however believes, out of sheer stupidity or malice, that his employees can discuss matters with him amidst a power gap. this is not the case and which is y I highlighted it.

          I don’t really think it’s necessary to explain

          disagree. many people still don’t know that they shouldn’t talk to cops w/o a lawyer present. diff nations have diff labor laws and sm outright don’t. so to sm people this might not be as obv.