Any employee can refuse to work. Its called quitting.

That's a very different thing than this of course, which is based around the idea, its not worth it to fire them all.

so coercive tactics by companies against employees is ok but not the reverse? again, that’s a perverse inversion, against the common interests of society at large. corporations are chartered by the government as a means to direct their efforts toward the common good. they’re not natural entities, and we should be way more willing to revoke those charters for the betterment of society.

The interests of society are not served by a group of activists with extremist views trying to impose their values on the entire planet by leveraging the fact that they work for a global brand, and then trying to use that leverage to deplatform anyone who offends them.

Letting people watch what they want is the democratic position that benefits society at large.

the company should use this opportunity to move the ball forward wrt deeper, mutual understanding, not retaliate with mass firings (which is the recommendation i was responding to). that’s escalation, and does nobody any good.

I'm not sure what you are responding to in my comment. I don't think i said anything of the sort.

If an individual employee doesn't like their job, they should quit and find a different one. If a large portion don't like it, then a labour dispute is one possible way to try and resolve the situation.

i may have read too much into it, as it seemed to be making the same trite argument (that many others are making) that the employees should just quit, as their only recourse.

strong leadership can tolerate disagreement and critique. it’s weak leadership, of which we have an overabundance, that cannot. you advocate coercion, which is the favored tool of weak leadership.

also, it’s a fallacy that the senior managers of an organization (at least successful ones) “run” it. at best, they have outsize influence.

Literally every steel mill worked this way for quite a long time and did just fine.

Look at the booming US steel industry we have today!

/s

I know this is probably an off-hand comment from someone who doesn't know US unionization history very well, but it's hilarious still. That we even still have any steel production is because of unionization. That corporations were allowed to outsource is because of anti-unionization efforts.

I am familiar with unions and union history. Also union busting efforts and the growth of unions until the 80s during the Reagan era - but to compare a factory worker or a longshoreman to software engineers feels like a facetious comparison with little merit IMO.

I worked at a retail job briefly after high school and it was a joke that I had to pay union due by law in the state of Maryland.

Software engineers are politically probably one of the strongest positioned labor groups in modern history, up their with probably high finance and heirs of huge fortunes. The fact of the matter is that most people don't want to work the vast majority of union jobs and simultaneously, corporations are willing to offshore many of these labor requirements in part due to the cost burden. Sure, management takes home a lot, but honestly I'm unsympathetic to most union industries and I shouldn't have to pay another tax to some obscure group to handle issues.

The reason the US still has a steel industry is because it's essential for any future major war.