Take that up with the person who wrote "[The union] could attend board meetings and veto deals that harm the employees via strike or mass resignation."
Board meetings are for board members, so I gave that person the benefit of the doubt.
My mistake.
Re:Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs
by mleonhard on Sunday November 28, 2021 @01:05AM
(#29366592)
You seem to be attacking the weakest part of my idea and ignoring the strongest parts. Apparently, there is a new word for this: dunking [0]. Please stop.
Your replies go against the guidelines [1]:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Having a board vote isn't the same has having a veto over every possible decision.
My comment did not imply that a board vote grants veto power. I suggested that the union could "veto deals ... via strike or mass resignation". This means that the union decides on a maximum dilution and agrees to strike or resign if the board makes a deal that dilutes employee positions more than the maximum.
> Unions don't necessarily get board observer status, let alone board seats, AKA a board vote.
My comment did not mention anything about board seats. The board would grant the union permission to attend board meetings, lest the board inadvertently trigger a strike or mass resignation.
Next time, please read the comment carefully before replying.