People should also understand why he said he would be offended. He would be offended because it meant they didn’t talk to him and work with him - and that he did such a bad job as a manager that they decided to unionize.

He’s pro-union - he just hopes he is a good enough boss that his employees don’t feel like they need to unionize. He clarified his viewpoint in later videos. Offended was probably not the best choice of word - and he admits that too. I don’t recall the video but someone can find it. (I’m on mobile and on vacation - idk why I’m even here)

Anyone who is truly “pro-union” would recognize that seeing yourself as a good manager/boss doesn’t mean you don’t take advantage of your employees. Furthermore, there is ALWAYS a power dynamic at play that makes it difficult for individuals to speak up about their concerns or ideas for improving working conditions — even “nice” managers will disagree or see certain things as pointless / unnecessary / frivolous. Not to mention, Linus is both the owner AND the manager of LMG, making the relationship between employer / employee even more complex and unbalanced.

Unions are a tool to give individual workers more leverage in negotiations that almost always favour employers / managers.

A side note: Linus could be a great day-to-day manager, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a bad “ceo” if that’s what he calls himself. He can be incredibly personable and kind and supportive, but also have unreasonable expectations about work hours, employee’s social media activities, compensation, etc.

Do you have a source for the work hours? I had the impression that he very much tries to not ask for more then he pays for. Do you have a source that the compensations at LTT are somehow unreasonable?

As for not having a YouTube channel, i find that a reasonable demand for employees of a company running YouTube channels. They are allowed to do game streaming stream on Twitch and stuff like that.

Pro-union but would be offended if his employees made a union?

That's the kinda double speak I'm talking about.

It’s really not. People tend to only form unions when they feel that they’re being unjustly treated and this is one of their last resorts.

If you're pro-something, surly you'd want people to do it?

I’m pro-choice - does this mean that I think every fetus should be aborted?

No, that would mean you support each woman who wants to have one and you probably shouldn't tell them it offends you if they do. Especially if they depend on you financially and you can break up with them without consequence.

I interpret it closer to being pro-choice while hoping to not personally need an abortion. Unions form when workers feel they aren't being heard and aren't being properly represented. Having a union form at your own company is an indication that you failed your employees in one way or another. You can be pro-union while hoping to personally never need one or have to sit across the table from one.

> Having a union form at your own company is an indication that you failed your employees in one way or another.

This is absolutely untrue. A kind of propaganda talking point that paints unions like some kind of vicious weapon that you want workers to have if they absolutely need to defend themselves against assault, but you'd rather not have the assault take place at all.

Unions give workers concentrated power to balance against the concentrated power of corporations. That's it. They are one side of the scale.

That's a wrong way to view unions though, a propagandized American way. Unions should really be default and not imply some sort of moral failing about the employer. Sadly they are viewed as such.

Yeah, pro-choice but hoping not to have an abortion is probably a lot of people's position. But then telling your partner who depends on you financially that it would disappoint you if they had one sorta changes things, dont you agree? Especially if theyre already pregnant.

As for unions, everyone should unionize. It's literally the only way to even out the power dynamic. Good companies, bad companies - it makes no difference. There goal is to pay you as little as they can, so yours should be to get paid as much as you can. Unions make that process easier for the majority of people.

Pro-choice != pro-abortion.

Pro-choice means every pregnant woman should have the choice and a real chance to abort their pregnancy if they choose. It's kind of right there in the name.

Unless you believe children shouldn't exist - almost no one is pro-abortion. So, that's not really an argument that anyone is making, is it?

In the same way people say pro-union - they mean "pro-choice" as in you should have the choice and freedom to form and be part of a union easily.

Pro-choice literally means you think women should be able to choose whether or not they terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I hope you’re trolling — you’re comment made me lol when I first read it because it’s so misguided.

If you're pro-choice then I wouldn't expect you to say that in some cases you'd be offended if the person had a choice.

This is an extremely American -- and misinformed -- view of unions. Where I'm from unions are the default, not formed as a last resort to unjust treatment but a natural counterbalance to corporate/institutional power.

Someone saying they'd rather not have their workers form a union is not pro-union. That's like saying you support workers sharing information but you would be offended if your workers talked about their salaries because that would infer that they don't trust you to be fair.

Is it misinformed if it’s just generally how they work in the US?