I think the idea is that there are common interests to be found, but borders artificially keep people apart, by segmenting up legal jurisdictions. For example, why Starbucks employees in Jersey City aren't all that different from Starbucks employees in New York City right across the river.
> Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks
To what extent is this correlated with the economic security of their employees? Employees in wealthier areas (statistically correlated with whiter) might be more educated on average (which could be correlated with desire to unionize) and/or more likely to have a higher-income partner or family member (which means lower financial risk due to failure or being fired).
GPS data shows how wolf packs carve out territory - https://bigthink.com/hard-science/wolf-gps/
Such paranoia between coworkers is a serious impediment to labor organization. The more diverse the workplace, the better this works.
Yes, of course they are. As explained by Chomsky's model of propaganda, corporations hire true believers for these roles because they are the most effective and reliable.
> most managers and employers are not so crafty
Amazon being so crafty is a documented fact; it's naive to think they're the only ones.
Amazon is a great example of a company where I absolutely would not put it past them to use DEI initiatives to try to defeat labor organizing. But in many other cases these initiatives are actually demanded and sought after by employees.
I think in this case the actions of well-meaning people were only appropriated as an oppression tactic after they've caught on in popularity.
History and my own anecdotal experience are not consistent with your implied theory that CRT-driven DEI became popular specifically as an anti-labor capitalist conspiracy.
I think it would make it far easier. The problem is every jurisdiction attacking unions and workers in their own unique legal frameworks, and the forcing of unions/workforces to compete with each other across the borders between these jurisdictions. Capital gets to play Mexican against Indonesian workers, even down to workers in Cook County against workers in DuPage county.
If an Indonesian can easily work in Mexico and a Mexican can easily work in Indonesia, their interests aren't just theoretically similar, they're almost the same.
This is backwards, and I'm having trouble understanding how a more diverse, more transient population would find it easier to find common interests and unite. Suppose a factory unionizes - without borders, the owner will find it easier to import non-union workers. While moving a factory is challenging regardless of borders - it's a big, heavy thing, tied into local infrastructure and supply chains. It's even reflected in the rhetoric - "immigrants will do the jobs Americans won't".
It's also reflected empirically: Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks - https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat... (unpaywalled: http://archive.is/1khJw)
And in the strong Danish unions as far back as 1981 (https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-de...) when Denmark had only 3.02% of immigrants and their descendants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark#Modern...)