R* should have thought of that before doing union busting. Now management is left with bad options and have to decide which option is least bad, for instance admitting they were wrong, or let the situation decay further and potentially escalate the fight against their own workforce.
I’m not saying it’s the correct decision. I’m saying they’re a corp and corps always go the route of pride. They won’t admit fault, certainly not after the public reason they gave for firing the people in the first place.
You may be right, but I don’t see how that change the calculus. Should employees and union be complacent with corps’ bad and potentially illegal actions (firing for being in an union is not legal in some areas), refuse to defend colleagues, just to avoid hurting the corporation pride?
Anyway, we’ll probably hear more soon, and will see how this play out.
R* should have thought of that before doing union busting. Now management is left with bad options and have to decide which option is least bad, for instance admitting they were wrong, or let the situation decay further and potentially escalate the fight against their own workforce.
I’m not saying it’s the correct decision. I’m saying they’re a corp and corps always go the route of pride. They won’t admit fault, certainly not after the public reason they gave for firing the people in the first place.
You may be right, but I don’t see how that change the calculus. Should employees and union be complacent with corps’ bad and potentially illegal actions (firing for being in an union is not legal in some areas), refuse to defend colleagues, just to avoid hurting the corporation pride?
Anyway, we’ll probably hear more soon, and will see how this play out.
Sadly breaking the law is legal when you have enough money in the bank.
The shareholders may force them to bend tbh.