Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't get it. Are you saying that unionised employees are unable to get stock options? It's meant in a literal sense? I thought this was about unions not liking stock options or something like this.

How can this be legal in america? Isn't it pressuring the workers not to unionise?



I'm not sure if it's the union who prevents stock from being part of the negotiations and/or Tesla, however to me it doesn't make sense to be illegal: if you have two choices for jobs at different companies and they both offer good incentive packages, both are good offers but in different ways - there will be pressure depending on what you value more. Perhaps you'll value higher immediate payout vs. long-term payout via a stock that you believe will go up - and you're willing to take that risk because you believe in what the company is doing - and you'll be working there to help make sure that it happens.


I can't understand the reasoning. It's tesla directly denying options to unionised employees, this is direct pressure. It's like denying a promotion based on whether you're unionised or not. Or denying certain benefits based on whether you're unionised, or closing a unionised brach etc. This has nothing to do with the choice between different companies. Tesla shouldn't be allowed to directly influence the establishment of unions using pressure. I really can't believe that this would be possible. It's madness. A company shouldn't be able to pressure workers into not joining the unions. A lesson learned through a lot of blood and loss of life in the late 19th, early 20th century.

A company can care enough for its workers so that they don't see value in unions. But it can't force them via pressure.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: