
Nissan attacked for one of 'nastiest anti-union campaigns' in modern US history - aphextron
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/01/nissan-mississippi-union-vote
======
aazzzasdfasdf22
Just bought a car for the first time in 13 years. Still refuse to consider
Nissan products due to their using the legal system to harass others using
their family name over trademark.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Compu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Computer)

Nissan the car company name has nothing to do with a person named Nissan. It
was landed upon by committee.

While I understand trademarks "must be defended" is part of the laws that
govern them, the law is garbage. It's giving special privilege to already
established human language when it's used like this.

If you take a known name and make a "trademark" around it, you should get no
special protection.

------
chmod111
Sounds like the unions have something to gain...or lose. oh well, better job
security for developers once we automate everything.

~~~
wahern
Automation is inevitable, but will likely happen quicker _without_ unions.

Unionized autoworkers make the same wages as non-unionized autoworkers. It's a
concession the UAW and other unions have made to keep plants from moving.

The real cost of unionization to a company isn't wages, it's a loss of
flexibility in moving or closing plants. Unionization extracts better job
security. Even the most rabid anti-union Americans want a system that makes it
more difficult for companies to move or close factories. Job security brings
_political_ and _economic_ stability. But ironically the popular narrative
about unions has grown more negative even as conservatives have become
increasingly vocal about providing job security to low-skilled workers.

Ask yourself this: would you rather government pass laws that restrict free
trade and limit the movement of factories, or would you rely on unions to seek
that stability within an otherwise free market system, where union contracts
can be tailored to each factory and more easily amended in light of unexpected
market conditions?

Realize that most programmers don't have to worry about job security in the
same way that low-skilled workers do. Even if the current technology labor
market didn't favor supply, the cost of on-boarding employees is huge. For
even nominally skilled positions, most companies will overlook even the worst
performing employee just because the cost of on-boarding a replacement can
cost thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars; and you never know if the
next employee will be any better. People think this reluctance to fire is
because of the risk of discrimination lawsuits, but in industries reliant on
low-skilled labor people will get fired at the drop of a hat, sometimes out of
sheer retaliation, even though the same legal risks exist.

Unless you want this country to go the way of Venezuela, you want to to secure
some significant degree of job security for low-skilled workers. Succumbing to
market forces is inevitable, but there's nothing inevitable about a capitalist
free market or a liberal political system. Those things can be extinguished in
the blink of an eye.

------
mcappleton
I'm fine with unions or no unions. What I'm not fine with is the government
making laws giving one side unfair bargaining power. I think a lot of unions
have gotten too greedy and "killed the goose that laid the golden egg". There
are plenty of places to work in this country. If you don't like one, you can
unionize Or move on. But trying to get a law passed to strong arm your
position is just wrong if you ask me.

