[tptacek]

Did you miss the surrounding context? His point is that NY has very strong worker protections, and that it's much better to let a non-unionized company set up in NY and then organize it, rather than trying to make organization a condition to entry.

[blacksqr]

Isn't the validity and relevance of those points something for the unions to decide for themselves?

Some people are still able to distinguish reality from a sales pitch.

[tptacek]

No? I don't understand how you're connecting these dots.

It's not like we have to wonder whether the union strategy worked here. It demonstrably failed. Amazon didn't buckle, they didn't accept Whole Foods unionization as a condition of setting up shop in Queens, and the union will not in fact see a single additional job as a result of what happened.

[blacksqr]

"the union will not in fact see a single additional job as a result of what happened"

That assumes that all union organizing will now cease or come to nothing, and the unions will get no benefit from keeping a huge, dedicated anti-union company out of their back yard.

[tptacek]

No, it just means that this particular transaction was net-negative for unions.

[blacksqr]

So your argument is that the unions should have just taken the deal as dictated to them without considering their larger self-interest?

[tptacek]

Yes? "As dictated to them" is a weird way of putting it, since they were the ones making the demands.