[jpcfl]

> At this size

Size has nothing to do with it. Just because a company is large doesn't mean it needs to start making poor business decisions.

> corporate death penalty

That's a bit extreme. If you want to be seen as objective, this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will only work against you.

[brianzelip]

> Just because a company is large doesn't mean it needs to start making poor business decisions

To be clear this is also inflammatory rhetoric disguised as what some would have you think is ‘common sense’.

[jpcfl]

Is it not possible that employees forming a union could be bad for business?

[consteval]

It certainly is, and I would imagine letting the children chained up in your sweatshop go would be bad for business too. On the bright side, their eyes won't be adjusted to the sunlight, so they won't get very far.

Yes, you can frame this as "bad for business". Contrary to what all the armchair economists online will say, you should never just do what's good for business. If we did we would be seeing crimes against humanity. And we do, just not here.

Its always a balancing act. Often what's good for business isn't good, and what's bad for business isn't bad. You need more robust reasoning than that. Because if that's all you're relying on to form your opinions, you have no substance.

[jpcfl]

When Apple chains children up in sweatshops, please let me know.

[consteval]

My point is that "bad for business" on its own doesn't really mean much. Often people can't see the holes in their arguments or beliefs. But when you enlarge the view and take it to its logical conclusion, the holes become obvious.

[jpcfl]

And my point is that a store deciding to unionize could negatively impact the business. Calling for the death of the company, and inciting images of child slaves in chains is not an argument against that. It's an appeal to emotion.