Since the other comment where I replied trying to unpacking these two comments got flag-killed and it seems some are haranguing over the stylistics of the posts here, let me try running with this:
I think workspace design and office ergonomics are a potentially easy win for collective bargaining in the information workforce, especially now-as stated by others this is a unique opportunity and in my opinion the incentives align between worker productivity and public health.
I still think they bring an interesting bit of salt and pepper to the discussion: open-workspaces bring out a lot of opinions from workers and employees, and in my opinion are pretty low hanging fruit for a newly collectively-organized white collar workforce in 2020.
I think you're not getting many responses because few people agree with you or don't care. or because you are threadjacking. you may think your post is on topic but I don't think a lot of people would.
Also I can't parse most of your message. I think you are so far into your belief in this premise that no one can follow what you are saying; you are making a LOT of assumptions that others aren't.
For instance I have no idea what "newly collectively-organized white collar workforce in 2020" means. or "open-workspaces bring out a lot of opinions from workers and employees"
You’re certainly free to clear up what you were referring to versus being intentionally vague, but instead of a protracted debate over unclear drafting versus poor reading comprehension, let’s just get back on topic:
Do you think collective worker action is a valid path to take during this pandemic to improve working conditions as areas consider reopening and lifting quarantine restrictions?
I do, and I agree with others who say this opportunity is a good one to explore some of those options and begin having some of those dialogues to build effective coalitions.
I'm not who you're responding to, but I agree with you completely. I just wish the posts upthread hadn't cluttered up the thread with vague dance-around-the-subject language, instead of just stating what they thought and why they thought it.
I apologize if asking for your opinion on unionization was read as having made the assumption that you were full-on against unionization, the purpose of me asking for your input was a precise attempt to avoid assuming what your opinions were.
If that’s what you thought I said, then this is on me to phrase myself better in the future.
