Today’s action is just a quick education on a specific subject so you are armed to engage people in online discourse about the King Sooper Strikes.
Want to “win” every online debate you engage in on social platforms regarding the King Soopers strike? Well you can’t. No one ever wins online arguments. What you *can* do, however, is make an example of them while making your point. Remember, an online argument is a performance for anyone reading, and will never change the mind of the person you are engaging. Treat it as such. If you support the Local King Sooper strikes, then here are some talking points to use for both when “they” are instigating an anti-union argument on social platforms (particularly NextDoor), and when they are responding negatively to others who are supporting it.
*Important note – these talking points are used when there is actually a point being made. If they are just trying to sarcastically belittle, provoke, or instigate, then do not engage them on the subject, engage their behavior directly like in the screenshot below.
Instigations
These talking points are best used when an individual is instigating an argument on social media about the local strike.
1. “Striking workers are lazy and should just get a new job if they don’t like the pay.”
Summary:
A common right-wing argument is that striking workers should “just get another job” if they’re unhappy. This ignores the fact that collective bargaining exists to improve working conditions for all employees, not just for individuals.
Respond with:
- “So you’re saying that if workers are mistreated, they should just leave and allow corporations to exploit the next group of workers instead of fixing the problem? That seems like a recipe for a race to the bottom.”
- “Why is it unreasonable for workers to demand fair wages and safe working conditions? Do you believe only corporations should have power in the labor market?”
Notes:
The goal here is to highlight that corporations should not have unchecked power over wages and working conditions. Keep the conversation framed around why labor organizing is necessary rather than engaging with the idea that quitting is a valid solution.
2. “The union is just greedy and doesn’t care about workers.”
Summary:
Right-wingers will attempt to frame unions as corrupt entities that care only about money, not workers’ well-being. This is a tactic to delegitimize collective bargaining.
Respond with:
- “The union is made up of the workers themselves. So, are you saying the workers don’t care about themselves?”
- “Do you believe workers should have no organized way to advocate for fair pay and working conditions? If so, what’s stopping corporations from taking complete advantage of employees?”
Notes:
Make it clear that the union is the workers and that collective power is necessary to negotiate fairly with large corporations.
3. “Strikes just hurt customers, not the company.”
Summary:
This is an attempt to turn public sentiment against the striking workers by making them seem like they are harming the community rather than advocating for fair treatment.
Respond with:
- “If customers are affected, imagine what it’s like for workers dealing with unfair wages and unsafe conditions every single day. The goal is to improve the industry, not just for workers but for customers too.”
- “Companies are the ones responsible for disruptions when they refuse to meet fair demands. The strike wouldn’t be happening if management treated workers fairly in the first place.”
Notes:
Always shift the responsibility back to the company. The disruption is a result of corporate greed, not the workers advocating for fair treatment.
Responses
These points are best used when they are responding to a point made about the strike.
1. “If you don’t like corporations, why don’t you stop shopping at stores?”
Summary:
This is a common bad-faith response suggesting that supporting labor rights is hypocritical unless you completely disengage from capitalism.
Respond with:
- “That’s like saying if you don’t like pollution, you should stop breathing air. The point is to improve the system, not abandon it.”
- “Why shouldn’t workers be able to fight for better treatment while also participating in the economy like everyone else?”
Notes:
Avoid engaging with the absurdity of the argument too much—just point out its logical flaw and move on.
2. “Unions make everything more expensive.”
Summary:
This argument tries to pit workers against consumers by suggesting that paying fair wages leads to price hikes.
Respond with:
- “Are you saying corporations should have record-breaking profits while paying workers poverty wages just to keep prices slightly lower? Do you really think CEOs are taking pay cuts to keep prices down?”
- “Wages have stagnated for decades while corporate profits soar. Where do you think the money from not paying workers fairly actually goes?”
Notes:
Reframe the discussion to highlight that corporations are making money regardless—fair wages do not cause economic collapse.
3. “I worked minimum wage jobs and never complained.”
Summary:
Some will argue that because they personally endured bad conditions, current workers should as well.
Respond with:
- “So because you were underpaid and overworked, you think that should be the standard forever? Shouldn’t we want future workers to have it better than we did?”
- “Imagine if past generations had that mindset about workplace safety, weekends, or child labor. Would you still be okay with that?”
Notes:
Focus on progress—just because something was bad in the past doesn’t mean it should stay that way.
Final Notes:
- Never engage in personal insults. The goal is to make the other person look unreasonable while keeping the focus on the issue.
- Stay consistent and repetitive. The people you’re trying to persuade are not the instigators themselves, but the audience reading the exchange.
- Always redirect blame to the corporations. The company is responsible for the conditions that led to the strike—not the workers standing up for fair treatment.