351–360 of 416 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes you wonder if THIS is what's behind all the pushes for diversity
Why do people think the promotion of diversity is part of some nefarious global plot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people think the promotion of diversity is part of some nefarious global plot?
Because its most visible effect has been the suppression of the working class? Because its most prominent advocates are nefarious global plotters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The push for diversity is not that sinister, they just want the widest customer base they can get. Neoliberal diversity and identity politics lets them be moral without threatening their power base. What we've seen from Amazon's anti-union efforts this round is that they are not sophisticated enough to be pulling some kind of machiavellian plot. If unions are going to work in America, they have be able to navigate a…
Have you ever in your life seen someone look at a company's diversity stats before buying something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could make it hard to recruit new Sr people and leaders in their fields. I would never consider working at Amazon.
In contrast, I would be very happy too consider a company that is honestly focused on its commercial mission rather than appease the small number of people who believe their employers should give them a platform for their activism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do have leverage, and you don't use said leverage to help those that don't; then you are a bastard. And having policies ensures that your company, at high levels is ONLY staffed with bastards because people who are not bastards won't want to work there. Granted, that might be exactly what Amazon et al are selecting for; but at some point, a company being anti-union will be a signal to prospective high-level em…
Rubbish. Your assumption is that unions are always a benefit to their members. I have seen enough actions by unions where the outcomes were detrimental to their members for me to believe that some unions are a net negative for their members. Someone can choose to not belong to a union because they are a good person that just believes that a union is bad for everyone. Edit: Disclaimer: I am not stating that I think un…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it's not physically possible to be neutral on this issue. It's not analogous to never giving people change on the street because you donate to soup kitchens and mutual aid orgs (or whatever). If you don't support unionization, you are effectively undermining it. This isn't meant to be some kind of woke purity test. It's just the facts of how a market operates. Every individual that is willing to work wi…
Absolutely not. Not increasing its power is not undermining it. It's neutrality. Stop changing definitions to suit your political goals. We have enough "with us or against us" going on driving violence to let more slide.
If I'm to be honest, I'm a little surprised at the responses I'm seeing posted. This site is probably >80% men, many of whom are college educated and far more wealthy than most Americans, but are still somewhat anti-Amazon?
>80% "men". Whiners gotta whine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that it is “part of some nefarious global plot” in the discrete, conspiratorial sense you are suggesting.
When modern Americans and Europeans rail against "diversity" as being the cause of their woes, it's almost certainly based on what boils down to some flavor of the "white genocide" conspiracy theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>80% "men". Whiners gotta whine.
I think yall misunderstood my comment. I'm not maligning anyone or complaining about any stereotypes, it's a reality that men are more pro-business policies than women in the West. Personally I think that Amazon is getting what's coming to them for their labor practices. My point was that I expected a significantly more conservative, Wall Street Journal-y response than those I have been seeing so far.