181–190 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it that, given your last sentence, your comment is about ubi and not unions?
Unions only protect you in one job. A UBI protects you in all jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they won't let you have a union then the ubi they give you won't put you on a stronger footing. Ubi could help create a minimum standard of living, that's what that tool is for, but that's separate from getting negotiating power for workers. For that, they need to negotiate together.
See jedberg. We have systematically destroyed the concept of growing with a company for it's duration in the US. Without the concept of mutual company-employee loyalty then something needs to protect inter-company transition/bargaining power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but do I really have to answer these questions? How is it people still don't understand there's a huge segment of the working population who just can't up and quit a job?
Point to a single person who cannot quit their job right now?
Same thing. The capability to make the decision may be present, but an unwillingness to acknowledge that there are practical limits to the capability to execute on that decision without jeopardizing the decider's capability to fulfill higher priority commitments (family/self safety, food, transport, shelter, medical care) demonstrates a malicious willingness to indulge in the discount of the interests of others when it is to the convenience of oneself.
Just to head it off; no, morally speaking, it is your problem when you know they have no other options. You are just as much a contributor to their state of affairs through employment of abusive labor practices as they are. You drag down everyone by going above and beyond to lower the bar of acceptable business practices. If that doesn't concern you the least bit, then I'm not sure continued conversation will be fruitful in any way.
It’s old-fashion management. If you don’t understand your employees workload and don’t trust them then either you resign or fire the employees. Simple as that. I don’t see how this makes any employee productive. This adds more stress imo. An employee gives you 8 of their 12 hour day. Now, you tell me if that works only for you - the management. They’re people just like you. They have a life just like you. They have r…
Your software records a phone call an employee made while not on the clock? Congratulations, That's a felony. Your software reports on their browser history when an employee is not on the clock, Congratulations, that's another felony. Your terminate someone because the software is saying they aren't at their computers the whole day, that's a class action lawsuit and possibly another felony. And all of it is EASY AS H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but do I really have to answer these questions? How is it people still don't understand there's a huge segment of the working population who just can't up and quit a job?
Point to a single person who cannot quit their job right now?
Not everyone is an engineer who have employers fawning over them. A lot of people have few prospects of employment - especially right now - and have bills to pay. So weighing the two options : no food this month, or installing spyware willingly they take the easiest route.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unions only protect you in one job. A UBI protects you in all jobs.
If ubi can cover your costs of living. But if corporate america and government have broken the labor movement, then why would they give you ubi that truly gives you autonomy from work?
It sets a minimum bar.
Realistically you need both -- a UBI and a union. The UBI sets the minimum bar that all jobs must reach, the Union sets the livable bar for one particular workplace (or maybe a group of similar workplaces).
UBI and Unions serve different purposes. A UBI prevents modern slavery, a Union provides for a decent quality of life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unions only protect you in one job. A UBI protects you in all jobs.
If ubi can cover your costs of living. But if corporate america and government have broken the labor movement, then why would they give you ubi that truly gives you autonomy from work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Victim blaming like this breeds radicalization. Need I say more?
Depends, could you elaborate on what you did say because I don't follow. Thanks!
Unless everyone is locked into a cage like a rat in a straight jacket people will find ways to maliciously hurt themselves and others when they've been pushed too far. Many self deluded and extremely privileged people decline responsibility for these extreme behaviors, yet, in reality, we are all culpable in the actions of the worst of us. It is everyone's responsibility to arrest the decline of someone nearing the breaking point. Once a person is closeto snapping they are no longer capable of rational thought, let alone digging themselves out of a hole that they are not fully responsible for digging. If we are to dismiss responsibility for these people that have been pushed too far then we only create a habitat for more of these desperate and sad souls to develop in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> poor management. Uneducated decision making There is no "poor management". What are these uneducated decision makers even doing at your place of work? There's always a boss. The boss is paying for the behavior they want to see. Now if you argue the ultimate boss is clueless, then, what are you even doing there? You might want to tell yourself that your immediate boss who calls you every 30 minutes you are away from…
This kinda feels like the conspiracy theory perspective to organizational management. If you see a purported optimization problem and a solution that doesn't fit it, there are two possible explanations. Either whatever does the optimization is bad at optimizing, or the objective function isn't what you think it is. For almost every feasible solution, you can contrive an objective function so that that solution is the…
> In some sense, it doesn't even matter. If the manager is sacrificing profit for a fuzzy feeling of domination, then he's doing a bad job at increasing profit. And if the business is in competition with another that doesn't succumb to that kind of error, then the market will make it very clear
We have to be consistent in our views.
In the first sentence, the Hanlon's razor applies but not in the second one?
What if the market is inefficient and the manager sacrificing profit for a fuzzy feeling of domination actually comes ahead?
Does the Hanlon's razor support that theory?
In that case, how does this conversation proceed?
I am (trying to) applying a consistent view - that there's always an objective function in a game and society is a game.
Right now, you and I are playing a game - I'm trying to clarify my thoughts and so are you.
My objective function is to test the clarity of my thoughts and the best way to go about it, I feel, is to discuss it with someone who holds a contrarian view.
That said, I've been having a hard time doing that here on HN as once downvotes (which work like a silencing mechanism here) happen, I literally cant respond back until a few hours have passed since the last downvote.
Don't hesitate to reach out over email. I am enjoying this exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're out of touch with the reality for a large chunk of workers if you believe it's simple or even advisable for them to "just quit". We should be making the case for better conditions across the board, and this means not leaving it up to those in shitty situations to figure it out for themselves.
Who said it was simple? But advisable, sure if you or anyone is not uncomfortable with what they are being subject to/asked to do as part of a job, YES, I would advise them to quit if deemed necessary. Would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?