221–230 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't unions seem to have that problem in pretty much all of Europe then?
Because European unions doesn't have as much power over workers as American unions, since Europe as right to work. Right to work means you can just quit a bad union if you don't like it without having to change your job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not 30 years old though, the longshore union leader a few years ago literally went on live national TV with a fucking rolex and gold chain screaming how broke he was and that (in his own words) his message to America is "I will cripple you" if people trying to import things like medicines, foodstuffs, and everything else into American ports don't pay more union money to their monopolized union instead of investi…
"I will cripple you" must have referred to the bosses, not the entire country including his people. Idk why it matters that he had a gold chain. Are people without tech jobs not allowed to have money? Yeah this brief out of context video is obvious proof that unions are the #1 problem in society. A prole with a Rolex?!? If we allow dockworkers to wear Rolexes then the entire social order will break down! What happene…
I don't give a shit a CEO or a dock worker has a rolex and a gold chain. I do care that they bling them out on TV while with their hand out for charity in the form of asking for Luddism. Probably not a smart move for that person pretending to be a broke charity case while also coming out with threats against everyone's livelihood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying suppose some employees decide to form a union. And the company doesn't consent to sign an exclusive contract. As I understand it there are unions advocating that workers that didn't agree to a union still have to be bound to it anyway. It's my understanding in some states in the US it's possible a worker will be forced to join a union if a certain number of other workers want a union, even if neither the w…
I agree that would be bad. Is that what happens or is it that the employer agrees only to hire workers from the union and that's why you have to join? "Right to work" laws are about that situation; they prohibit agreements between the union and the employer that would require all employees to join the union. When you had to join the UFCW, was it merely because the UFCW existed at your store, or was it because the sto…
So yes the false premise here was it was just a voluntary contract, but it really wasn't since the law required them to act in good faith to come up with a contract with the union when they had no interest in doing so except for the violence of the state that forced them to. Otherwise they'd have just hired non-union workers.
I did explicitly ask them when I was hired that I absolutely did not want to join the union or pay the dues. The manager was happy to hear that because they didn't like the union either, he certainly would have hired me without requiring anything union related if not for the NLRA forcing the "good faith" negotiation blocking it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes if it's just a voluntary contract I see nothing sinister. If some employees form a union that's not sinister. If the company signs a contract with them that's not sinister. But if some employees want a union and that automatically means they've forced the other employees to join rather than allowing the other employees to pick to work outside the union, or automatically means the company is involuntarily bound to…
unions don’t work unless everyone’s in them. it’s a free country—individuals have freedom to just work at a non union shop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications. No, it's just a scam, and anyone should be able to see that. It's like saying I get 2 days pay if I have to write go in addition to typescript. And 3 days pay if I have to write java. > There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that…
> No, it's just a scam The analogy you gave supports my argument: if you are easily able to switch between TypeScript and Java, you are more valuable to your employer than somebody who is unable to do that, so you should get paid more. > when many people worked in factories under terrible conditions As opposed to now, where many people work in offices under terrible conditions?
Second, the idea that we should formalize "being a valuable employee" i.e. "learn X skill and get Y raise" is just a bad idea. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". If you pay people more for using more programming languages, you'll end up with frankenstein projects written in dozens of languages.
> As opposed to now, where many people work in offices under terrible conditions?
Ah yes those horrific air-conditioned offices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications. No, it's just a scam, and anyone should be able to see that. It's like saying I get 2 days pay if I have to write go in addition to typescript. And 3 days pay if I have to write java. > There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that…
And what do you think would happen if unions were made illegal? Employers would just play nice? It's crazy how far propaganda has gone in the US, where the average worker is longing for a return to the Gildee Age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they can hire workers. Without whom more capital can't be produced
And why can money hire workers? Its because that money lets them get goods that was produced by previous investments. Without the investor class you wouldn't get large new projects organized. The alternative to private investments is communism, and we all know how that works out, it results in politicians hogging all the wealth and generally making even worse decisions with that money than the greedy capitalists does…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what do you think would happen if unions were made illegal? Employers would just play nice? It's crazy how far propaganda has gone in the US, where the average worker is longing for a return to the Gildee Age.
Ultimately, it is in the interest of employers to treat their employees well. Well-treated (and well paid) people do more work and are more loyal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it's just a scam The analogy you gave supports my argument: if you are easily able to switch between TypeScript and Java, you are more valuable to your employer than somebody who is unable to do that, so you should get paid more. > when many people worked in factories under terrible conditions As opposed to now, where many people work in offices under terrible conditions?
If it was really about paying valued employees more, it would be like 5% or 10%. It's not feasible to pay people 2x-3x every day, so the result is painstakingly scheduling people so they don't meet the criteria for that. Second, the idea that we should formalize "being a valuable employee" i.e. "learn X skill and get Y raise" is just a bad idea. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". If yo…
So what you're saying is that the incentive is working.
> Ah yes those horrific air-conditioned offices.
The offices themselves are usually not the terrible condition.