715
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
715 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59588 readers
3408 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What's crazy is I hear unionization is usually more expensive to fight against, but these CEO's are essentially morally opposed to it. Every time I hear stories of these people their lives would have been so much easier and their businesses more profitable but they just cannot stand people unionizing.
Well basically it means they have to actually negotiate with their workers via unions. That's almost like work. They prefer not to have to do anything to "earn" their billions.
They also have the option of not treating them like shit. Happy workers don’t usually want to unionize.
I’m a fairly happy employee and I want to unionize.
I remember working through the Great Recession and I never want to take a 7 year pay cut again.
Happy wasn’t the best word. Well taken care of employees who know their employers care don’t typically feel the need to unionize. In other words, it’s not going to be high on their priority list, nor is the risk of retaliation going to be worth it.
If you're in an environment that would retaliate against you for unionizing, you're not "well taken care of".
Do you really know though? The point is, if you’re well compensated, have good work-life balance, treated well, have good people around and above you, the thought of unionizing isn’t likely to be that important to you.
Yeah I do, just on the principle that an environment that retaliates against worker solidarity is an oppressive environment.
It's similar to someone saying "can slaves be well taken care of by their owners?" Many people would say yes, but I would say no on principle. No matter how short the work day, no matter the benefits, months off every year, etc. I would say on principle that being owned means you're not well taken care of.
The principle here being that sometimes "one" negative can be enough to mean you're not "well-taken care of".
That’s not an appropriate comparison.
There's a subset of people that anytime a comparison is made, where one situation is worse than the other, something happens where they become unable to understand the concept of a principle.
It's like you recognize "hey, chattel slavery is worse than wage slavery!" (which is correct), and therefore there can be no principle applicable to both situations (incorrect).
I assume it's that you're offended by the comparison, and the emotion gets the better of you, disallowing you from thinking clearly about it. I don't know what else it would be.
I’m not offended. It’s like another Godwin’s law.
Saying the word "Nazi" or "slave" or whatever doesn't automatically make someone incorrect. Even if this were another Godwin's law that doesn't make the comparison invalid.
Yeah it’s because it flies in the face of their hierarchy
That’s weirdest part, at this point the hoops Amazon has jumped through vs how profitable of a company they are - it must be cheaper for them to just let people unionise and pay them more + give better conditions?
Do you want to pay people more because they're better at their job or do you want to pay people more because they've been warming a chair longer than anyone else?
I really don't care to play "who deserves a minimum quality of life".
Reality doesn't care whether you care to play or not.
There's a limited amount of resources, you can't hire everyone on Earth, you can't give everyone an unlimited salary. Everything past that you're making decisions as to who gets what.
And by the way, if you make enough poor decisions eventually everyone loses their jobs.
Agreed, there’s limited resources, that’s exactly why we can’t afford to waste any more on another CEO mega yacht or private plane. We’re capable of a post-scarcity society with just the setup we have today, were we to distribute resources on need rather than greed.
BuT tHeY EaRnEd It! JuSt Be A cEo ToO!
There are PLENTY of resources to go around, but a teeny teeny tiny percentage of people are hogging over half of them all for themselves.
Life's not a video game or a book.
Or because people need more to make a living? The whole argument of "it's a shitty job and shouldn't be used to support you" doesn't really work anymore.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Its a very true dichotomy.
Hey let's hire Ashok for this position! He's really good!
Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He's just good enough not to fire but he has seniority so he gets first dibs on the job.
Hey, let's give Ashok a raise! He's really good!
Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He's just good enough not to fire. It he's been here the longest so he gets paid the most.
The false dichotomy is assuming your choices are a massive adversarial bureaucracy or not making a living wage.
"It's a very true dichotomy!"
Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.
Found the guy who never worked a union job.
Found the guy with the superiority complex mad that the union didn’t fall for their sucking up to the bosses.
Not how the union works. But thanks for trying.
Yeah, it actually is.