4 ms·

Move the goalposts much? I'm discussing the underlying problem why the union formed you are still attacking the fundamental existence of unions. As I stated

Move the goalposts much? I'm discussing the underlying problem why the union formed you are still attacking the fundamental existence of unions. As I stated Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn't doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with? You say That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. Okay but that doesn't disagree with my core point. Unions aren't a solution to the underlying problem. I agree with you. Why are you still attacking a temporary solution to a much larger problem? Do you just hate unions that much? :.:.: Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. Power Structures are a spook! - Avar and Max Stirner That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. Enforcement of a power structure is disenfranchisement? Every single organization in modern society experiences this. Either you truly are on some next level Max Strirner individualism or you don't really realize what you insinuating (which is every single human organization is a fundamental oppression again humanity, this is what Strirner wrote about).

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> a temporary solution to a much larger problem There might be disageeement on how "temporary" this will be.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  The temporary problem is a lack of respect and exploitation of workers in their employment. The employer can correct this anytime they want. They refuse too and fuel employees will to unionize. The problem is as temporary as the employer wishes for it to be. This is no different then any other management driven mistake. Why is it okay our site crashes every 48 hours? Management won't allocate money to fix it. Why are our workers striking for better pay? Management won't allocate money to fix it. You may argue the money doesn't exist to fix that issue. Which is really just stating the company is going out of business at a rather slow rate...
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > a temporary solution... >> the problem is as temporary as [Uber] wishes for it to be My point was that the solution chosen, binding unionization voted on by a minority of drivers, is not temporary.
    - valarauca1 10y ago
      >The solution was chosen So what other solution is there? Choice implies options. What are the other options? Also you are attacking democratic rule by a minority of voters... Except that is the very legal system we have here in America. There are far more non-voters then voters. What right do their laws have to apply to us? This is your logic.
      - jerf 10y ago
        You seem to be reading everybody here very harshly and with no principle of charity, to the point that it's not ever clear to me you're actually reading them. To be entirely clear, I am not making any claims about the desirability or lack thereof of unionization whatsoever. I'm just saying the thing I just said.
avar 10y ago
> you are still attacking the fundamental > existence of unions. Still? I think you've got me confused with someone else. I can hardly be said to "still" be maintaining some position when my one contribution to this thread as of writing this is a one paragraph comment. I don't see how any reading of my one comment here could indicate that I'm attacking the fundamental existence of unions, which to clarify, I have nothing against. > Why are you still attacking a temporary > solution to a much larger problem? My one paragraph comment was simply pointing out, something you failed to address in the grandparent's comment, that power structures once enacted tend to stick, and they tend to serve their own ends. Which is not to say that unions can't be a net positive for workers employed as part of the union, that obviously depends. But if you're being made part of a union's purview and they've structured their rules in such a way that you can't vote, then it should be fairly obvious that they're structurally not interested in representing you, and will in fact represent the interests of voting members at your expense.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  My one paragraph comment was simply pointing out, something you failed to address in the grandparent's comment, that power structures once enacted tend to stick I don't know what point you are trying to make. I really don't think you do either. Yes power structures attempt to keep themselves in place (which is indeed towards their own ends). But this isn't just true of a union. It is true of any government, company, VC firm, bank, school, sports team, etc. This isn't an attack on a unions. It is a condemnation of the entire system of organization the human race uses. Which I point out by relating this to the work of Max Strirner as he does levy this full criticism in a logically consistent fashion. I am addressing the point the parent-N poster is making. Their point is moot. Either they're stating there is a fundamental issue with all human organizations. Or they're just being biased towards unions making a No True Scotsman logical fallacy to support their argument. As are you as well. :.:.: they've structured their rules in such a way that you can't vote, then it should be fairly obvious that they're structurally not interested in representing you This criticism is out of scope. And logically inconsistent. It can be applied to any representational democracy where the majority of members do not vote (USA for example). This is the exact same logic the DNC uses to explain why the RNC is racist (it suppresses the voting rights of minorities, QED it is not structurally interested in representing them). I literally addressed this issue in my unions are flawed statement. Yes I admit they aren't prefect. They aren't always interested in representing all of their members. But the company is interested in far less. You are also refusing to qualify all members. The main restriction is to prevent part time uber drivers (those who Uber driving isn't their sole source of income). And very new Uber drivers (if Uber paid people to manipulate union voting). This makes complete sense. Why would a full time person who depends on Uber be interested in helping a guy who only drives 2-3 hours a month?
dang 10y ago
You've repeatedly become uncivil in comments here. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read the following and post civilly and substantively, or not at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297664 and marked it off-topic.
mSparks 10y ago
Everyday should be a downvote dang day https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang He's using multiple accounts to downvote threads he doesn't like, then detaching them.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> a temporary solution to a much larger problem There might be disageeement on how "temporary" this will be.

valarauca1 10y ago
The temporary problem is a lack of respect and exploitation of workers in their employment. The employer can correct this anytime they want. They refuse too and fuel employees will to unionize. The problem is as temporary as the employer wishes for it to be. This is no different then any other management driven mistake. Why is it okay our site crashes every 48 hours? Management won't allocate money to fix it. Why are our workers striking for better pay? Management won't allocate money to fix it. You may argue the money doesn't exist to fix that issue. Which is really just stating the company is going out of business at a rather slow rate...
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > a temporary solution... >> the problem is as temporary as [Uber] wishes for it to be My point was that the solution chosen, binding unionization voted on by a minority of drivers, is not temporary.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    >The solution was chosen So what other solution is there? Choice implies options. What are the other options? Also you are attacking democratic rule by a minority of voters... Except that is the very legal system we have here in America. There are far more non-voters then voters. What right do their laws have to apply to us? This is your logic.
    - jerf 10y ago
      You seem to be reading everybody here very harshly and with no principle of charity, to the point that it's not ever clear to me you're actually reading them. To be entirely clear, I am not making any claims about the desirability or lack thereof of unionization whatsoever. I'm just saying the thing I just said.

avar 10y ago

> you are still attacking the fundamental > existence of unions. Still? I think you've got me confused with someone else. I can hardly be said to "still" be maintaining some position when my one contribution to this thread as of writing this is a one paragraph comment. I don't see how any reading of my one comment here could indicate that I'm attacking the fundamental existence of unions, which to clarify, I have nothing against. > Why are you still attacking a temporary > solution to a much larger problem? My one paragraph comment was simply pointing out, something you failed to address in the grandparent's comment, that power structures once enacted tend to stick, and they tend to serve their own ends. Which is not to say that unions can't be a net positive for workers employed as part of the union, that obviously depends. But if you're being made part of a union's purview and they've structured their rules in such a way that you can't vote, then it should be fairly obvious that they're structurally not interested in representing you, and will in fact represent the interests of voting members at your expense.

valarauca1 10y ago
My one paragraph comment was simply pointing out, something you failed to address in the grandparent's comment, that power structures once enacted tend to stick I don't know what point you are trying to make. I really don't think you do either. Yes power structures attempt to keep themselves in place (which is indeed towards their own ends). But this isn't just true of a union. It is true of any government, company, VC firm, bank, school, sports team, etc. This isn't an attack on a unions. It is a condemnation of the entire system of organization the human race uses. Which I point out by relating this to the work of Max Strirner as he does levy this full criticism in a logically consistent fashion. I am addressing the point the parent-N poster is making. Their point is moot. Either they're stating there is a fundamental issue with all human organizations. Or they're just being biased towards unions making a No True Scotsman logical fallacy to support their argument. As are you as well. :.:.: they've structured their rules in such a way that you can't vote, then it should be fairly obvious that they're structurally not interested in representing you This criticism is out of scope. And logically inconsistent. It can be applied to any representational democracy where the majority of members do not vote (USA for example). This is the exact same logic the DNC uses to explain why the RNC is racist (it suppresses the voting rights of minorities, QED it is not structurally interested in representing them). I literally addressed this issue in my unions are flawed statement. Yes I admit they aren't prefect. They aren't always interested in representing all of their members. But the company is interested in far less. You are also refusing to qualify all members. The main restriction is to prevent part time uber drivers (those who Uber driving isn't their sole source of income). And very new Uber drivers (if Uber paid people to manipulate union voting). This makes complete sense. Why would a full time person who depends on Uber be interested in helping a guy who only drives 2-3 hours a month?

dang 10y ago

You've repeatedly become uncivil in comments here. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read the following and post civilly and substantively, or not at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297664 and marked it off-topic.

mSparks 10y ago

Everyday should be a downvote dang day https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang He's using multiple accounts to downvote threads he doesn't like, then detaching them.