9 ms·

Strikers in US media are often belittled. Think back to the Occupy Movement. The banks were bailed out, none of those people who caused so much misery were eve

Strikers in US media are often belittled. Think back to the Occupy Movement. The banks were bailed out, none of those people who caused so much misery were ever put in jail, and the media belittled Occupy as being directionless and pointless. The protest was huge, stretching across cities and countries, but there was never any accountability for the banksters. It shows again as the Equifax execs were cleared of insider trading, when they were obviously insider trading. When I was in London a few years ago, there was a massive tube strike. The train drivers were belittled in the media with reports claiming they made over 55k GBP a year, more than many nurses. They neglected to mention the new night train program would have meant long 7 to 14 week night shifts for every tube driver. The city was voted in on night trains, but had no money to fund them. So the blame gets passed all the way down to the tube drivers.

Ntrails 9y ago
That's not entirely true. The strike was over the fact that if not enough drivers _volunteered_ to do the night shifts, TFL could assign non volunteers. They would still be compensated for the work hours being particularly antisocial. It is also true that Tube drivers are well paid and yes that does impact the levels of sympathy available to them. The change was absolutely funded - just not as well as the union would like. In essence, however, tube drivers having veto rights over being scheduled to work nights presents an opportunity to cause shortages and disruption without any ramifications or declaration of strike etc. It was a giant liability for TFL to accept.
- Joeboy 9y ago
  > Tube drivers are well paid and yes that does impact the levels of sympathy available to them. £55k isn't that well paid for people who have to live in or near London. Not if you consider it the kind of job where you should be able to afford luxuries like a family, a car, a mortgage, saving for retirement etc. It probably does sound like a lot to people who live outside London and / or aren't considering those things.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > £55k isn't that well paid for people who have to live in or near London It's more than the typical software engineer can expect to make in London. Source: Glassdoor, Indeed, talking to colleagues who live in London, and my own memories from my last job search.
    - eru 9y ago
      You'd be very junior to make less than 55k GBP as a software developer in London. (Like less than three years working experience or so.)
      - user15672 9y ago
        This really isn't true and I really wish this myth would stop. Sure, if you go into the financial sector or find a startup where they don't know their arse from their elbow about software workers, you can dupe them into giving you more money. But 55k in London is a good wage for a software developer and you're definitely not looking at that if you're mid-level and working for a regular company. Source: I've lived and worked (and continue to do so) as a software developer, technical lead and CTO in London and have been in several different sectors.
        eru 9y ago
        Oh, 55k GBP is a nice salary by absolute standards, but not for software developers in London. Yes, you can see people working for so little. But why leave money on the table? > Sure, if you go into the financial sector or find a startup where they don't know their arse from their elbow about software workers, you can dupe them into giving you more money. Yes, obviously. Why wouldn't you? If some sectors have more money than sense, that's an opportunity--not a problem. (I can see that there are reasons to take a lower salary in return for a job you really like; but then you don't get to complain about low pay.) Source: I've lived and worked in Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), Singapore, Sydney, London in various roles. Mostly in big tech and finance. And, yes, if you look at Glassdoor you can find the numbers you cited. In my experience Glassdoor seems to be systematically lower than the numbers I get from my own experience and asking friends and coworkers. (But I might just be living the charmed life that people live who have enough sense to negotiate salaries on job offers?)
PakG1 9y ago
I think the Occupy Movement is a poor comparison because that was a protest, not a strike. And I don't recall protesters in the Occupy Movement being belittled. I agree that labourers may often get unfairly blamed when things go wrong. Corporate overlords can be also very harsh and unfair. But it is difficult to differentiate between unions that have valid claims and unions that are just riding the gravy train with an iron grip and not adding value. These are very muddy waters, and truth is often hard to find.
- dmix 9y ago
  The Occupy movement was hardly universally attacked or belittled by the media. To say so is a strange interpretation of history. Maybe people are remembering the end when the movement fizzled out and critiqued for it's ultimate 'directionless' and lack of specific objectives. But Occupy was very much rah-rah'd by the press and various mainstream media venues in the early days. Or at the minimum not maligned. The critiques that did come were almost always around the process, the act of camping out and blocking public areas, but the movement itself against Wall St was very popular during the peak of the recession. And it was a populist movement regardless. With all the highs/lows that type of movement brings. It's failure to bring meaningful change had little to do with the media, right-wing/tea-party, or older democrats attacking it. The issues being protested were very complex and deeply deeply ingrained in the current US political crony economic establishment. And the democrat administration at the time did little to affect change despite this popular support, besides some token efforts. And despite the rhetoric of the democratic party being a counterbalance against the rich they largely continued (and sometimes incentivized) the status quo in the finance world. A mere temporary speed block and back to business as usual. Which had repercussions long after including up to the latest election. It was used by the right to feed off of the mistrust people had with Hillary (and the Obama crew she inherited) with regards to their appeasement of bankers. Particularly with how the republicans hammered home her connections to Goldman Sachs (et al). Not that the right was any better in regards to cronyism, clearly, but the point is that it hit a nerve among Americans which was a legacy of cynicism and bitterness following the recession and Occupy movements.
good-econ1351 9y ago
The occupy movement - you mean the one where there were mass rapes within the encampments? Where the average protestor wouldn't know equity from stock options.
alexasmyths 9y ago
"Think back to the Occupy Movement." This was not a strike, not remotely.
petre 9y ago
Bankers almost never go to jail in the US. Have you ever heard the expression "too big to jail"?
sliverstorm 9y ago
the media belittled Occupy as being directionless Was it not? I called it so from the start; they had a list of something like 29 totally unrelated demands, and never managed to narrow it down.
- pnathan 9y ago
  This is my recollection as well. I tried to follow it relatively closely. It was a laundry list of demands and all a bit pie in the sky. There was no specific a,b,c policy actions being requested in order to solve a single linked problem. The leaderless nature of the business made it rather toothless. An example is http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-o... . One person posted it. What was profoundly misunderstood by the Occupiers was that they had no leverage to negotiate with. Their sole power was being visible. That doesn't get much in the way of negotiations. The thing that most bothered me about OWS was the disproportionate response by the police and miscellaneous conservative talking heads. Having a camp of protesters is simply something to not be bothered about except as a public health question. It's just not that big of a deal. All that said, you can unpack the OWS complaints and produce some root causes that might be reasonably addressed. I'm given to understand that the OWS experience produced a network that in 2016 linked with Bernie Sanders' campaign, which was considerably more grounded compared to Occupy.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
Occupy was the reverse of the strike -- it wasn't a bunch of workers refusing to work, it was a bunch of unemployed people protesting the unavailability of work.

Ntrails 9y ago

That's not entirely true. The strike was over the fact that if not enough drivers _volunteered_ to do the night shifts, TFL could assign non volunteers. They would still be compensated for the work hours being particularly antisocial. It is also true that Tube drivers are well paid and yes that does impact the levels of sympathy available to them. The change was absolutely funded - just not as well as the union would like. In essence, however, tube drivers having veto rights over being scheduled to work nights presents an opportunity to cause shortages and disruption without any ramifications or declaration of strike etc. It was a giant liability for TFL to accept.

Joeboy 9y ago
> Tube drivers are well paid and yes that does impact the levels of sympathy available to them. £55k isn't that well paid for people who have to live in or near London. Not if you consider it the kind of job where you should be able to afford luxuries like a family, a car, a mortgage, saving for retirement etc. It probably does sound like a lot to people who live outside London and / or aren't considering those things.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > £55k isn't that well paid for people who have to live in or near London It's more than the typical software engineer can expect to make in London. Source: Glassdoor, Indeed, talking to colleagues who live in London, and my own memories from my last job search.
  - eru 9y ago
    You'd be very junior to make less than 55k GBP as a software developer in London. (Like less than three years working experience or so.)
    - user15672 9y ago
      This really isn't true and I really wish this myth would stop. Sure, if you go into the financial sector or find a startup where they don't know their arse from their elbow about software workers, you can dupe them into giving you more money. But 55k in London is a good wage for a software developer and you're definitely not looking at that if you're mid-level and working for a regular company. Source: I've lived and worked (and continue to do so) as a software developer, technical lead and CTO in London and have been in several different sectors.
      - eru 9y ago
        Oh, 55k GBP is a nice salary by absolute standards, but not for software developers in London. Yes, you can see people working for so little. But why leave money on the table? > Sure, if you go into the financial sector or find a startup where they don't know their arse from their elbow about software workers, you can dupe them into giving you more money. Yes, obviously. Why wouldn't you? If some sectors have more money than sense, that's an opportunity--not a problem. (I can see that there are reasons to take a lower salary in return for a job you really like; but then you don't get to complain about low pay.) Source: I've lived and worked in Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), Singapore, Sydney, London in various roles. Mostly in big tech and finance. And, yes, if you look at Glassdoor you can find the numbers you cited. In my experience Glassdoor seems to be systematically lower than the numbers I get from my own experience and asking friends and coworkers. (But I might just be living the charmed life that people live who have enough sense to negotiate salaries on job offers?)

PakG1 9y ago

I think the Occupy Movement is a poor comparison because that was a protest, not a strike. And I don't recall protesters in the Occupy Movement being belittled. I agree that labourers may often get unfairly blamed when things go wrong. Corporate overlords can be also very harsh and unfair. But it is difficult to differentiate between unions that have valid claims and unions that are just riding the gravy train with an iron grip and not adding value. These are very muddy waters, and truth is often hard to find.

dmix 9y ago
The Occupy movement was hardly universally attacked or belittled by the media. To say so is a strange interpretation of history. Maybe people are remembering the end when the movement fizzled out and critiqued for it's ultimate 'directionless' and lack of specific objectives. But Occupy was very much rah-rah'd by the press and various mainstream media venues in the early days. Or at the minimum not maligned. The critiques that did come were almost always around the process, the act of camping out and blocking public areas, but the movement itself against Wall St was very popular during the peak of the recession. And it was a populist movement regardless. With all the highs/lows that type of movement brings. It's failure to bring meaningful change had little to do with the media, right-wing/tea-party, or older democrats attacking it. The issues being protested were very complex and deeply deeply ingrained in the current US political crony economic establishment. And the democrat administration at the time did little to affect change despite this popular support, besides some token efforts. And despite the rhetoric of the democratic party being a counterbalance against the rich they largely continued (and sometimes incentivized) the status quo in the finance world. A mere temporary speed block and back to business as usual. Which had repercussions long after including up to the latest election. It was used by the right to feed off of the mistrust people had with Hillary (and the Obama crew she inherited) with regards to their appeasement of bankers. Particularly with how the republicans hammered home her connections to Goldman Sachs (et al). Not that the right was any better in regards to cronyism, clearly, but the point is that it hit a nerve among Americans which was a legacy of cynicism and bitterness following the recession and Occupy movements.

good-econ1351 9y ago

The occupy movement - you mean the one where there were mass rapes within the encampments? Where the average protestor wouldn't know equity from stock options.

alexasmyths 9y ago

"Think back to the Occupy Movement." This was not a strike, not remotely.

petre 9y ago

Bankers almost never go to jail in the US. Have you ever heard the expression "too big to jail"?

sliverstorm 9y ago

the media belittled Occupy as being directionless Was it not? I called it so from the start; they had a list of something like 29 totally unrelated demands, and never managed to narrow it down.

pnathan 9y ago
This is my recollection as well. I tried to follow it relatively closely. It was a laundry list of demands and all a bit pie in the sky. There was no specific a,b,c policy actions being requested in order to solve a single linked problem. The leaderless nature of the business made it rather toothless. An example is http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-o... . One person posted it. What was profoundly misunderstood by the Occupiers was that they had no leverage to negotiate with. Their sole power was being visible. That doesn't get much in the way of negotiations. The thing that most bothered me about OWS was the disproportionate response by the police and miscellaneous conservative talking heads. Having a camp of protesters is simply something to not be bothered about except as a public health question. It's just not that big of a deal. All that said, you can unpack the OWS complaints and produce some root causes that might be reasonably addressed. I'm given to understand that the OWS experience produced a network that in 2016 linked with Bernie Sanders' campaign, which was considerably more grounded compared to Occupy.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

Occupy was the reverse of the strike -- it wasn't a bunch of workers refusing to work, it was a bunch of unemployed people protesting the unavailability of work.