6 ms·

> You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the poin

> You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point? If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hear that unions just take my money while providing no benefit, I'm probably likely to be swayed. What's the union going to do? Tell me about how 50 years ago companies would literally put my life at risk because there was no downside for them. And then the people financing the anti-union movement are spewing "Well that was 50 years ago, that would NEVER happen again" - all while doing everything they can to drive up hours, drive down safety, and insulate themselves from any responsibility RE: workman's comp. For the average joe who just wants to go to work and get a paycheck, the bigger picture is often lost. Honestly, it's rather patronizing to say that union members who disapprove of their union and want to decertify or deauthorize it must either be ignorant or under the influence of external propaganda or FUD. Maybe they have access to information you don't? Or maybe they just have a different set of values from you? Maybe they hold different priorities from what you hold? Maybe they should be assumed to have their own agency? I'm not going to say that democracy is infallible - in fact, I'm usually the first to point out the exact opposite. But "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning to start heading down.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>Honestly, it's rather patronizing to say that union members who disapprove of their union and want to decertify or deauthorize it must either be ignorant or under the influence of external propaganda or FUD. Is it patronizing to say that workers who respond to threats like this: http://www.nysun.com/business/wal-mart-threatens-to-close-unionized-store/3207/ http://www.nysun.com/business/wal-mart-threatens-to-close-un... might not be making the best risk/reward trade off? The employer is hardly going to tell you if they're making an empty threat and the prospect of losing your job because they pulled the nuclear option is probably quite terrifying.
ultraluminous 9y ago
Democracy is fine and well (caveats apply etc.) but the crux of the OPs comment is the "50 years of anti-union FUD". Maybe union workers indeed have a different set of values and priorities, which prefers the weakening/dismantling of unionized labor. Or maybe they were swayed by decades of a propaganda war waged by american corporations against unions, organized labor or anything that could be somehow be viewed as anti-corporatist. I think discounting that possibility entirely is also a bit dangerous and possibly even simplistic/naive.
tw04 9y ago
>I'm not going to say that democracy is infallible - in fact, I'm usually the first to point out the exact opposite. But "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning to start heading down. I guess it's a good thing I never said any of the words you both put in my mouth and "quoted". Not once did I say I know what's best for them. Not once did I say they couldn't make decisions for themselves. What I DID say is that it's ridiculous to pretend that propaganda doesn't affect people IN unions. Which is EXACTLY what you implied.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  Your words were dismissive of union members whose opinions differ than your own (they're less educated and missing the bigger picture, incapable of evaluating anti-union FUD on their own). Don't be disingenuous, "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a very fair representation of your words. Maybe you do? If you're going to take that position, own it.
  - csallen 9y ago
    It's easy to read tw04's original comment and focus entirely on the "less educated" part, but tw04's point still stands without that — union workers can and will be affected by opposition arguments, and therefore we can't ignore that when analyzing declines in union membership. In my opinion what's disingenuous is to ignore the main point in favor of picking some nit.
  - dingle_thunk 9y ago
    > Don't be disingenuous "My interpretation is objective reality, but your interpretation is dumb". How about don't be an asshole, man?
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    "Propaganda works" is a fact, it's not being patronizing.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
The point is that whether you are pro- or anti-, your opinion doesn't carry well-informed weight unless you've seen the world both with- and with-out.
rdiddly 9y ago
If we're going to be so open-minded about not knowing what's best for a worker, recognizing that they have their own agency and so forth, then while we're at it, why don't we also admit that we don't know what they're thinking, or why they supported or opposed this or that? Meaning we have no idea what information they based their decision on, or whether that information included disinformation or a FUD campaign.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>Honestly, it's rather patronizing to say that union members who disapprove of their union and want to decertify or deauthorize it must either be ignorant or under the influence of external propaganda or FUD. Is it patronizing to say that workers who respond to threats like this: http://www.nysun.com/business/wal-mart-threatens-to-close-unionized-store/3207/ http://www.nysun.com/business/wal-mart-threatens-to-close-un... might not be making the best risk/reward trade off? The employer is hardly going to tell you if they're making an empty threat and the prospect of losing your job because they pulled the nuclear option is probably quite terrifying.

ultraluminous 9y ago

Democracy is fine and well (caveats apply etc.) but the crux of the OPs comment is the "50 years of anti-union FUD". Maybe union workers indeed have a different set of values and priorities, which prefers the weakening/dismantling of unionized labor. Or maybe they were swayed by decades of a propaganda war waged by american corporations against unions, organized labor or anything that could be somehow be viewed as anti-corporatist. I think discounting that possibility entirely is also a bit dangerous and possibly even simplistic/naive.

tw04 9y ago

>I'm not going to say that democracy is infallible - in fact, I'm usually the first to point out the exact opposite. But "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning to start heading down. I guess it's a good thing I never said any of the words you both put in my mouth and "quoted". Not once did I say I know what's best for them. Not once did I say they couldn't make decisions for themselves. What I DID say is that it's ridiculous to pretend that propaganda doesn't affect people IN unions. Which is EXACTLY what you implied.

stickfigure 9y ago
Your words were dismissive of union members whose opinions differ than your own (they're less educated and missing the bigger picture, incapable of evaluating anti-union FUD on their own). Don't be disingenuous, "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a very fair representation of your words. Maybe you do? If you're going to take that position, own it.
- csallen 9y ago
  It's easy to read tw04's original comment and focus entirely on the "less educated" part, but tw04's point still stands without that — union workers can and will be affected by opposition arguments, and therefore we can't ignore that when analyzing declines in union membership. In my opinion what's disingenuous is to ignore the main point in favor of picking some nit.
- dingle_thunk 9y ago
  > Don't be disingenuous "My interpretation is objective reality, but your interpretation is dumb". How about don't be an asshole, man?
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  "Propaganda works" is a fact, it's not being patronizing.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

The point is that whether you are pro- or anti-, your opinion doesn't carry well-informed weight unless you've seen the world both with- and with-out.

rdiddly 9y ago

If we're going to be so open-minded about not knowing what's best for a worker, recognizing that they have their own agency and so forth, then while we're at it, why don't we also admit that we don't know what they're thinking, or why they supported or opposed this or that? Meaning we have no idea what information they based their decision on, or whether that information included disinformation or a FUD campaign.