4 ms·

> I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest The whole "voting against your own interest" is hugely paternalistic a

> I absolutely do not understand why you would vote against your own collective interest The whole "voting against your own interest" is hugely paternalistic and anti-democratic. People have their own set of values and interests. As an outsider without knowledge of the people to accuse them of voting against their own interest because they did not vote the way you wanted them to is the height of arrogance.

darkwater 6y ago
OP is actually just asking why, and explaining they don't understand why workers voted that way, which superficially seems "wrong".
- luckylion 6y ago
  And that's paternalistic, isn't it? "They voted against their interest" implies that OP knows/decides what their interests are. Personally, I've never met someone who knew workers that was fundamentally surprised by their decisions. It was always the people who only talked, read and wrote about workers that were flabbergasted. Source: worked as a consultant for a union in Europe for a decade.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    OP was implying what his/her interests are, or rather, would be, s/he believes, in this case. Source: I am OP and that was my intention. That's why I asked for someone with direct experience to comment. I am confused, based on my own viewpoint and experience with unions. >I've never met someone who knew workers that was fundamentally surprised by their decisions. I don't, genuinely don't understand this sentence. What is workers? Who are workers? What group of people would you consider workers? I've been part of two unions, both of which benefited me, personally, immensely. These were knowledge jobs and not hands-on jobs. Am I a worker? My father is very blue-collar manufacturing and he has been both anti- and pro-union, depending on which shop he worked for. Is he a worker? I don't understand what you're saying. Honestly. It sounds like you're the font of some mystical knowledge about a mythical group of people. What do you mean by your statement? I don't get it.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > I don't, genuinely don't understand this sentence. What is workers? Who are workers? Workers are people who work in the rougher jobs, blue collar if that's what you prefer. White collar unions are very different in my opinion. My experience is this: I've worked with people who were workers and then transitioned to working for the union, either because they were natural organizers, or because they had accidents that made it hard to work their job (a surprising amount of them had lost a finger or two). When they spoke about these kinds of things, like votes or organization rates, they were quick to give plenty of reasons why their colleagues would make some decision because they knew all the arguments and feelings. The other type I met at the union was college educated, usually political science, spoke a lot of class consciousness and collective interests and had never worked the jobs the union represented. When you talked to them, they didn't understand why workers made some choice, it was always some nicely worded version of "they're not smart enough to make the right choice" or "somebody fed them lies".
Loughla 6y ago
Relax. I guess I should've said - "What I perceive as your own collective interest," although I would argue that was implied. I didn't intend to be arrogant at all, I am legitimately confused. The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was massively beneficial to my life. That is where my perspective came from.
- staticman2 6y ago
  The poster that attacked you is repeating a conservative pundit talking point I've seen. Call me cynical but I suspect if the vote had gone pro-union and you had written "Don't the workers realize unions are against their own economic interests?" said poster would have written "Amen!" rather than calling you paternalistic.
  - peytn 6y ago
    I dunno, it’s better on HN to give people the benefit of the doubt. The overlap of software engineer and conservative punditry consumer is pretty small relatively speaking. It’s not like the ideas put forth are too convoluted for somebody to have on their own.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  "The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was massively beneficial to my life." Just because the union was beneficial does not mean it was better to have it around than not to. You only experienced one side of the coin in those situations.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    I didn't feel like typing out everything involved, but yes, it was better than not having it. Both positions became unionized during my tenure with those organizations. The pay, benefits, and time-off benefits were much better as a union shop than before we unionized. I know it is just my experience, so it's very anecdotal evidence at best. And that was my point - that is my experience, which is why I'm confused by the massive vote against unionization. I, personally, do not understand it and would like to.
virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
I mean, it is possible for one person to know certain things that another person does not, and further possible that the latter person WOULD act differently if they had that knowledge.

darkwater 6y ago

OP is actually just asking why, and explaining they don't understand why workers voted that way, which superficially seems "wrong".

luckylion 6y ago
And that's paternalistic, isn't it? "They voted against their interest" implies that OP knows/decides what their interests are. Personally, I've never met someone who knew workers that was fundamentally surprised by their decisions. It was always the people who only talked, read and wrote about workers that were flabbergasted. Source: worked as a consultant for a union in Europe for a decade.
- Loughla 6y ago
  OP was implying what his/her interests are, or rather, would be, s/he believes, in this case. Source: I am OP and that was my intention. That's why I asked for someone with direct experience to comment. I am confused, based on my own viewpoint and experience with unions. >I've never met someone who knew workers that was fundamentally surprised by their decisions. I don't, genuinely don't understand this sentence. What is workers? Who are workers? What group of people would you consider workers? I've been part of two unions, both of which benefited me, personally, immensely. These were knowledge jobs and not hands-on jobs. Am I a worker? My father is very blue-collar manufacturing and he has been both anti- and pro-union, depending on which shop he worked for. Is he a worker? I don't understand what you're saying. Honestly. It sounds like you're the font of some mystical knowledge about a mythical group of people. What do you mean by your statement? I don't get it.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > I don't, genuinely don't understand this sentence. What is workers? Who are workers? Workers are people who work in the rougher jobs, blue collar if that's what you prefer. White collar unions are very different in my opinion. My experience is this: I've worked with people who were workers and then transitioned to working for the union, either because they were natural organizers, or because they had accidents that made it hard to work their job (a surprising amount of them had lost a finger or two). When they spoke about these kinds of things, like votes or organization rates, they were quick to give plenty of reasons why their colleagues would make some decision because they knew all the arguments and feelings. The other type I met at the union was college educated, usually political science, spoke a lot of class consciousness and collective interests and had never worked the jobs the union represented. When you talked to them, they didn't understand why workers made some choice, it was always some nicely worded version of "they're not smart enough to make the right choice" or "somebody fed them lies".

Loughla 6y ago

Relax. I guess I should've said - "What I perceive as your own collective interest," although I would argue that was implied. I didn't intend to be arrogant at all, I am legitimately confused. The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was massively beneficial to my life. That is where my perspective came from.

staticman2 6y ago
The poster that attacked you is repeating a conservative pundit talking point I've seen. Call me cynical but I suspect if the vote had gone pro-union and you had written "Don't the workers realize unions are against their own economic interests?" said poster would have written "Amen!" rather than calling you paternalistic.
- peytn 6y ago
  I dunno, it’s better on HN to give people the benefit of the doubt. The overlap of software engineer and conservative punditry consumer is pretty small relatively speaking. It’s not like the ideas put forth are too convoluted for somebody to have on their own.
macinjosh 6y ago
"The two jobs that I was in a union, the union was massively beneficial to my life." Just because the union was beneficial does not mean it was better to have it around than not to. You only experienced one side of the coin in those situations.
- Loughla 6y ago
  I didn't feel like typing out everything involved, but yes, it was better than not having it. Both positions became unionized during my tenure with those organizations. The pay, benefits, and time-off benefits were much better as a union shop than before we unionized. I know it is just my experience, so it's very anecdotal evidence at best. And that was my point - that is my experience, which is why I'm confused by the massive vote against unionization. I, personally, do not understand it and would like to.

virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago

I mean, it is possible for one person to know certain things that another person does not, and further possible that the latter person WOULD act differently if they had that knowledge.