5 ms·

As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.

by flooow 5y ago

aspieandproud 5y ago
30k is not highly paid. Also, nobody asked you and nobody cares if you feel identified.
- jjulius 5y ago
  How did you determine that the user makes $30k? Their comment history clearly suggests otherwise.
aspieandproud 5y ago
I don't think I will take your sheit job when you go on strike, don't worry!
cybernautique 5y ago
Out of curiosity, how perjoratively do you use the term 'scab'? It reads of condemnation to me, which is fine if that's intended. I was just wondering if the difference in our culture (Amerimutt here) caused an incidental tone-shift. More to the point: I've never seen a union actually benefit anyone I'm close to. The reps have all been awful and the structural incentives were all perverse. I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? (If this is only a seeming, a bad read on my part, then I apologize; if I'm on the money, I would love to get your perspective)
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Scab means exactly the same thing in the US as it does in the UK; I'm pretty sure they got it from us. > I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? That's not good faith.
  - cybernautique 5y ago
    My faith was entirely good when I asked it. What falsifies its good faith? or, perhaps a better question: how ought I to have asked? Thank you for clarifying re: the term scab.
    - gowld 5y ago
      You said "why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good" which has no support in the material you replied to. The only information you had was that the poster held a a strikebreaker in contempt.
      - cybernautique 5y ago
        Right, which is why I tried to mitigate that by acknowledging it might only be a seeming on my end due to a bad reading. As to the context: (Grandparent) > UK has the highest tech salaries in Europeand trade unions were buried in the 70s. (Grandparent) > I am fine if you guys seek protection of unions. (Grandparent) > But never, ever, ever, interfere with my relations with employers. (Parent) > As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me. The GP said that they're happy for anyone to seek the benefits of unionization, so long as they're not forced to participate. Parent simply called GP a scab for this sentiment. This exchange, to me, seems to imply the parent believes unions to be an unqualified good- or, at least, that the simple desire for individual labor relations is worthy of unqualified condemnation. Where do you and I diverge in this reading? EDIT: further, how do I take better care to explicitly mitigate against my biases to ensure I engage with the full goodness of my faith?
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? Not OP, but it's been my experience that other than orgasms (and not even always then), nothing is an unqualified good. Does something need to be so in order for you to believe it worthwhile? That may also be a bad read on my part, but I think it's a useful discussion, especially when we're talking about standing up for what's right in the workplace. Because the converse is a big question in this context: How bad does it need to be/get in order to start thinking about rabble-rousing internally/quitting/whistle-blowing? I'd expect that as with unions (because unions are absolutely not all the same), the level of unethical, harmful or illegal activity is likely a continuum and different people will have different breaking points.
  - cybernautique 5y ago
    I certainly don't think something needs to be an unqualified good to be worthwhile. However, I often see very little nuance in the presentation of unions; either its proponents present it as an unqualified good, or its opponents present it as an unmitigatable cost. I was originally going to reply with: > My life, by proxy to the afflictions of my loved ones, has certainly been made worse by bad unions. I like the idea of unions, but... I mention this to make visible the reflective opportunity our exchange granted me. Yes, my loved one have been afflicted by (bad) unions, but it also seems to me that the proposed benefits of unionization are inherently distributed and therefore likely invisible at the individual level, whereas the harm engendered by bad management (union or otherwise) is hypervisible at the individual level. Thus, the good done for my loved ones by their unions isn't so easily measured, while the harms done by poor union management makes itself as easily known as the harms by enterprise's management. I'll have to do more thinking and reading on how to gain a better perspective. It seems to me that attaining a measurement of the good done by their unions is further complicated by how relative said goods must be and yet there often aren't easy counterfactuals to refer to. Intuitively, it seems that aggregate data would give a false perspective. Any advice or recommendations along these lines would be helpful. I remember there was a cybernetics program to engender a science of management and organizational development; I might start there, to learn principles of analysis as opposed to blindly groping for data to mash together.
ericd 5y ago
The whole peer pressure to join a union thing is a huge turn-off to the whole idea of unions, at least for me. Convince, don’t pressure.
- 8note 5y ago
  The pressure is a convincer. If you don't care that everyone in the union will hate you and your ability to do work will also be reduced, feel free to scab. If you want work to go smoothly with the union members, you should be in the union
  - orangecat 5y ago
    You're making an excellent case for choosing jobs with zero union presence.
  - cybernautique 5y ago
    Speaking personally, this pressure is incentive away from whatever you're proselytizing. Any union that adopts such a spirit will have a culture toxic to my character. I want work to go smoothly, unconditionally. Any culture that requires conformity is a bad one, and I dare further say: a cult. If a manager makes work bad, I will change jobs. If a union makes work bad, I will scab or change jobs. Regardless, I will do my best to deprive my value from whomever makes my productive hours less enjoyable.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > The pressure is a convincer. Hey if that's the game that is being played, you can't complain when people who disagree with this strategy actively work to sabotage you, through a variety of different methods (such as voting for right to work laws, or doing other things). There are a lot of way to sabotage and cause harm just as much as the pro union people might cause harm to those who do not wish to join.
  - drstewart 5y ago
    This honestly sounds like mob tactics. "It would be a shame if your life were harder if you didn't pay protection money, god forbid"

As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.

by flooow 5y ago

As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.

aspieandproud 5y ago

30k is not highly paid. Also, nobody asked you and nobody cares if you feel identified.

jjulius 5y ago
How did you determine that the user makes $30k? Their comment history clearly suggests otherwise.

aspieandproud 5y ago

I don't think I will take your sheit job when you go on strike, don't worry!

cybernautique 5y ago

Out of curiosity, how perjoratively do you use the term 'scab'? It reads of condemnation to me, which is fine if that's intended. I was just wondering if the difference in our culture (Amerimutt here) caused an incidental tone-shift. More to the point: I've never seen a union actually benefit anyone I'm close to. The reps have all been awful and the structural incentives were all perverse. I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? (If this is only a seeming, a bad read on my part, then I apologize; if I'm on the money, I would love to get your perspective)

pessimizer 5y ago
Scab means exactly the same thing in the US as it does in the UK; I'm pretty sure they got it from us. > I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? That's not good faith.
- cybernautique 5y ago
  My faith was entirely good when I asked it. What falsifies its good faith? or, perhaps a better question: how ought I to have asked? Thank you for clarifying re: the term scab.
  - gowld 5y ago
    You said "why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good" which has no support in the material you replied to. The only information you had was that the poster held a a strikebreaker in contempt.
    - cybernautique 5y ago
      Right, which is why I tried to mitigate that by acknowledging it might only be a seeming on my end due to a bad reading. As to the context: (Grandparent) > UK has the highest tech salaries in Europeand trade unions were buried in the 70s. (Grandparent) > I am fine if you guys seek protection of unions. (Grandparent) > But never, ever, ever, interfere with my relations with employers. (Parent) > As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me. The GP said that they're happy for anyone to seek the benefits of unionization, so long as they're not forced to participate. Parent simply called GP a scab for this sentiment. This exchange, to me, seems to imply the parent believes unions to be an unqualified good- or, at least, that the simple desire for individual labor relations is worthy of unqualified condemnation. Where do you and I diverge in this reading? EDIT: further, how do I take better care to explicitly mitigate against my biases to ensure I engage with the full goodness of my faith?
nobody9999 5y ago
>why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? Not OP, but it's been my experience that other than orgasms (and not even always then), nothing is an unqualified good. Does something need to be so in order for you to believe it worthwhile? That may also be a bad read on my part, but I think it's a useful discussion, especially when we're talking about standing up for what's right in the workplace. Because the converse is a big question in this context: How bad does it need to be/get in order to start thinking about rabble-rousing internally/quitting/whistle-blowing? I'd expect that as with unions (because unions are absolutely not all the same), the level of unethical, harmful or illegal activity is likely a continuum and different people will have different breaking points.
- cybernautique 5y ago
  I certainly don't think something needs to be an unqualified good to be worthwhile. However, I often see very little nuance in the presentation of unions; either its proponents present it as an unqualified good, or its opponents present it as an unmitigatable cost. I was originally going to reply with: > My life, by proxy to the afflictions of my loved ones, has certainly been made worse by bad unions. I like the idea of unions, but... I mention this to make visible the reflective opportunity our exchange granted me. Yes, my loved one have been afflicted by (bad) unions, but it also seems to me that the proposed benefits of unionization are inherently distributed and therefore likely invisible at the individual level, whereas the harm engendered by bad management (union or otherwise) is hypervisible at the individual level. Thus, the good done for my loved ones by their unions isn't so easily measured, while the harms done by poor union management makes itself as easily known as the harms by enterprise's management. I'll have to do more thinking and reading on how to gain a better perspective. It seems to me that attaining a measurement of the good done by their unions is further complicated by how relative said goods must be and yet there often aren't easy counterfactuals to refer to. Intuitively, it seems that aggregate data would give a false perspective. Any advice or recommendations along these lines would be helpful. I remember there was a cybernetics program to engender a science of management and organizational development; I might start there, to learn principles of analysis as opposed to blindly groping for data to mash together.

ericd 5y ago

The whole peer pressure to join a union thing is a huge turn-off to the whole idea of unions, at least for me. Convince, don’t pressure.

8note 5y ago
The pressure is a convincer. If you don't care that everyone in the union will hate you and your ability to do work will also be reduced, feel free to scab. If you want work to go smoothly with the union members, you should be in the union
- orangecat 5y ago
  You're making an excellent case for choosing jobs with zero union presence.
- cybernautique 5y ago
  Speaking personally, this pressure is incentive away from whatever you're proselytizing. Any union that adopts such a spirit will have a culture toxic to my character. I want work to go smoothly, unconditionally. Any culture that requires conformity is a bad one, and I dare further say: a cult. If a manager makes work bad, I will change jobs. If a union makes work bad, I will scab or change jobs. Regardless, I will do my best to deprive my value from whomever makes my productive hours less enjoyable.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > The pressure is a convincer. Hey if that's the game that is being played, you can't complain when people who disagree with this strategy actively work to sabotage you, through a variety of different methods (such as voting for right to work laws, or doing other things). There are a lot of way to sabotage and cause harm just as much as the pro union people might cause harm to those who do not wish to join.
- drstewart 5y ago
  This honestly sounds like mob tactics. "It would be a shame if your life were harder if you didn't pay protection money, god forbid"