4 ms·

Unions lost popular support among the American public when it became illegal for them to discriminate by race. That environment has been great for pro-business

by fundad 5y ago

Unions lost popular support among the American public when it became illegal for them to discriminate by race. That environment has been great for pro-business interests to push laws that weaken union power in many states.

pfortuny 5y ago
Oh, really? This is certainly terrible. Man, what a mess. Thanks.
- fundad 5y ago
  Many institutions the US was known for has suffered the same fate in the last fifty-something years. "Make America Great Again" refers to how beloved our institutions were. They see Civil Rights as our nation's weakness, holding us back from greatness.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    > "Make America Great Again" That is just patently wrong. It was a reaction to the previous administration's foreign policy strategy, which was to position America as less of a world leader and more of a partner. Conservatives frequently criticized one of President Obama's early trips as an "apology tour", and were incensed when he appeared to bow to the Saudi king. Also, they disliked the domestic policies which had a socialized feel. It literally had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.
    - nfd 5y ago
      > It was a reaction to the previous administration's foreign policy strategy, which was to position America as less of a world leader and more of a partner. Happen to know of any direct discussion of this being the intent behind that slogan from the Trump administration? Especially from Trump himself?
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        Yeah, I called to confirm with him right around the time he signed the First Steps act. If you don't trust me, a quick google search yields tons of results: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-came-up-with-make-america-great-again/2017/01/17/fb6acf5e-dbf7-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-cam... Quote: “I felt that jobs were hurting,” he said. “I looked at the many types of illness our country had, and whether it’s at the border, whether it’s security, whether it’s law and order or lack of law and order. Then, of course, you get to trade, and I said to myself, ‘What would be good?’ I was sitting at my desk, where I am right now, and I said, ‘Make America Great Again.’ ” Security and trade would be the foreign policy bits that he felt we were far too weak on.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    That's just ridiculous. "Make America Great Again" doesn't reference anything in particular. It is just a catch-all phrase that captures the emotions of nostalgia, a remembrance of a better place that never was. But - as you aptly demonstrate - it lends itself perfectly to project onto anything anyone could imagine and it is ambiguous enough to be applicable for pretty much everything. That's why it's a actually a pretty good slogan.
whimsicalism 5y ago
You're downvoted, but this is well-studied. White majority shops are at highest risk of labor organizing and increase workplace diversity is well correlated with less organization risk. You can bet companies (especially Amazon) are aware of this fact.
- fundad 5y ago
  If it's real-talk, I expect it will get downvoted. It's more palatable to back-rationalize things as being the way they are for some exceptional reason.
- salawat 5y ago
  Source? I find the only thing keeping groups from organizing is some schlub running an out-of-band comm network, and a fear of being heard mentioning the U-word in the workplace, and a general ignorance of just how much anti-union FUD is spread, and how amazingly cheap it is to produce balanced against how effective it is at disincenting organization. Don't get me wrong, not everywhere needs a union. The places that do though, there really is no other option. Source: Lived it.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-union-technology-heat-map/ https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-union-t...
    - salawat 5y ago
      Technically, that says nothing about whiteness having anything to do with unionizing risk vs. not. That one states low ethnic diversity of the employee base correlates with organizing risk. That just means they're targeting locations where there is an obvious thread tying people together, an easy marker of which that a surprising number of people voluntarily give you is self identification of ethnicity. Not that it's white, black, asian, etc... What the real comment there is, is that there is a tendency for places where you have a pronounced homogenous workforce that culturally identify or share some other commonality with one another are considered unionization risks. Solidarity amongst the ranks breeds contempt of leadership, especially at a distance. It's harder to divide, and they're more likely to forge an outgroup of corporate. This is why you fill in "I'd rather not answer" on those forms, or leave it blank. There is no data point you are asked to give that some data analyst doesn't intend to mine for value in one way or another, and if you think "no one would ever do that!", I would advise you to eschew offers of bridge sales at questionable locations. Also, it's damn easy to get even diverse groups to organize once everyone understands how the game is played. The thing is, most people don't talk about that sort of thing or haven't seen it with their own eyes/done it enough to understand just how much gets done in an "under the radar", "I never said that", fashion. If ya don't believe me, start asking for things in writing. Ask HR what they think Market Rate is. Whole different side of people comes out. Workplaces in particular rely on the fact that workers are by and large, just out to make a living, self-interested, and conflict averse. When unions seem to be starting to form, it's easier to paint them as a threatening outgroup, threatening other worker's jobs because "paying more would impact margins/break the bank", or that the union isn't ultimately out to help anyone but the union; or is out to hold the high performers back. This predates on that self-interest motive, and tries to project an in-group association between the employer and the non-union employee. Psychology works, sadly. Workplaces fear labor organization more than anything else. It's why the Taft-Hartley Act would never have gone anywhere without illegalizing secondary striking (whereby unions would shut down an entire industrial sector to show solidarity for one another). Capital allocators absolutely could not tolerate that kind of threat from the labor force. It's said that's balanced by illegalizing the practice of blacklisting by the Capital class; but you'll find that as capital gets more and more centralized in the hands of fewer and fewer investors, it's much easier to practice that type of collusion without paper trail, or make it so obfuscated as to not be worth looking for. See the Silicon Valley no-poaching agreement.

by fundad 5y ago

pfortuny 5y ago

Oh, really? This is certainly terrible. Man, what a mess. Thanks.

fundad 5y ago
Many institutions the US was known for has suffered the same fate in the last fifty-something years. "Make America Great Again" refers to how beloved our institutions were. They see Civil Rights as our nation's weakness, holding us back from greatness.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  > "Make America Great Again" That is just patently wrong. It was a reaction to the previous administration's foreign policy strategy, which was to position America as less of a world leader and more of a partner. Conservatives frequently criticized one of President Obama's early trips as an "apology tour", and were incensed when he appeared to bow to the Saudi king. Also, they disliked the domestic policies which had a socialized feel. It literally had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.
  - nfd 5y ago
    > It was a reaction to the previous administration's foreign policy strategy, which was to position America as less of a world leader and more of a partner. Happen to know of any direct discussion of this being the intent behind that slogan from the Trump administration? Especially from Trump himself?
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Yeah, I called to confirm with him right around the time he signed the First Steps act. If you don't trust me, a quick google search yields tons of results: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-came-up-with-make-america-great-again/2017/01/17/fb6acf5e-dbf7-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-cam... Quote: “I felt that jobs were hurting,” he said. “I looked at the many types of illness our country had, and whether it’s at the border, whether it’s security, whether it’s law and order or lack of law and order. Then, of course, you get to trade, and I said to myself, ‘What would be good?’ I was sitting at my desk, where I am right now, and I said, ‘Make America Great Again.’ ” Security and trade would be the foreign policy bits that he felt we were far too weak on.
- esarbe 5y ago
  That's just ridiculous. "Make America Great Again" doesn't reference anything in particular. It is just a catch-all phrase that captures the emotions of nostalgia, a remembrance of a better place that never was. But - as you aptly demonstrate - it lends itself perfectly to project onto anything anyone could imagine and it is ambiguous enough to be applicable for pretty much everything. That's why it's a actually a pretty good slogan.

whimsicalism 5y ago

You're downvoted, but this is well-studied. White majority shops are at highest risk of labor organizing and increase workplace diversity is well correlated with less organization risk. You can bet companies (especially Amazon) are aware of this fact.

fundad 5y ago
If it's real-talk, I expect it will get downvoted. It's more palatable to back-rationalize things as being the way they are for some exceptional reason.
salawat 5y ago
Source? I find the only thing keeping groups from organizing is some schlub running an out-of-band comm network, and a fear of being heard mentioning the U-word in the workplace, and a general ignorance of just how much anti-union FUD is spread, and how amazingly cheap it is to produce balanced against how effective it is at disincenting organization. Don't get me wrong, not everywhere needs a union. The places that do though, there really is no other option. Source: Lived it.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-union-technology-heat-map/ https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-union-t...
  - salawat 5y ago
    Technically, that says nothing about whiteness having anything to do with unionizing risk vs. not. That one states low ethnic diversity of the employee base correlates with organizing risk. That just means they're targeting locations where there is an obvious thread tying people together, an easy marker of which that a surprising number of people voluntarily give you is self identification of ethnicity. Not that it's white, black, asian, etc... What the real comment there is, is that there is a tendency for places where you have a pronounced homogenous workforce that culturally identify or share some other commonality with one another are considered unionization risks. Solidarity amongst the ranks breeds contempt of leadership, especially at a distance. It's harder to divide, and they're more likely to forge an outgroup of corporate. This is why you fill in "I'd rather not answer" on those forms, or leave it blank. There is no data point you are asked to give that some data analyst doesn't intend to mine for value in one way or another, and if you think "no one would ever do that!", I would advise you to eschew offers of bridge sales at questionable locations. Also, it's damn easy to get even diverse groups to organize once everyone understands how the game is played. The thing is, most people don't talk about that sort of thing or haven't seen it with their own eyes/done it enough to understand just how much gets done in an "under the radar", "I never said that", fashion. If ya don't believe me, start asking for things in writing. Ask HR what they think Market Rate is. Whole different side of people comes out. Workplaces in particular rely on the fact that workers are by and large, just out to make a living, self-interested, and conflict averse. When unions seem to be starting to form, it's easier to paint them as a threatening outgroup, threatening other worker's jobs because "paying more would impact margins/break the bank", or that the union isn't ultimately out to help anyone but the union; or is out to hold the high performers back. This predates on that self-interest motive, and tries to project an in-group association between the employer and the non-union employee. Psychology works, sadly. Workplaces fear labor organization more than anything else. It's why the Taft-Hartley Act would never have gone anywhere without illegalizing secondary striking (whereby unions would shut down an entire industrial sector to show solidarity for one another). Capital allocators absolutely could not tolerate that kind of threat from the labor force. It's said that's balanced by illegalizing the practice of blacklisting by the Capital class; but you'll find that as capital gets more and more centralized in the hands of fewer and fewer investors, it's much easier to practice that type of collusion without paper trail, or make it so obfuscated as to not be worth looking for. See the Silicon Valley no-poaching agreement.