3 ms·

My experience is on the ground common folk talk smack about them. You just answered your own question. "Evil" is of course overdrawn. But there is a common p

My experience is on the ground common folk talk smack about them. You just answered your own question. "Evil" is of course overdrawn. But there is a common perception that they are ineffective, outdated and/or just don't do much in exchange for the money that goes to them. And in some case outright corrupt. Buttressed in some cases by the fact that high-ranking union leadership roles come with comparatively very comfortable salaries (compared to those they are representing). Which steroetypes nearly all these companies (such as Amazon) make aggressive use of in their internal smear campaigns (it's the primary tool that they have, basically).

mc32 5y ago
The common man and woman having a bad opinion about something is not a concerted or framed _PORTRAYAL_. That's the common take, opinion, the reality, rather than a portrayal (as implied). So? lots of common folk think of unions as overall having a negative impact --that's grass roots.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  Your reply elsewhere saying that unions are full of nepotism etc is a portrayal. A distributed portrayal is still a portrayal. That said, it begs the question, why is the 'grass roots' discourse so consistently negative in America, while European and Canadian discourse on the issue seems significantly different? Would you believe there's no intentional messaging? Oh wait it's not. The very idea that 'the grass roots hates unions' is itself a false portrayal: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/03/majorities-of-americans-say-unions-have-a-positive-effect-on-u-s-and-that-decline-in-union-membership-is-bad/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/03/majorities-... The States has a VERY long history of union busting, and media is very much involved. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02685662 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02685662 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/organized-labor-as-the-new-undeserving-rich-mass-media-classbased-antiunion-rhetoric-and-public-support-for-unions-in-the-united-states/6CF19F2860C07ABAF0B7C787D8731A0C https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-p... And so on.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Maybe Unions in Canada and Europe don't suck... Canadians largely consume the same media as the US --so it looks like it's not coming from there. Grass roots is the actual vox populi and people just don't have a good experience when they interact with Union folk, so they talk bad about them. If people talk smack about WalMart, do you go ahead and then claim, "oh, well, that's a PORTRAYAL, it may be distributed but it's still a negative portrayal perpetuated by the grass roots and the media"? People have a right to opinions based on experience --too bad if those opinions go against a particular vested interest.
    - ABCLAW 5y ago
      I don't want to assume, but I'm curious if you read the documents I linked. Your reply doesn't seem to address contradictory data I've provided. To address your second point; If Walmart was consistently discussed negatively in conversation, on social media, in the news, etc. I'd say that they were portrayed negatively, yes. That said, my second link is explicitly about media portrayals, indicating that corporate media intentionally over-represents negative elements of unions, so even excluding the semantics regarding whether or not 'word of mouth' portrayals count as portrayals, the point stands.

mc32 5y ago

The common man and woman having a bad opinion about something is not a concerted or framed _PORTRAYAL_. That's the common take, opinion, the reality, rather than a portrayal (as implied). So? lots of common folk think of unions as overall having a negative impact --that's grass roots.

ABCLAW 5y ago
Your reply elsewhere saying that unions are full of nepotism etc is a portrayal. A distributed portrayal is still a portrayal. That said, it begs the question, why is the 'grass roots' discourse so consistently negative in America, while European and Canadian discourse on the issue seems significantly different? Would you believe there's no intentional messaging? Oh wait it's not. The very idea that 'the grass roots hates unions' is itself a false portrayal: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/03/majorities-of-americans-say-unions-have-a-positive-effect-on-u-s-and-that-decline-in-union-membership-is-bad/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/03/majorities-... The States has a VERY long history of union busting, and media is very much involved. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02685662 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02685662 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/organized-labor-as-the-new-undeserving-rich-mass-media-classbased-antiunion-rhetoric-and-public-support-for-unions-in-the-united-states/6CF19F2860C07ABAF0B7C787D8731A0C https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-p... And so on.
- mc32 5y ago
  Maybe Unions in Canada and Europe don't suck... Canadians largely consume the same media as the US --so it looks like it's not coming from there. Grass roots is the actual vox populi and people just don't have a good experience when they interact with Union folk, so they talk bad about them. If people talk smack about WalMart, do you go ahead and then claim, "oh, well, that's a PORTRAYAL, it may be distributed but it's still a negative portrayal perpetuated by the grass roots and the media"? People have a right to opinions based on experience --too bad if those opinions go against a particular vested interest.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    I don't want to assume, but I'm curious if you read the documents I linked. Your reply doesn't seem to address contradictory data I've provided. To address your second point; If Walmart was consistently discussed negatively in conversation, on social media, in the news, etc. I'd say that they were portrayed negatively, yes. That said, my second link is explicitly about media portrayals, indicating that corporate media intentionally over-represents negative elements of unions, so even excluding the semantics regarding whether or not 'word of mouth' portrayals count as portrayals, the point stands.