4 ms·

>What's with Seattle? Seattle has had a really strong progressive slant for a long time, this isn't at all surprising.

rayiner 4y ago
I mean, what’s with ostensibly “progressive” companies engaging in union busting? I assume neither Bezos nor Howard Schultz voted for Donald Trump, so what gives?
- loeg 4y ago
  The very simple explanation is that these companies aren't "progressive." Or at least, not their C-suite. Seems pretty obvious?
  - barsonme 4y ago
    Most companies are only "progressive" inasmuch it lets them make more money. They'll be whatever you want so long as it lets them sell more stuff. The fact that this is apparently such a shock to people is exactly why they do it.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      > Most companies are only "progressive" inasmuch it lets them make more money. What are they supposed to do then?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Somehow, Bismarck found a peaceable solution for rising worker agitation in the 19th century.
        bildung 4y ago
        You mean imprisoning the leaders of the unions and the social democratic party? (I get what you mean, but IMO reducing Bismarcks policy too introducing pensions seems way to simplistic. Especially how that worked out a few decades later...)
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Still, undercutting the opposition by beating them to the punch in creating a proto-social welfare state is something that few other reactionaries have tried since. Sure, sure, Amazon has increased the base rate for their warehouse workers, but it’s clearly not enough.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        Just sell product and stay out of politics?
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Stop existing.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  "Progressive" isn't just a single spectrum, there are at least two axes: social and economic. Amazon is definitely socially progressive, but it doesn't look like that carries across to their economic politics.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Wouldn't interfering with unions mean attacking free speech and freedom of assembly, which is the opposite of socially progressive?
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      Anti-union behavior as "interfering" and "attacking" general principles like free speech is your own politically biased framing. Nothing wrong with that, but you could also frame it as supporting the free speech and freedom of assembly of capital owners/managers, or that unions are "interfering" with corporations. The difference between the two warring factions here is not social, it is economic.
      - jseban 4y ago
        Unions are also limiting the freedom of the individual worker.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - jseban 4y ago
      What exactly about unions is progressive? It was something that came out of the industrial revolution, had its breakthrough in the 1930s, its peak in the 1970s, and has been in steady decline for 40 years, and for good reasons. Promoting postwar politics in 2022 is not progressive, it's regressive.
  - 24rf24r2f 4y ago
    In what way is Amazon "definitely socially progressive"? At most they put up a pride-themed logo on social media once a year, and only in countries with governments that are amenable to it. If you mean they are equal-opportunity exploiters, then ok I guess. But Amazon is not progressive at all, they are driven only by calculations of profit and power. It is no different to pseudo-progressive politicians like Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. who for example had their public relations teams flip a switch on the messaging around gay marriage the moment that the demographic data showed that it was acceptably palatable to the general public.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Because rainbow capitalism and authoritarianism is still capitalism and authoritarianism? Paying lip service to diversity doesn't change the fact that they want 99% of the exact same things as the authoritarian capitalists that hold up guns and yell yeehaw.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    To be clear, not all of us who hold up guns and yell yeehaw are authoritarian or capitalist.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Of course. A worker holding up a gun and yelling yeehaw has a great deal more in common with the red-haired non-binary worker yelling about systemic racism than either has with Lauren Boebert or Joe Biden. And Lauren Boebert and Joe Biden have a great deal more in common with each other than they do with 99% of the population.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        Exactly
ahevia 4y ago
You did use “progressive slant” but for others reading this. That slant is just that. A slant. The city had the very opposite of progressive wins in last years city election cycle with quite a few moderates winning. It seems that slant might be wanting these days, our labor wins have seemed to run to the contrary though.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Almost as if us election outcomes have nothing to do with what the constituents want.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I feel like we are seeing in real time how swing voters and aspirational immigrants set the course of both parties. When Republicans win in 2022 focusing on inflation, crime, and the culture war, what should be the takeaway about “what constituents want?”
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The takeaway should be that propaganda and limiting the options to the two worst via gerrymandering, FPP and other broken voting systems results in two options which are fundamentally the same but differ on fear of crime vs paying lip service to diversity. The very fact that you're attempting to lay the blame on swing voters and aspirational immigrants is proof that the system is fundamentally broken and completely uncoupled from the wants or needs of the majority. Hugely popular measures that actually help the people rather than the rich are rejected bipartisanly at every single level of government in every country where murdoch reigns using the same garbage propaganda whilst privacy is removed, police powers are increased, and trillions of taxpayer dollars are sent to coal and oil barons or arms dealers based on votes taken in the middle of the night. At a local level the 1% of NIMBYs are listened to over the 70% of people that actually want low carbon, more convenient transport or money to be spent on local parks and activities or increased housing density whilst budgets for the local PD to LARP as a special forces team are doubled without consultation and yet another poor neighborhood is demolished for highways. This happens no matter whether the local pro-facist or shit-light party is in power. Painting a rainbow or the local indigenous flag on an intersection is completely meaningless when both parties agree to defund and privatise social services (or at the very best one party defunds and sells these things to their buddies for a song while the other party undoes 10% of the damage and pats themselves on the back).

I mean, what’s with ostensibly “progressive” companies engaging in union busting? I assume neither Bezos nor Howard Schultz voted for Donald Trump, so what gives?

loeg 4y ago
The very simple explanation is that these companies aren't "progressive." Or at least, not their C-suite. Seems pretty obvious?
- barsonme 4y ago
  Most companies are only "progressive" inasmuch it lets them make more money. They'll be whatever you want so long as it lets them sell more stuff. The fact that this is apparently such a shock to people is exactly why they do it.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    > Most companies are only "progressive" inasmuch it lets them make more money. What are they supposed to do then?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Somehow, Bismarck found a peaceable solution for rising worker agitation in the 19th century.
      - bildung 4y ago
        You mean imprisoning the leaders of the unions and the social democratic party? (I get what you mean, but IMO reducing Bismarcks policy too introducing pensions seems way to simplistic. Especially how that worked out a few decades later...)
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Still, undercutting the opposition by beating them to the punch in creating a proto-social welfare state is something that few other reactionaries have tried since. Sure, sure, Amazon has increased the base rate for their warehouse workers, but it’s clearly not enough.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      Just sell product and stay out of politics?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Stop existing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
themacguffinman 4y ago
"Progressive" isn't just a single spectrum, there are at least two axes: social and economic. Amazon is definitely socially progressive, but it doesn't look like that carries across to their economic politics.
- danuker 4y ago
  Wouldn't interfering with unions mean attacking free speech and freedom of assembly, which is the opposite of socially progressive?
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    Anti-union behavior as "interfering" and "attacking" general principles like free speech is your own politically biased framing. Nothing wrong with that, but you could also frame it as supporting the free speech and freedom of assembly of capital owners/managers, or that unions are "interfering" with corporations. The difference between the two warring factions here is not social, it is economic.
    - jseban 4y ago
      Unions are also limiting the freedom of the individual worker.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - jseban 4y ago
    What exactly about unions is progressive? It was something that came out of the industrial revolution, had its breakthrough in the 1930s, its peak in the 1970s, and has been in steady decline for 40 years, and for good reasons. Promoting postwar politics in 2022 is not progressive, it's regressive.
- 24rf24r2f 4y ago
  In what way is Amazon "definitely socially progressive"? At most they put up a pride-themed logo on social media once a year, and only in countries with governments that are amenable to it. If you mean they are equal-opportunity exploiters, then ok I guess. But Amazon is not progressive at all, they are driven only by calculations of profit and power. It is no different to pseudo-progressive politicians like Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. who for example had their public relations teams flip a switch on the messaging around gay marriage the moment that the demographic data showed that it was acceptably palatable to the general public.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Because rainbow capitalism and authoritarianism is still capitalism and authoritarianism? Paying lip service to diversity doesn't change the fact that they want 99% of the exact same things as the authoritarian capitalists that hold up guns and yell yeehaw.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  To be clear, not all of us who hold up guns and yell yeehaw are authoritarian or capitalist.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Of course. A worker holding up a gun and yelling yeehaw has a great deal more in common with the red-haired non-binary worker yelling about systemic racism than either has with Lauren Boebert or Joe Biden. And Lauren Boebert and Joe Biden have a great deal more in common with each other than they do with 99% of the population.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      Exactly

ahevia 4y ago

You did use “progressive slant” but for others reading this. That slant is just that. A slant. The city had the very opposite of progressive wins in last years city election cycle with quite a few moderates winning. It seems that slant might be wanting these days, our labor wins have seemed to run to the contrary though.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Almost as if us election outcomes have nothing to do with what the constituents want.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I feel like we are seeing in real time how swing voters and aspirational immigrants set the course of both parties. When Republicans win in 2022 focusing on inflation, crime, and the culture war, what should be the takeaway about “what constituents want?”
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The takeaway should be that propaganda and limiting the options to the two worst via gerrymandering, FPP and other broken voting systems results in two options which are fundamentally the same but differ on fear of crime vs paying lip service to diversity. The very fact that you're attempting to lay the blame on swing voters and aspirational immigrants is proof that the system is fundamentally broken and completely uncoupled from the wants or needs of the majority. Hugely popular measures that actually help the people rather than the rich are rejected bipartisanly at every single level of government in every country where murdoch reigns using the same garbage propaganda whilst privacy is removed, police powers are increased, and trillions of taxpayer dollars are sent to coal and oil barons or arms dealers based on votes taken in the middle of the night. At a local level the 1% of NIMBYs are listened to over the 70% of people that actually want low carbon, more convenient transport or money to be spent on local parks and activities or increased housing density whilst budgets for the local PD to LARP as a special forces team are doubled without consultation and yet another poor neighborhood is demolished for highways. This happens no matter whether the local pro-facist or shit-light party is in power. Painting a rainbow or the local indigenous flag on an intersection is completely meaningless when both parties agree to defund and privatise social services (or at the very best one party defunds and sells these things to their buddies for a song while the other party undoes 10% of the damage and pats themselves on the back).