7 ms·

Why do leftists believe they have the right to tell others what their interests are?

by meatsauce 4y ago

ok123456 4y ago
The have an interest in not being given demerits for using the bathroom (aka: "time off task")
- meatsauce 4y ago
  That still doesn't answer the question. Nor does it address the issue of people who abuse policies, such as those who hide in the bathroom for 1/8th of the shift. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Unions had served a good purpose, but in no way do they serve the interests of everybody, especially in modern society given labor laws. My experience in several unions only demonstrated how corrupt, inept, and self-serving they are.
  - ok123456 4y ago
    Yes it does. They have specific material concerns and concerns about their working conditions that aren't being addressed. We're returning to the 19th century it seems with worker protections being eroded. It makes sense that Unionization would make a comeback.
jahnu 4y ago
We all have the right to discuss our opinion of what is best for each other. The OP there isn't arguing for taking away the right of someone to decide.
andrepd 4y ago
As the other other poster says: whatever those interests are, you cannot fight for them alone vs a trillion dollar corp like Amazon, so that point is moot. Collective action is the only way you stand a chance.
- meatsauce 4y ago
  You can work someplace else if you hate the company. Imagine that.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Okay. So your company treats you like shit and you quit. Where do you go now? You need to sell your labour to survive, so you lost all your income. Your employer has other sources of income, has reserve capital, so that even if your job was critical and production is now shut while they look for a replacement (unlikely), they're gonna be fine. But you need to eat tonight. Not next quarter or next month or even next week, tonight. You need to pay the bank/landlord a steady sum or you'll become homeless. And god forbid you get less than perfectly healthy. So you don't quit actually, because it is not possible for you to quit. Capital has far more power than a (so-called) "unskilled worker", especially if there's no collective action. They have all the leverage, the worker has none, so they can dictate the conditions, i.e. the bare minimum for the worker to survive and continue working, and the worker has only to accept. I feel like I'm saying really basic stuff.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. But as a practical matter, opportunities expand faster when labor markets are free, and capital owners are secure in their rights. Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. Detroit was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self.
      - andrepd 4y ago
        >The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. It's not about "difficult circumstances" at all. It's about the fundamental divide between those who need to sell their labour to survive, and those who can extract rent without working due only to having a monopoly on capital. It's a qualitative distinction, of class, not a quantitative matter of being more or less poor. Also I did not even say anything about "government seizing control". But I will say this: the current economic system based on joint-stock ownership of firms by capital monopolists is an entirely fabricated system, and not a rule of Nature. So don't argue "but you would seize property from their rightful owners" as if the very particular system of property rights currently in force wasn't a social invention enforced with violence by the state. >Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. This is simply not true. Notice how the best countries to live in the world are invariably those with more labour protections and a mixed economy with heavy public participation. Limiting ourselves to the US, compare the standard of living in the gilded age vs the golden age of American labour organisation. >Detroit Also, it's very rich trying to link the downfall of American industry to unionisation... I could go on for an hour about this topic.
atwood22 4y ago
Because workers' rights are a zero-sum game. There is a total amount of power that can be had in the workplace, and it is either held by the owners or the workers.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  Do you really believe the owners will simply accept lower profits and not just pass on the cost to the consumer? This is how you get increasing costs but no actual improvement. Wage-price spiral.
  - rwooster 4y ago
    This sounds like you think it's ok for companies to exploit workers if it keeps costs low - is that really your intent?
sAbakumoff 4y ago
A much better question would be – why does the American ruling class deny basic human rights – decent wage, affordable health care, good education, safety?
- meatsauce 4y ago
  Amazon starts at $18/hr. You want $100/hour to pack and move boxes? Start a moving company. Healthcare isn't a right. It is a luxury. Self defense, free speech, freedom of movement and association; those are human rights. Healthcare is only expensive because of the multiple layers of government and private corruption, litigation, and pie-halving. At the same time, Healthcare can save your life; what is your life truly worth? A $10 co-pay? If we had a good education, then people wouldn't be whining about $18/hour. Safety? Such as being insulated from ideas & opinions you don't like, or having zero risk for electrocution in electrical contracting?
  - lovelymono 4y ago
    Healthcare isn't a right From UN Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 25: 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social servicess, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  - sAbakumoff 4y ago
    >> Amazon starts at $18/hr I think it's a lie. AFAIK they pay warehouse workers $15/hour. As you start your message with lying, the rest of is BS. Safety, by the way, means not being afraid of being shut by a right-wing delusional maniac.
    - TigeriusKirk 4y ago
      "The average starting wage of $18 an hour will be effective in regions where labor markets are tight, while the company will continue to pay a minimum wage of $15 an hour, said Dave Bozeman, vice president of delivery services at Amazon." So "lie" is a bit strong here.

Why do leftists believe they have the right to tell others what their interests are?

ok123456 4y ago

The have an interest in not being given demerits for using the bathroom (aka: "time off task")

meatsauce 4y ago
That still doesn't answer the question. Nor does it address the issue of people who abuse policies, such as those who hide in the bathroom for 1/8th of the shift. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Unions had served a good purpose, but in no way do they serve the interests of everybody, especially in modern society given labor laws. My experience in several unions only demonstrated how corrupt, inept, and self-serving they are.
- ok123456 4y ago
  Yes it does. They have specific material concerns and concerns about their working conditions that aren't being addressed. We're returning to the 19th century it seems with worker protections being eroded. It makes sense that Unionization would make a comeback.

jahnu 4y ago

We all have the right to discuss our opinion of what is best for each other. The OP there isn't arguing for taking away the right of someone to decide.

andrepd 4y ago

As the other other poster says: whatever those interests are, you cannot fight for them alone vs a trillion dollar corp like Amazon, so that point is moot. Collective action is the only way you stand a chance.

meatsauce 4y ago
You can work someplace else if you hate the company. Imagine that.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Okay. So your company treats you like shit and you quit. Where do you go now? You need to sell your labour to survive, so you lost all your income. Your employer has other sources of income, has reserve capital, so that even if your job was critical and production is now shut while they look for a replacement (unlikely), they're gonna be fine. But you need to eat tonight. Not next quarter or next month or even next week, tonight. You need to pay the bank/landlord a steady sum or you'll become homeless. And god forbid you get less than perfectly healthy. So you don't quit actually, because it is not possible for you to quit. Capital has far more power than a (so-called) "unskilled worker", especially if there's no collective action. They have all the leverage, the worker has none, so they can dictate the conditions, i.e. the bare minimum for the worker to survive and continue working, and the worker has only to accept. I feel like I'm saying really basic stuff.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. But as a practical matter, opportunities expand faster when labor markets are free, and capital owners are secure in their rights. Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. Detroit was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      >The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. It's not about "difficult circumstances" at all. It's about the fundamental divide between those who need to sell their labour to survive, and those who can extract rent without working due only to having a monopoly on capital. It's a qualitative distinction, of class, not a quantitative matter of being more or less poor. Also I did not even say anything about "government seizing control". But I will say this: the current economic system based on joint-stock ownership of firms by capital monopolists is an entirely fabricated system, and not a rule of Nature. So don't argue "but you would seize property from their rightful owners" as if the very particular system of property rights currently in force wasn't a social invention enforced with violence by the state. >Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. This is simply not true. Notice how the best countries to live in the world are invariably those with more labour protections and a mixed economy with heavy public participation. Limiting ourselves to the US, compare the standard of living in the gilded age vs the golden age of American labour organisation. >Detroit Also, it's very rich trying to link the downfall of American industry to unionisation... I could go on for an hour about this topic.

atwood22 4y ago

Because workers' rights are a zero-sum game. There is a total amount of power that can be had in the workplace, and it is either held by the owners or the workers.

collegeburner 4y ago
Do you really believe the owners will simply accept lower profits and not just pass on the cost to the consumer? This is how you get increasing costs but no actual improvement. Wage-price spiral.
- rwooster 4y ago
  This sounds like you think it's ok for companies to exploit workers if it keeps costs low - is that really your intent?

sAbakumoff 4y ago

A much better question would be – why does the American ruling class deny basic human rights – decent wage, affordable health care, good education, safety?

meatsauce 4y ago
Amazon starts at $18/hr. You want $100/hour to pack and move boxes? Start a moving company. Healthcare isn't a right. It is a luxury. Self defense, free speech, freedom of movement and association; those are human rights. Healthcare is only expensive because of the multiple layers of government and private corruption, litigation, and pie-halving. At the same time, Healthcare can save your life; what is your life truly worth? A $10 co-pay? If we had a good education, then people wouldn't be whining about $18/hour. Safety? Such as being insulated from ideas & opinions you don't like, or having zero risk for electrocution in electrical contracting?
- lovelymono 4y ago
  Healthcare isn't a right From UN Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 25: 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social servicess, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
- sAbakumoff 4y ago
  >> Amazon starts at $18/hr I think it's a lie. AFAIK they pay warehouse workers $15/hour. As you start your message with lying, the rest of is BS. Safety, by the way, means not being afraid of being shut by a right-wing delusional maniac.
  - TigeriusKirk 4y ago
    "The average starting wage of $18 an hour will be effective in regions where labor markets are tight, while the company will continue to pay a minimum wage of $15 an hour, said Dave Bozeman, vice president of delivery services at Amazon." So "lie" is a bit strong here.