4 ms·
Why in the world is this downvoted? I’d genuinely like to understand what’s disagreeable about this take.
by cududa 4y ago
Why in the world is this downvoted? I’d genuinely like to understand what’s disagreeable about this take.
- manimino 4y agoPossibly because it implies that higher-demand jobs do not need unions. Which is a position some may disagree with.
- jagged-chisel 4y agoNot arguing directly with you, but the sentiment you suspect others have - I agree some may read GP this way. It’s a bit of a leap from “With my job, I have the luxury of…” to “Unions for my job are not needed.”
- devmor 4y agoI definitely do not intend to imply that. But I do believe unions are much more imminently necessary for those who aren't in high demand.
- Ar-Curunir 4y agoThat would be an asinine interpretation of the comment. How can "A needs B" imply "C does not need B"?
- Kaze404 4y agoThat's not really what happened. Reading "low wage jobs need unions" as implying "high wage jobs do not need unions" seems reasonable to me, because there's no need to specify "low wage jobs" if the distinction wasn't necessary.
- squarefoot 4y agoProbably because HR and management are among the higher paid jobs, which not only don't need unions but flat out hate them.
- Sebguer 4y agoGiven how anti-union HN and tech generally is, this is a pretty charitable read.
- andrepd 4y agoBecause this website is mostly frequented by highly specialised professionals, which some times do not empathise with the struggles of lower-wage workers.
- sumedh 4y ago> which some times do not empathise with the struggles of lower-wage workers. I was having a conversation with a programmer, I told him I am worried about driverless tech becoming mainstreams and people losing their jobs which is not good for society. The other guy said dont worry they will find another job, that is when I realised that people in Tech live in their own bubble.