4 ms·
Possibly because it implies that higher-demand jobs do not need unions. Which is a position some may disagree with.
by manimino 4y ago
Possibly 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.