3 ms·

I think you have a very US-centric lens on unions. In the Nordic countries, for example, unions operate entirely differently. So you need to be clear where your

I think you have a very US-centric lens on unions. In the Nordic countries, for example, unions operate entirely differently. So you need to be clear where your points come from.

BobbyJo 4y ago
> So you need to be clear where your points come from They were responding to a post specifically asking about Americans' feelings toward unions. That made it pretty clear to me where his points were coming from. If they were responding from Finland I'd be a little confused why they were responding at all.
- ubercore 4y ago
  Because Finland is a great example of unions working for the benefit of employees? Why are we constrained to only discussing how (some, not all) unions are in the US?
  - jasode 4y ago
    >Why are we constrained to only discussing how (some, not all) unions are in the US? In general, nobody is constrained to just discussing USA unions but the particular subthread[1] that you're in which was started by gp (Zeyka) was asking specifically about America. And that's probably because this thread's article is about American unions. That's why your clarification (to poster wallawe) was perceived as redundant and out of place. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34028480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34028480
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Because in USA every union is a battle. There isn't much to talk about with respect to Scandinavian unions, if you don't want to be in one just don't be, if you want to be in one just join, it is much simpler, while in USA one side forces the other side to take the same route, so you can't choose union other votes for what union you are in etc.
ensignavenger 4y ago
The above comment was clearly in response to another comment about how Americans feel about unions, thus it is obvious it was looking at American unions.

3 ms·

I think you have a very US-centric lens on unions. In the Nordic countries, for example, unions operate entirely differently. So you need to be clear where your

by ubercore 4y ago

I think you have a very US-centric lens on unions. In the Nordic countries, for example, unions operate entirely differently. So you need to be clear where your points come from.

BobbyJo 4y ago
> So you need to be clear where your points come from They were responding to a post specifically asking about Americans' feelings toward unions. That made it pretty clear to me where his points were coming from. If they were responding from Finland I'd be a little confused why they were responding at all.
- ubercore 4y ago
  Because Finland is a great example of unions working for the benefit of employees? Why are we constrained to only discussing how (some, not all) unions are in the US?
  - jasode 4y ago
    >Why are we constrained to only discussing how (some, not all) unions are in the US? In general, nobody is constrained to just discussing USA unions but the particular subthread[1] that you're in which was started by gp (Zeyka) was asking specifically about America. And that's probably because this thread's article is about American unions. That's why your clarification (to poster wallawe) was perceived as redundant and out of place. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34028480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34028480
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Because in USA every union is a battle. There isn't much to talk about with respect to Scandinavian unions, if you don't want to be in one just don't be, if you want to be in one just join, it is much simpler, while in USA one side forces the other side to take the same route, so you can't choose union other votes for what union you are in etc.
ensignavenger 4y ago
The above comment was clearly in response to another comment about how Americans feel about unions, thus it is obvious it was looking at American unions.