3 ms·

Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to fight back. If only there wa

Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to fight back. If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Fucking Union!

gruez 4y ago
>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive centralized federal government that is to large to care about the peasants in a certain state.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    At the same time, what is any local government going to do to Apple?
    - Xeoncross 4y ago
      The same thing the union just did and more.
  - tdeck 4y ago
    When gruez says "the state" they're talking mainly about countries and governments in general, not specifically about US states.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  A union more directly puts power in to the hands of workers than does the state.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    thats funny, because traditionally when a company signs with a union, there are semi standardized rates of pay for certain amount of experience and education etc, and then companies tend to go "well this is what we agreed to with the union", and the worker is in a very bad position to negotiate different. You already have all the power in the world, YOU, the worker, can decide what you're willing to do, and what you demand in return for it. What more could you possibly need? What kind of logic is being employed here? why are we treating the common worker like they are so retarded as to "obviously need" a union to make the good decisions for them?
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      You seem to be missing the whole point of a union - “collective bargaining”. If one worker at UPS says “give me air conditioning in my truck or I refuse to work”, management will just fire them. If every worker at UPS says the same thing, the company is put in a serious position and must negotiate. This has nothing to do with how smart the workers are. A single worker does not have the power that a union has. A single worker cannot make demands of the company with any real negotiating power, unless it is a very small company with specialized needs. For what it’s worth I’m one of those people that is able to negotiate for themselves. I’m a highly skilled robotics engineer and I have to constantly tell recruiters to stop emailing me. I’ve negotiated a position that is exactly what I want to be doing. A dream career. But I’m in a tiny organization, it is basically just me and one investor. The project would be over if I left, so I have a lot of negotiating power. But the same is not true for Amazon warehouse workers or UPS truck drivers or coal miners. I’m sure there are workers who perform better than others but this doesn’t really lead to a huge change in ROI for the company, so even the best UPS truck driver has very little negotiating power. That’s where unions matter.
      - 4y ago
- hector_vasquez 4y ago
  Corporations are people, so no, we don't have the state.
  - gruez 4y ago
    Corporations are people insofar as they can conduct business activities and be sued. They're definitely not the same as "people".
Xeoncross 4y ago
This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes too even if you don't want to be a part of it. Unions are great at first though.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union power in general while placing all of the unions power in the hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that’s just what I remember off the top of my head (IANAL). The act should be repealed so union members have the power to strike regardless of whether union leadership agrees. Many common issues with unions people will share in this thread are experiences had under the Taft-Hartley Act, which is not the natural state of unions but an act of the state to weaken their power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
  - Xeoncross 4y ago
    This is a really great point. The laws that get put on the books have a habit of benefiting the few over the many even if the sales pitch was to help everyone.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      Well the whole point of this law was that there were a lot of strikes after WW2 and the government wanted to weaken union power, so while they may have pitched this as helping everyone it was obviously a way to empower the business class over workers.
redeeman 4y ago
why cant we just individually decide what we are willing to do? why do we need to mindlessly join unions that tells us what we think? imagine if you will, that everyone had some personal backbone and responsibility, and had standards for what they would accept. They then communicate this to prospective employers, and would quit if things happen they cannot accept. if everyone, or majority did this, then companies would be either forced to align, or have no workforce. and IF enough people exists that dont care about working 14 hour shifts 7 days a week, good? nah, this seems stupid, why should individuals decide? lets rather sign our free will over to unions that by definition simply just exists to shield the "mediocre workers that CLEARLY cant think for themselves"

gruez 4y ago

>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.

Xeoncross 4y ago
No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive centralized federal government that is to large to care about the peasants in a certain state.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  At the same time, what is any local government going to do to Apple?
  - Xeoncross 4y ago
    The same thing the union just did and more.
- tdeck 4y ago
  When gruez says "the state" they're talking mainly about countries and governments in general, not specifically about US states.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
A union more directly puts power in to the hands of workers than does the state.
- redeeman 4y ago
  thats funny, because traditionally when a company signs with a union, there are semi standardized rates of pay for certain amount of experience and education etc, and then companies tend to go "well this is what we agreed to with the union", and the worker is in a very bad position to negotiate different. You already have all the power in the world, YOU, the worker, can decide what you're willing to do, and what you demand in return for it. What more could you possibly need? What kind of logic is being employed here? why are we treating the common worker like they are so retarded as to "obviously need" a union to make the good decisions for them?
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    You seem to be missing the whole point of a union - “collective bargaining”. If one worker at UPS says “give me air conditioning in my truck or I refuse to work”, management will just fire them. If every worker at UPS says the same thing, the company is put in a serious position and must negotiate. This has nothing to do with how smart the workers are. A single worker does not have the power that a union has. A single worker cannot make demands of the company with any real negotiating power, unless it is a very small company with specialized needs. For what it’s worth I’m one of those people that is able to negotiate for themselves. I’m a highly skilled robotics engineer and I have to constantly tell recruiters to stop emailing me. I’ve negotiated a position that is exactly what I want to be doing. A dream career. But I’m in a tiny organization, it is basically just me and one investor. The project would be over if I left, so I have a lot of negotiating power. But the same is not true for Amazon warehouse workers or UPS truck drivers or coal miners. I’m sure there are workers who perform better than others but this doesn’t really lead to a huge change in ROI for the company, so even the best UPS truck driver has very little negotiating power. That’s where unions matter.
    - 4y ago
hector_vasquez 4y ago
Corporations are people, so no, we don't have the state.
- gruez 4y ago
  Corporations are people insofar as they can conduct business activities and be sued. They're definitely not the same as "people".

Xeoncross 4y ago

This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes too even if you don't want to be a part of it. Unions are great at first though.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union power in general while placing all of the unions power in the hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that’s just what I remember off the top of my head (IANAL). The act should be repealed so union members have the power to strike regardless of whether union leadership agrees. Many common issues with unions people will share in this thread are experiences had under the Taft-Hartley Act, which is not the natural state of unions but an act of the state to weaken their power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  This is a really great point. The laws that get put on the books have a habit of benefiting the few over the many even if the sales pitch was to help everyone.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    Well the whole point of this law was that there were a lot of strikes after WW2 and the government wanted to weaken union power, so while they may have pitched this as helping everyone it was obviously a way to empower the business class over workers.

redeeman 4y ago

why cant we just individually decide what we are willing to do? why do we need to mindlessly join unions that tells us what we think? imagine if you will, that everyone had some personal backbone and responsibility, and had standards for what they would accept. They then communicate this to prospective employers, and would quit if things happen they cannot accept. if everyone, or majority did this, then companies would be either forced to align, or have no workforce. and IF enough people exists that dont care about working 14 hour shifts 7 days a week, good? nah, this seems stupid, why should individuals decide? lets rather sign our free will over to unions that by definition simply just exists to shield the "mediocre workers that CLEARLY cant think for themselves"