4 ms·

I don't think you're Stockholm Syndromed, but I definitely think you're lacking in empathy. Think about it this way -- do you think you have been always product

I don't think you're Stockholm Syndromed, but I definitely think you're lacking in empathy. Think about it this way -- do you think you have been always productive and reliable, 100% of the time? If not (let's say, 5% of the time you weren't), then you were the the unproductive or unreliable coworker, possibly due to factors in your life that you could not control. The idea of a union is that it insulates you from being instantly punished for factors you might not be able to control a little better than the market is doing right now. Look for news about new parents who were part of the layoffs recently. Out of "individual performance and developing personal relationships", the "developing personal relationships" part of the equation is slowly fading. When was the last time you got a job purely on the basis of your personal relationships without having to jump through hoops to show your skills? I am a little hesitant about unions too, but I'm at least willing to give them a chance based on the hack-and-slash behavior from industry leaders seeking to please their investors.

abduhl 4y ago
>> The idea of a union is that it insulates you from being instantly punished for factors you might not be able to control a little better than the market is doing right now (look for news about new parents who were part of the layoffs recently). Since when has this been the idea of the union? Recall that nearly all union rules are set by seniority, not personal factors like having a bad day or having a child.
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > Recall that nearly all union rules are set by seniority, not personal factors like having a bad day or having a child. I'm unable to understand what you're saying here. Of course, union rules are not set by personal factors. I meant that they make it less easy to fire you for personal factors due to the heavier emphasis on due process in unionized workplaces. In most non-union workplaces in the US, you can get fired because your boss had a bad day, or (practically) if you announce that you're pregnant. The latter case is theoretically protected, but it's very hard for an average person to get an appropriate lawyer, show a pattern and sue the workplace.
- pydry 4y ago
  Pick a better objective metric that correlates well with job performance that can't be twisted by management to promote the ass kissers and snitches. Unions will be delighted to adopt it.
trieste92 4y ago
> The idea of a union is that it insulates you from being instantly punished for factors you might not be able to control a little better than the market is doing right now. Most people have good days and bad days. Any manager who's crazy enough to punish someone for having one bad day isn't a good manager. If that happens it's likely a manager specific issue > When was the last time you got a job purely on the basis of your personal relationships without having to jump through hoops to show your skills? This isn't a bad thing. More merit, less favoritism. People are hired based off of qualifications alone (ideally)
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > Most people have good days and bad days. Any manager who's crazy enough to punish someone for having one bad day isn't a good manager. If that happens it's likely a manager specific issue How about 2 bad months due to an illness? US companies are pretty much set up so that people in those situations often end up being let go. It's not a "manager specific issue", it's a broader cultural one. > This isn't a bad thing. More merit, less favoritism. Sure, but then the OP's point about personal relationships is neutralized, which is why they (if not you) might want to consider unions if they want to protect themselves from the stark meritocracy that you posit. > People are hired based off of qualifications alone (ideally) Yep, and kept employed based on the same, and let go immediately if there might be someone cheaper or if market conditions change even slightly and "It's good for the business!". This is raw capitalism. What we have been discovering in the past couple of months of layoffs is that not everyone has the taste for it. Those folks, including OP, might want to consider unionizing.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    > which is why they (if not you) might want to consider unions if they want to protect themselves from the stark meritocracy that you posit. Why would you prefer a system under which you have to know someone to get a good job instead of a system under which you just have to master a skill?
nerdponx 4y ago
It's not just about being unproductive or unreliable. It's about being taken advantage of, even if and when you are fully productive and reliable. Hard work and individual productivity can and do get individually rewarded in many cases, but overall you are still entirely at the whims of your employer in an asymmetric power relationship. The entire purpose of collective bargaining and unions is to balance the power relationship.

abduhl 4y ago

>> The idea of a union is that it insulates you from being instantly punished for factors you might not be able to control a little better than the market is doing right now (look for news about new parents who were part of the layoffs recently). Since when has this been the idea of the union? Recall that nearly all union rules are set by seniority, not personal factors like having a bad day or having a child.

quadrifoliate 4y ago
> Recall that nearly all union rules are set by seniority, not personal factors like having a bad day or having a child. I'm unable to understand what you're saying here. Of course, union rules are not set by personal factors. I meant that they make it less easy to fire you for personal factors due to the heavier emphasis on due process in unionized workplaces. In most non-union workplaces in the US, you can get fired because your boss had a bad day, or (practically) if you announce that you're pregnant. The latter case is theoretically protected, but it's very hard for an average person to get an appropriate lawyer, show a pattern and sue the workplace.
pydry 4y ago
Pick a better objective metric that correlates well with job performance that can't be twisted by management to promote the ass kissers and snitches. Unions will be delighted to adopt it.

trieste92 4y ago

> The idea of a union is that it insulates you from being instantly punished for factors you might not be able to control a little better than the market is doing right now. Most people have good days and bad days. Any manager who's crazy enough to punish someone for having one bad day isn't a good manager. If that happens it's likely a manager specific issue > When was the last time you got a job purely on the basis of your personal relationships without having to jump through hoops to show your skills? This isn't a bad thing. More merit, less favoritism. People are hired based off of qualifications alone (ideally)

quadrifoliate 4y ago
> Most people have good days and bad days. Any manager who's crazy enough to punish someone for having one bad day isn't a good manager. If that happens it's likely a manager specific issue How about 2 bad months due to an illness? US companies are pretty much set up so that people in those situations often end up being let go. It's not a "manager specific issue", it's a broader cultural one. > This isn't a bad thing. More merit, less favoritism. Sure, but then the OP's point about personal relationships is neutralized, which is why they (if not you) might want to consider unions if they want to protect themselves from the stark meritocracy that you posit. > People are hired based off of qualifications alone (ideally) Yep, and kept employed based on the same, and let go immediately if there might be someone cheaper or if market conditions change even slightly and "It's good for the business!". This is raw capitalism. What we have been discovering in the past couple of months of layoffs is that not everyone has the taste for it. Those folks, including OP, might want to consider unionizing.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > which is why they (if not you) might want to consider unions if they want to protect themselves from the stark meritocracy that you posit. Why would you prefer a system under which you have to know someone to get a good job instead of a system under which you just have to master a skill?

nerdponx 4y ago

It's not just about being unproductive or unreliable. It's about being taken advantage of, even if and when you are fully productive and reliable. Hard work and individual productivity can and do get individually rewarded in many cases, but overall you are still entirely at the whims of your employer in an asymmetric power relationship. The entire purpose of collective bargaining and unions is to balance the power relationship.