4 ms·

> 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 doi

> 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?

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?