3 ms·

Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? > To prevent wage reduction as a re

by sershe 3y ago

Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? > To prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ Also, for me as an immigrant it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions.

Boogie_Man 3y ago
>Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? Because it's a job that's available near the workers. You could also say "Why would workers at GM take union jobs instead of non-union jobs". Companies having employees is not a useful metric in determining how good a company is when we're talking about manual work. It only tells you there are people who would like to be employed. >It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ This is a valid criticism. I think it might be a critique of the workforce or educational system in general, but I agree that these unions are playing a part. Some sort of working agreement is needed for exceptional circumstances like this, and unions need to come to the table. >it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. I was attempting to provide context to your statement. It is a moral and tactical failing of the union to not accept workers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and protect their interests the same as any other working man, if they already existed in the labor pool. If a company is importing cheap labor of a different ethnicity en masse, they are not doing it innocently. Companies understand that racial tensions are a great tool to divide workers. A company using racial tension as a weapon is much more of a problem than workers being racist individually. That is a failing that needs to be addressed with socialization, education, and shared culture, but it is secondary. >Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions. If you replace "unions" with "companies forced to compete in a race to the bottom, becoming more and more cutthroat to survive" I'd agree. Remember: They'd chain you to the machines if it was still legal
- sershe 3y ago
  Points 1-2 make sense, although I don't believe (see no reason why, given the rest) unions would "come to the table", other than again when their demands are seen as unreasonable. >I was attempting to provide context to your statement. For the third, I'm not blaming. It's just interesting to me that you would provide proper context (they were trying to exclude other labor) for immigration case; but even though the motivation was the same for the racist case, you didn't say that - I assume it was not because you personally are ok with the anti-immigration case, it's just giving this "context" for racist behavior is really taboo, whereas for anti-immigration it's still ok even if you don't agree with it. As for companies, responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 In reality if they could replace 100% of labor with capital they'd do it. Meanwhile it's actually an interesting paradox... I agree that in narrow circumstances unions achieved/helped achieve worker protections. However, other rules were imposed on corporations without unions, and in different contexts (e.g. environmental, consumer protection, etc.). So I'm not convinced unions were necessary, but suppose they were. Still, if the basic rules are established as laws (and I don't consider extra-legal rules, like suppressing competition for wage, as valid or necessary), a permanent union becomes unnecessary for them and its motivations become as I've described...
colpabar 3y ago
I don't really understand your aside, but it's really unfair to call any position that isn't in support of open borders racist. Immigration is policy and people can have different opinions on it. It's also just not racist for an american union to want a factory in america to be staffed by american workers, especially after all the claims of said factory creating american jobs.

by sershe 3y ago

Boogie_Man 3y ago

>Well, what do you think the reasons are that these workers took non-union jobs with Tesla, vs union jobs with Ford/GM/etc.? Because it's a job that's available near the workers. You could also say "Why would workers at GM take union jobs instead of non-union jobs". Companies having employees is not a useful metric in determining how good a company is when we're talking about manual work. It only tells you there are people who would like to be employed. >It's not just against cheap labor, it's against any labor, including better labor - e.g. very recently, https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/08/07/us-tsmc-plant-petition/ This is a valid criticism. I think it might be a critique of the workforce or educational system in general, but I agree that these unions are playing a part. Some sort of working agreement is needed for exceptional circumstances like this, and unions need to come to the table. >it's very interesting that you didn't defend racism on the ground of "prevent wage reduction as a result of an influx of cheap labor"- which is exactly what they were trying to do; but you did defend anti-immigration sentiment on that basis. Anti-immigration sentiment is still pretty socially acceptable in the US, so it's still ok to use this defense, apparently. I was attempting to provide context to your statement. It is a moral and tactical failing of the union to not accept workers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and protect their interests the same as any other working man, if they already existed in the labor pool. If a company is importing cheap labor of a different ethnicity en masse, they are not doing it innocently. Companies understand that racial tensions are a great tool to divide workers. A company using racial tension as a weapon is much more of a problem than workers being racist individually. That is a failing that needs to be addressed with socialization, education, and shared culture, but it is secondary. >Exactly because unions in a vacuum are pure evil - and they will behave maximally evilly within the confines that social mores allow. If racism was also still socially acceptable, unions would use that too regardless of other institutions. If you replace "unions" with "companies forced to compete in a race to the bottom, becoming more and more cutthroat to survive" I'd agree. Remember: They'd chain you to the machines if it was still legal

sershe 3y ago
Points 1-2 make sense, although I don't believe (see no reason why, given the rest) unions would "come to the table", other than again when their demands are seen as unreasonable. >I was attempting to provide context to your statement. For the third, I'm not blaming. It's just interesting to me that you would provide proper context (they were trying to exclude other labor) for immigration case; but even though the motivation was the same for the racist case, you didn't say that - I assume it was not because you personally are ok with the anti-immigration case, it's just giving this "context" for racist behavior is really taboo, whereas for anti-immigration it's still ok even if you don't agree with it. As for companies, responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 In reality if they could replace 100% of labor with capital they'd do it. Meanwhile it's actually an interesting paradox... I agree that in narrow circumstances unions achieved/helped achieve worker protections. However, other rules were imposed on corporations without unions, and in different contexts (e.g. environmental, consumer protection, etc.). So I'm not convinced unions were necessary, but suppose they were. Still, if the basic rules are established as laws (and I don't consider extra-legal rules, like suppressing competition for wage, as valid or necessary), a permanent union becomes unnecessary for them and its motivations become as I've described...

colpabar 3y ago

I don't really understand your aside, but it's really unfair to call any position that isn't in support of open borders racist. Immigration is policy and people can have different opinions on it. It's also just not racist for an american union to want a factory in america to be staffed by american workers, especially after all the claims of said factory creating american jobs.