3 ms·

So then nothing done by anyone throughout history can ever be considered exploitative because you can go back and point to a slightly older period in history?

by paxys 2y ago

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- paxys 2y ago
  Is the strike about free coffee?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    In a future where the world keeps getting better, would it be fair that "exploitative" could fall to such a weak use? By your logic, that would be acceptable.
    - paxys 2y ago
      Yes not offering workers coffee could be considered exploitative in a hypothetical future, same as how not giving workers water and bathroom breaks and overtime pay is considered exploitative today while it was perfectly acceptable a few generations ago (and still is in plenty of cultures/jurisdictions).
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      In a Star Trek future, yes, refusing to allow a class of employee free use of the replicator would be considered exploitative. Why not? But instead of worrying about some far-off Magic Wish-Fulfillment Future, we could be discussing how they're actually be exploited now.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        I wish everybody in this thread could have just said what their opinions were, instead of masking them behind increasingly leading and ridiculous rhetorical questions. I agree with you the exploitation should not be measured by some absolute bar based on the expectations of some lost past era with bad labor laws. But Star Trek hypotheticals could be the most productive perspective, could they?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > So as long as the level of exploitation decreases This Is America, so we have a long way to go in this regard. Attempting to denigrate this specific example of workers flexing their rights is anti worker rhetoric, plain and simple. Arguing over coffee is bikeshedding. If you as a worker don't have a union, you have no protections from an org, its management, and shareholders. If one does not support them, that's fine, support of the minority is not needed. Popular support for unions continues to be high (historically) @ ~70%, so Labor Mode continues. There is no other solution to the brutalist US labor market, from first principles. https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-post-strikes/ https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-p... https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/ https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/
Manuel_D 2y ago
Exploitation involves some level of unfairness, deceptiveness, or coercion. How are NYT employees being exploited? I could think of some scenarios: e.g. being hired with the promise of indefinite remote work and subsequently being given an RTO mandate. But I haven't seen any such situation at the Times described. Overall, it's hard to exploit a workforce that is in high demand. Oftentimes people talk about "exploitation" when industries can pay less than average wages because of some unique draw to that industry. For example, game development is known for subpar wages and long hours. But people are willing to take those jobs because of the allure of being a video game developer instead of a typical software developer. Some would call this exploitation, but it's a misuse of that term. The workers chose to accept the job at the compensation offered, and if they took a salary cut to work on games that's their prerogative - not exploitation. I think it's likely that this is the latter situation. The NYTimes is a household name, and is a big draw for workers. Because of that prestige, they're able to meet their personnel requirements without competitive salaries.

So then nothing done by anyone throughout history can ever be considered exploitative because you can go back and point to a slightly older period in history?

by paxys 2y ago

So then nothing done by anyone throughout history can ever be considered exploitative because you can go back and point to a slightly older period in history?

gjsman-1000 2y ago

[flagged]

paxys 2y ago
Is the strike about free coffee?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  In a future where the world keeps getting better, would it be fair that "exploitative" could fall to such a weak use? By your logic, that would be acceptable.
  - paxys 2y ago
    Yes not offering workers coffee could be considered exploitative in a hypothetical future, same as how not giving workers water and bathroom breaks and overtime pay is considered exploitative today while it was perfectly acceptable a few generations ago (and still is in plenty of cultures/jurisdictions).
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    In a Star Trek future, yes, refusing to allow a class of employee free use of the replicator would be considered exploitative. Why not? But instead of worrying about some far-off Magic Wish-Fulfillment Future, we could be discussing how they're actually be exploited now.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I wish everybody in this thread could have just said what their opinions were, instead of masking them behind increasingly leading and ridiculous rhetorical questions. I agree with you the exploitation should not be measured by some absolute bar based on the expectations of some lost past era with bad labor laws. But Star Trek hypotheticals could be the most productive perspective, could they?
toomuchtodo 2y ago
> So as long as the level of exploitation decreases This Is America, so we have a long way to go in this regard. Attempting to denigrate this specific example of workers flexing their rights is anti worker rhetoric, plain and simple. Arguing over coffee is bikeshedding. If you as a worker don't have a union, you have no protections from an org, its management, and shareholders. If one does not support them, that's fine, support of the minority is not needed. Popular support for unions continues to be high (historically) @ ~70%, so Labor Mode continues. There is no other solution to the brutalist US labor market, from first principles. https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-post-strikes/ https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-p... https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/ https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/

Manuel_D 2y ago

Exploitation involves some level of unfairness, deceptiveness, or coercion. How are NYT employees being exploited? I could think of some scenarios: e.g. being hired with the promise of indefinite remote work and subsequently being given an RTO mandate. But I haven't seen any such situation at the Times described. Overall, it's hard to exploit a workforce that is in high demand. Oftentimes people talk about "exploitation" when industries can pay less than average wages because of some unique draw to that industry. For example, game development is known for subpar wages and long hours. But people are willing to take those jobs because of the allure of being a video game developer instead of a typical software developer. Some would call this exploitation, but it's a misuse of that term. The workers chose to accept the job at the compensation offered, and if they took a salary cut to work on games that's their prerogative - not exploitation. I think it's likely that this is the latter situation. The NYTimes is a household name, and is a big draw for workers. Because of that prestige, they're able to meet their personnel requirements without competitive salaries.