3 ms·

Well, on first glance it's not so bad - you may just have to put up with someone who doesn't really care about the job. It's why some systems are adversarial.

by csours 2y ago

Well, on first glance it's not so bad - you may just have to put up with someone who doesn't really care about the job. It's why some systems are adversarial. But sometimes, some people learn what they can 'get away' with, and they become difficult to work with (as a coworker) and difficult to manage. Do you love the idea of someone just under the legal limit assembling your plane or automobile? Or someone who just doesn't care? Of course sometimes "doesn't care" is just a reflection of poor management, and thus we have unions. I don't think it's a problem that can be resolved for all time in one direction or the other, it's a tension in the system. But! My larger point is that it's hard for a pro union person to even say "It's a tension in the system". What you are supposed to say is "Solidarity Forever" and "screw the bosses" or words to that effect.

rexpop 2y ago
> it's a tension in the system Yeah, of course there is "structural" slack (and tension) in any system, but don't forget that "Solidarity Forever" is only two things: 1) a default, initial reaction to managerial imposition, and 2) a chant leveraged to temporarily concentrate force towards the resolution of a crisis. In meetings, and between workers, there's plenty of room for sober, reasoned planning and rational debate. So, it's NOT hard for a pro-union person to acknowledge systemic tensions; there's a time and a place for both tenors of rhetoric. Furthermore, there are tensions in the un-unionized firm that also neglect the customer. Remember Deming's first theorem: "Nobody gives a hoot about profits." That's a commentary on managerial and executive tendencies to prioritize personal well-being, short-term gains, activity over productivity, and easily measurable metrics. These are Emperor's New Clothes of their own, frequently unassailable due to corporate culture. Meanwhile, even saying the word solidarity can met with reprisals—let alone actually discussing unionization. So, I just don't think it's an model for your point given the current discursive hegemony. Again, I agree with you that at times solidary furvor quashes rational dissent, but it's a deliberate, mechanical part of the union's anatomy and not a religion... mostly. And, secondly, it's silly to make an example of a union hegemony under our current anti-union climate. In fact, I would say, perpetuating this narrative of the mindless, frothing union berserker is harming working families' leverage in an age of increasing labor precarity. > sometimes "doesn't care" is just a reflection of poor management I might say, it's a reflection of poor compensation, but I guess that goes under the umbrella of "poor management". I suspect that the venn diagram between yours and mine definitions of "poor management" would have some surprising overlap... and otherwise.
- csours 2y ago
  I'm sure I agree. I think the point I was trying to make was about public discussions across moral lines. Another example: it's certainly possible for a pro-choice person to be uncomfortable with trying to define when personhood begins, and even discuss that with other like minded people, but that kind of thing is not what we fight about. Public fights are incredibly dumb in the sense that they must simplify the arguments. They must do violence to the real and complex issues that human lives are made of. And thus you have several (7?) states that both elected mostly anti-abortion politicians, and also enshrined some level of access to female health care... because they saw that overly restrictive laws caused real harm to real people. I strongly think that faith without humility is an abomination, just as loyalty without reason is an abomination, likewise progress without compassion. It's just that it so very difficult to be loyal to one's own side and rational about the other side at the same time when the fighting heats up. As it gets hotter, the extremes get louder, and the middle looks disloyal. Again to be clear, I don't think the truth or the right way is in the middle. I don't consider myself a centrist. I do think that humans seek satisfaction, and it is hardest to shift a morally satisfying conclusion, especially when there is not a more satisfying conclusion in view. In other words "So what? People have complex histories, what does that change? They should just stop being wrong. Where are you trying to take me?" I'm sorry, but you just can't get there from here.

by csours 2y ago

rexpop 2y ago

> it's a tension in the system Yeah, of course there is "structural" slack (and tension) in any system, but don't forget that "Solidarity Forever" is only two things: 1) a default, initial reaction to managerial imposition, and 2) a chant leveraged to temporarily concentrate force towards the resolution of a crisis. In meetings, and between workers, there's plenty of room for sober, reasoned planning and rational debate. So, it's NOT hard for a pro-union person to acknowledge systemic tensions; there's a time and a place for both tenors of rhetoric. Furthermore, there are tensions in the un-unionized firm that also neglect the customer. Remember Deming's first theorem: "Nobody gives a hoot about profits." That's a commentary on managerial and executive tendencies to prioritize personal well-being, short-term gains, activity over productivity, and easily measurable metrics. These are Emperor's New Clothes of their own, frequently unassailable due to corporate culture. Meanwhile, even saying the word solidarity can met with reprisals—let alone actually discussing unionization. So, I just don't think it's an model for your point given the current discursive hegemony. Again, I agree with you that at times solidary furvor quashes rational dissent, but it's a deliberate, mechanical part of the union's anatomy and not a religion... mostly. And, secondly, it's silly to make an example of a union hegemony under our current anti-union climate. In fact, I would say, perpetuating this narrative of the mindless, frothing union berserker is harming working families' leverage in an age of increasing labor precarity. > sometimes "doesn't care" is just a reflection of poor management I might say, it's a reflection of poor compensation, but I guess that goes under the umbrella of "poor management". I suspect that the venn diagram between yours and mine definitions of "poor management" would have some surprising overlap... and otherwise.

csours 2y ago
I'm sure I agree. I think the point I was trying to make was about public discussions across moral lines. Another example: it's certainly possible for a pro-choice person to be uncomfortable with trying to define when personhood begins, and even discuss that with other like minded people, but that kind of thing is not what we fight about. Public fights are incredibly dumb in the sense that they must simplify the arguments. They must do violence to the real and complex issues that human lives are made of. And thus you have several (7?) states that both elected mostly anti-abortion politicians, and also enshrined some level of access to female health care... because they saw that overly restrictive laws caused real harm to real people. I strongly think that faith without humility is an abomination, just as loyalty without reason is an abomination, likewise progress without compassion. It's just that it so very difficult to be loyal to one's own side and rational about the other side at the same time when the fighting heats up. As it gets hotter, the extremes get louder, and the middle looks disloyal. Again to be clear, I don't think the truth or the right way is in the middle. I don't consider myself a centrist. I do think that humans seek satisfaction, and it is hardest to shift a morally satisfying conclusion, especially when there is not a more satisfying conclusion in view. In other words "So what? People have complex histories, what does that change? They should just stop being wrong. Where are you trying to take me?" I'm sorry, but you just can't get there from here.