7 ms·

> Sadly it doesn't seem to be very popular Strange enough the people that have the most to gain from keeping things the same, are really successful at convinci

> Sadly it doesn't seem to be very popular Strange enough the people that have the most to gain from keeping things the same, are really successful at convincing the masses who have the most to benefit from change in this regard to vote against it. https://pjhollis123.medium.com/careful-mate-that-foreigner-wants-your-cookie-aba1c536b0d8 https://pjhollis123.medium.com/careful-mate-that-foreigner-w...

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Certainly back when I worked in IT, the people I worked with were mostly very much anti-union. I didn't hear much anti immigrant talk back then but I've been retired for a while.
- jampekka 1y ago
  There has been a lot of anti-H1B talk for a long time. And complaining about work being outsourced to India or where ever.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  I don't really believe in unions either. But I do believe in a good balance between capitalism and socialism (and welfare systems, employee rights etc). I don't believe in the market solving everything. The problem I have with unions is that they can be too unreasonable. They're too much on the other side, they're too hardline just like the ultracapitalists/neoliberals but on the other side. In a good system we wouldn't have to fight for our rights because we'd already have them anyway.
  - closewith 1y ago
    Too unreasonable and yet now the issues warned against by labour movements for decades are coming to pass. You have fallen for capitalist propaganda. Time to re-evaluate.
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      I'm very socialist actually. I just think that with a good socialist government, unions are not needed as such because the national law already protects workers' rights. I find it a bit 'off' that each class of labour has to fight for their own rights separately. That shouldn't be needed (and really isn't, where I live). It also causes a lot of uproar, see France for example where a strike is just tuesday. Employee rights are strong, but the public is heavily impacted all the time. Better to just handle this on the government side. This is why I was a member of the socialist party but not of the union in my workplace (I'm no longer a member because I moved countries and can't vote where I live). Note: I'm not living in the US obviously :) I do say a balance because of course we're not living in a communist state. So even with a socialist government there is still capitalism. Just not unrestrictedly so as it is in the US. I'm not sure how it works in the US but in our company the union is many bitching about stupid stuff like breastfeeding rooms (when there are no women who bring their babies to work anyway - they just work from home after their 6 months maternity leave). All our basic rights are already sorted. We can't work too many hours, we have unlimited sick leave (though of course validated by a doctor for long absences), we're entitled to a lot of money when fired etc. But this is all national law level stuff. Not industry level.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > I'm very socialist actually. I just think that with a good socialist government, unions are not needed as such because the national law already protects workers' rights. Having strong and independent unions is how you keep a good socialist government. Almost anytime you hear “With a good government, you don’t need <whatever>”, you are hearing a recipe for guaranteeing that good government is an exceptional, transitory state. If your society isn't prepared for bad government, it will have one sooner than you’d like, and it will be difficult to dislodge it.
      - closewith 1y ago
        > I'm not sure how it works in the US but in our company the union is many bitching about stupid stuff like breastfeeding rooms (when there are no women who bring their babies to work anyway - they just work from home after their 6 months maternity leave) A true committed exclusionary socialist.
  - CooCooCaCha 1y ago
    This comment reeks of liberalism and illustrates why liberalism doesn’t work. You claim you’re trying to balance individualism and collectivism but don’t actually support things that make collectivism work so you end up de facto supporting individualism. Its a way to support individualism while allowing people to feel extra good about themselves for supporting collectivist ideas, on paper.
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      I'm very socialist, and anti-liberal (at least, in the economic sense of liberalism). But where I live we just have strong labour rights from the government so individual unions fighting for each type of labour's rights are not needed as much. Sometimes they are, when there are specific risks like chemicals that they work with. But for overall "not get taken advantage of" stuff, it's just not needed so much.
      - CooCooCaCha 1y ago
        I’m glad the people in your country allow good things to happen. That’s definitely not the case in all countries and you need collective power to get nice things for workers.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago

Certainly back when I worked in IT, the people I worked with were mostly very much anti-union. I didn't hear much anti immigrant talk back then but I've been retired for a while.

jampekka 1y ago
There has been a lot of anti-H1B talk for a long time. And complaining about work being outsourced to India or where ever.
wkat4242 1y ago
I don't really believe in unions either. But I do believe in a good balance between capitalism and socialism (and welfare systems, employee rights etc). I don't believe in the market solving everything. The problem I have with unions is that they can be too unreasonable. They're too much on the other side, they're too hardline just like the ultracapitalists/neoliberals but on the other side. In a good system we wouldn't have to fight for our rights because we'd already have them anyway.
- closewith 1y ago
  Too unreasonable and yet now the issues warned against by labour movements for decades are coming to pass. You have fallen for capitalist propaganda. Time to re-evaluate.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    I'm very socialist actually. I just think that with a good socialist government, unions are not needed as such because the national law already protects workers' rights. I find it a bit 'off' that each class of labour has to fight for their own rights separately. That shouldn't be needed (and really isn't, where I live). It also causes a lot of uproar, see France for example where a strike is just tuesday. Employee rights are strong, but the public is heavily impacted all the time. Better to just handle this on the government side. This is why I was a member of the socialist party but not of the union in my workplace (I'm no longer a member because I moved countries and can't vote where I live). Note: I'm not living in the US obviously :) I do say a balance because of course we're not living in a communist state. So even with a socialist government there is still capitalism. Just not unrestrictedly so as it is in the US. I'm not sure how it works in the US but in our company the union is many bitching about stupid stuff like breastfeeding rooms (when there are no women who bring their babies to work anyway - they just work from home after their 6 months maternity leave). All our basic rights are already sorted. We can't work too many hours, we have unlimited sick leave (though of course validated by a doctor for long absences), we're entitled to a lot of money when fired etc. But this is all national law level stuff. Not industry level.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > I'm very socialist actually. I just think that with a good socialist government, unions are not needed as such because the national law already protects workers' rights. Having strong and independent unions is how you keep a good socialist government. Almost anytime you hear “With a good government, you don’t need <whatever>”, you are hearing a recipe for guaranteeing that good government is an exceptional, transitory state. If your society isn't prepared for bad government, it will have one sooner than you’d like, and it will be difficult to dislodge it.
    - closewith 1y ago
      > I'm not sure how it works in the US but in our company the union is many bitching about stupid stuff like breastfeeding rooms (when there are no women who bring their babies to work anyway - they just work from home after their 6 months maternity leave) A true committed exclusionary socialist.
- CooCooCaCha 1y ago
  This comment reeks of liberalism and illustrates why liberalism doesn’t work. You claim you’re trying to balance individualism and collectivism but don’t actually support things that make collectivism work so you end up de facto supporting individualism. Its a way to support individualism while allowing people to feel extra good about themselves for supporting collectivist ideas, on paper.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    I'm very socialist, and anti-liberal (at least, in the economic sense of liberalism). But where I live we just have strong labour rights from the government so individual unions fighting for each type of labour's rights are not needed as much. Sometimes they are, when there are specific risks like chemicals that they work with. But for overall "not get taken advantage of" stuff, it's just not needed so much.
    - CooCooCaCha 1y ago
      I’m glad the people in your country allow good things to happen. That’s definitely not the case in all countries and you need collective power to get nice things for workers.