5 ms·

--To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I kn

by apalmer 13y ago

--To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I know many who don't see the need as things are good enough as they are from their perspective, but i think this is the first time i have seen an 'ideological' opposition to striking, unions, or rallying.

lettergram 13y ago
I am against wasting my time. I think protests are a huge time sync and in the end there will be likely nothing to show for it. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he wrote Poor Richard's Almanack, things can be achieved with a pen or a gun, holding picket signs with ~500 people outside the white house is a daily (or at least once a month) occurrence. Don't get me wrong, I would protest if I thought I could (with the help of others) achieve something, say if 30,000 people protested I could attend that if I felt strongly. The problem I have is I've never felt strong enough, nor have I ever seen a protest successful in my lifetime. The country would need to have at least several million protesters (enough to shut down the economy) to make a large impact to effect the surveillance state (at least from what I have seen).
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  What about unions? You realize that many of the benefits we have today - such as two-day weekends - are a direct result of the union movement, right?
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    And workplace safety standards. One could reasonably say most employers who grew up post-union would still favor safety, but the cultural change came from unions, and it can slide back easily.
  - lettergram 13y ago
    I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several major companies running into major financial troubles because of it. Take for example GM or any other major car manufacturer in the U.S. 50 years ago the main reason Toyota was able to gobble up so much of the market was because the U.S. automakers HAD to give the unions what they wanted because the government stepped in when they would strike. Leading to outrageous pensions, 6 hour work days, etc. Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. If you're doing manual labor and replaceable it's mighty hard to unionize without the government support, I understand that. Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. Not to mention, if it is that dangerous most people probably wont work in that line of work unless they have no choice, in which case they should be HAPPY to have that dangerous job because they can eat. Call me calloused, but I would personally rather work a dangerous job and get food, as opposed to robbing my employer. We both earn our keep (the employer and me) and the market sets the price for my work. I am nothing more than a cog in the machine that is the economy.
    - josh2600 13y ago
      You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world. That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.
        kbolino 13y ago
        There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Today unions act a deterrent, but at the same time, they sometimes go too far in an effort to justify themselves. At some point they have achieved what they set out to do, and they just need to exist to deter regression, but then people start to question why they exist in the first place, so they feel the need to take actions even if those actions are to the detriment of the businesses that the workers rely on for employment.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  For me protesting is not just about the impact on society, but about people who care about a thing coming together. At least from my perspective - participating, not organizing - this is not a time sink, it's an energy and awareness source, and a very real way to demonstrate solidarity, at least to each other. It can also be a source of frustration, sure, but even that I always found insightful in some way. I can't predict what other effects it has on those who don't protest, but the effect it has on me I would consider positive. FWIW :) The country would need to have at least several million protesters Sure, but you can rarely get from 0 to millions without an in between.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Maybe I've just been over-exposed to too many corporate cancer "charities", but I am very suspicious of anything for "awareness".
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      I was also thinking of police (and sadly also mob) violence. I've seen cops just wait for anyone to give them an excuse, or to get the go ahead without one, more often than not. I've seen people behave like shit towards cops, too (the ACAB school of "thought"). And at least for me seeing and knowing about both was and is really important. Assuming the demonstration is in some form about about abuse of power and the resistance to it, it has a great likelyhood of being instructive, I think. State power has a face, it tends to show it on demonstrations, and having it turned on you is just a "nice" way to keep on your toes I believe. Cancer doesn't really count in that sense, not that I want to belittle it. But not just state power has a face, being a self-righteous mob also seems to feel empowering to some, and while it gives me goosebumps (not the good kind), I don't regret having seen that either, sad as it is. I know this is shitty adverising for protests, and that I am probably doing them wrong. But those are my 2 cents anyway, even if they didn't change anything beyond what happened on that day, they were all worth it to me, the shitty ones and the great ones (like walking through narrow streets in Berlin Kreuzberg after fall of night, singing songs, surrounded by cops in black riot gear, being greeted by people on the balconies above us... that one was kinda scary for me, but also perfectly peaceful, surreal and inspiring).

by apalmer 13y ago

lettergram 13y ago

I am against wasting my time. I think protests are a huge time sync and in the end there will be likely nothing to show for it. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he wrote Poor Richard's Almanack, things can be achieved with a pen or a gun, holding picket signs with ~500 people outside the white house is a daily (or at least once a month) occurrence. Don't get me wrong, I would protest if I thought I could (with the help of others) achieve something, say if 30,000 people protested I could attend that if I felt strongly. The problem I have is I've never felt strong enough, nor have I ever seen a protest successful in my lifetime. The country would need to have at least several million protesters (enough to shut down the economy) to make a large impact to effect the surveillance state (at least from what I have seen).

enraged_camel 13y ago
What about unions? You realize that many of the benefits we have today - such as two-day weekends - are a direct result of the union movement, right?
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  And workplace safety standards. One could reasonably say most employers who grew up post-union would still favor safety, but the cultural change came from unions, and it can slide back easily.
- lettergram 13y ago
  I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several major companies running into major financial troubles because of it. Take for example GM or any other major car manufacturer in the U.S. 50 years ago the main reason Toyota was able to gobble up so much of the market was because the U.S. automakers HAD to give the unions what they wanted because the government stepped in when they would strike. Leading to outrageous pensions, 6 hour work days, etc. Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. If you're doing manual labor and replaceable it's mighty hard to unionize without the government support, I understand that. Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. Not to mention, if it is that dangerous most people probably wont work in that line of work unless they have no choice, in which case they should be HAPPY to have that dangerous job because they can eat. Call me calloused, but I would personally rather work a dangerous job and get food, as opposed to robbing my employer. We both earn our keep (the employer and me) and the market sets the price for my work. I am nothing more than a cog in the machine that is the economy.
  - josh2600 13y ago
    You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world. That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.
      - kbolino 13y ago
        There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.
- pyre 13y ago
  Today unions act a deterrent, but at the same time, they sometimes go too far in an effort to justify themselves. At some point they have achieved what they set out to do, and they just need to exist to deter regression, but then people start to question why they exist in the first place, so they feel the need to take actions even if those actions are to the detriment of the businesses that the workers rely on for employment.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
For me protesting is not just about the impact on society, but about people who care about a thing coming together. At least from my perspective - participating, not organizing - this is not a time sink, it's an energy and awareness source, and a very real way to demonstrate solidarity, at least to each other. It can also be a source of frustration, sure, but even that I always found insightful in some way. I can't predict what other effects it has on those who don't protest, but the effect it has on me I would consider positive. FWIW :) The country would need to have at least several million protesters Sure, but you can rarely get from 0 to millions without an in between.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Maybe I've just been over-exposed to too many corporate cancer "charities", but I am very suspicious of anything for "awareness".
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I was also thinking of police (and sadly also mob) violence. I've seen cops just wait for anyone to give them an excuse, or to get the go ahead without one, more often than not. I've seen people behave like shit towards cops, too (the ACAB school of "thought"). And at least for me seeing and knowing about both was and is really important. Assuming the demonstration is in some form about about abuse of power and the resistance to it, it has a great likelyhood of being instructive, I think. State power has a face, it tends to show it on demonstrations, and having it turned on you is just a "nice" way to keep on your toes I believe. Cancer doesn't really count in that sense, not that I want to belittle it. But not just state power has a face, being a self-righteous mob also seems to feel empowering to some, and while it gives me goosebumps (not the good kind), I don't regret having seen that either, sad as it is. I know this is shitty adverising for protests, and that I am probably doing them wrong. But those are my 2 cents anyway, even if they didn't change anything beyond what happened on that day, they were all worth it to me, the shitty ones and the great ones (like walking through narrow streets in Berlin Kreuzberg after fall of night, singing songs, surrounded by cops in black riot gear, being greeted by people on the balconies above us... that one was kinda scary for me, but also perfectly peaceful, surreal and inspiring).