pmiller2

23 ms·

181.
by pmiller2 6y ago
No, but it does mean unions need to be invited, which means there's preexisting interest.
182.
by pmiller2 6y ago
> Still sub-exponential, which is why I’m still optimistic. If you said that about an algorithm you were considering introducing into production code, I'd say you had a lot of optimization to go. Or, maybe you need to improve your
183.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Look at the proportion of natural cells that can colonize humans versus those that can't. Similarly, look at the proportion of pathogenic organisms versus non-pathogenic organisms. Assuming the goal wasn't to produce a pathoge
184.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Of course, there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/378/
185.
by pmiller2 6y ago
It would be extremely unlikely that such an artificial cell could colonize humans in any way, and even more unlikely that such a cell would be pathogenic.
186.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Call me old fashioned, but I like guillotines, myself.
187.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Sign me up for some climate shaming. I'm for whatever works at this point.
188.
by pmiller2 6y ago
There are a lot of steps that happen before a union vote. They don't just happen because a union decides they want more members. https://www.eballot.com/blog/the-union-organizing-process-ex...
189.
by pmiller2 6y ago
It's not a rhetorical trick. If a business is competitive only because it abuses employees, that business should not exist, at least in its current form. If businesses don't want the mean old union to come and make them stop doi
190.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Well, if it's the same story, I guess the liberal media isn't responsible, right? How exactly do you figure exploiting someone's precarious financial position isn't exploitation, anyway?
191.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Well, only one side gets that opportunity at the moment. Would you rather that be the case, that neither side be able to do it, or that both sides be able?
192.
by pmiller2 6y ago
All the information both sides want to offer. Are you in favor of coercing workers to watch anti-union propaganda without giving the union an equivalent opportunity to persuade them?
193.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Yes. They officially used the word "mandatory."
194.
by pmiller2 6y ago
I think you're overstating it. There's a vast difference between "terrified that NONE would work" and "wanted to maximize the chance of at least one working vaccine."
195.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Not to mention the collapse of global civilization!
196.
by pmiller2 6y ago
How do you know there's not a teapot orbiting the Sun?
197.
by pmiller2 6y ago
But there is no union yet. This is only about the election. Does the union get the same ability to "inform" the electorate as Amazon? Can the union threaten peoples' jobs to get them to come to "information" sess
198.
by pmiller2 6y ago
> I have not sighted these ballots, but it’s a yes/no choice isn’t it? Unionize or don’t unionize: that’s a fair choice. You don’t need equal time to have a legitimate election, time can buy you mindshare but you’re not buying an el
199.
by pmiller2 6y ago
I said that they should have all the information, regardless of whether they are able or not. That's not for me to judge. What more do you want? So, do you want them to have all the information or not?
200.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Why do I have to assume everyone's a preprogrammed droid in order to want everyone to have a fair choice? Why wouldn't you rather just be presented with a fair choice to begin with? Should I have to question your motives whene
201.
by pmiller2 6y ago
No, I'm saying they should see all the information both sides have. Are you in favor of suppressing information on either side?
202.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Sure there's an equivalent. It's > Hey, guys, we're going to have 2 mandatory information sessions, one put on by the company and one put on by the union. They'll be during work hours and you'll get paid your n
203.
by pmiller2 6y ago
So, you're in favor of employers being able to threaten their employees' survival in order to get what they want? Because that's de facto what happens. Sure, it's not the anarcho-capitalist definition of "coerci
204.
by pmiller2 6y ago
> Edit in response to your edit: we can go back and forth, I’m watching the other subthread too. Feel free to consolidate if you like. Good enough. I think I'll hop over there and ditch this one if it's all the same. No need
205.
by pmiller2 6y ago
That's a good point. A perfect example here is that Denmark has no minimum wage.
206.
by pmiller2 6y ago
That's not the same deal. Amazon's deal is "here, watch this anti-union propaganda. We won't pay you any more than we usually do, and you're fired if you don't." Would you be in favor of the union having
207.
by pmiller2 6y ago
> When you work for someone else, it is your employer’s prerogative to spend your time how they want. They can pay you for useful productive work or they can fritter it away talking your ear off in the office, within the confines of the
208.
by pmiller2 6y ago
That depends. Are you in favor of coercively using your influence over your employees to get what you want, or would you rather have them have all the information and arguments on both sides?
209.
by pmiller2 6y ago
Does the union get the same deal?
210.
by pmiller2 6y ago
I know that's not how it works. I'm saying that's not how it should work. Amazon should not be able to abuse its employees by forcing them to go to mandatory "information" sessions under threat of dismissal, pre

More ›