SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
The Teamsters union represents the 280,000 UPS employees who voted overwhelmingly in favor of going on strike[paywall] if a deal is not reached before the current labor contract expires on August 1. More than 90 percent voted for a strike.
Issuing a strike authorization vote does not necessarily mean UPS workers will order a work stoppage, but it does give the union leverage over management to win their negotiations.
[...] Since UPS began offering regular Saturday delivery service just a year ago, [demands on its labor force] have increased. While the company hasn't announced plans for Sunday service, the union claims UPS has made several proposals to expand weekend deliveries.
[...] The shipments [which] UPS transports comprise an estimated 6 percent of the United States GDP. A labor strike among the company's workers would have a sizable effect on the economy and would be the largest U.S. labor strike in decades. Three bargaining sessions ago, in 1997, UPS workers went on strike for 16 days, and there were 180,000 Teamsters at UPS at that time. There hasn't been a bigger strike since.
Coverage by the World Socialist Web Site is skeptical about the union's efforts and what will be the outcome. Not surprisingly, that article closes with:
There is no progressive answer to the continual lowering of living standards outside of the transformation of industry, communications, and transportation monopolies into publicly owned utilities under the democratic control of the working class.
Also covered at Fortune in UPS Has 260,000 Union Workers and They've Just Authorized a Strike:
The labor talks are proceeding amid discussions on pay and work schedules, as UPS looks to increase warehouse automation to keep up with surging demand from e-commerce shipments. The union has proposed increasing the part-time starting wage as well as improving the overall pay structure, according to a statement on its website. It's also pushing the courier to increase contributions to health and welfare and pension funds.
A previous "big" thing (39,000 workers): Largest Labor Action in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13 Against Verizon
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 08 2018, @04:29AM (16 children)
Thank goodness there are alternatives in FedEx, DHL, and the USPS. They ought to take the opportunity to grab market share from UPS. They certainly have the logistical chops to manage it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @04:48AM
Together, we can duly reward the means of distribution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday June 08 2018, @05:10AM (9 children)
Have to keep those Amazon packages moving. God forbid that people might have to actually go out to shop for their stuff.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 08 2018, @05:23AM (4 children)
I used to go out and shop for stuff. Salespeople then knew what the products were and could help you find the right one. Now, nobody has the first clue so in the middle of the store you find yourself pulling out your phone and ordering the damn thing online anyway (this has happened to me several times at Home Depot).
Also, now you have to fight traffic so what used to be a 10-minute drive takes an hour fifteen because retards don't know how to put their phones down and look at the road, such that they get into accidents constantly.
In the lovely stores where you used to be able to shop quietly and happily, now there are hordes of recent arrivals from third world countries who think pushing, elbowing, and clambering over others is a perfectly acceptable way to interact with strangers.
So, yes, I happily order what I need online so I can get it done at the speed of thought and use my time to instead go fishing, or draw, or play music, or exercise, or [anything else except run on the endless hamster wheel of retail culture].
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:30AM (2 children)
I'm forced to buy things from a local store, since I can pay cash and preserve my anonymity and privacy to a greater degree. We'll see how long it takes for facial recognition to be ubiquitous. Too bad we don't have real privacy laws in this country.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @07:00PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Friday June 08 2018, @09:54PM
The problem is that kind of information is all logged and stored on a computer somewhere. You have no idea when something that happened ages ago may suddenly become "interesting".
(Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Friday June 08 2018, @03:42PM
They're on their phone ordering the thing they couldn't find at Homer Depot before they got mad and left to drive home.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Friday June 08 2018, @01:07PM (3 children)
What's wrong with having stuff delivered and paying for that service? Do these people not want the jobs? If UPS wants to deliver more days of the week, the answer seems pretty simple: increase staffing. Delivering packages and driving a box truck doesn't require a college degree; there should be plenty of people willing to take the job if the pay and conditions are reasonable.
Are you opposed to more employment for some reason?
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 09 2018, @05:40AM (2 children)
Are you seriously suggesting decreasing profits instead of working the workers harder for the same (or ideally less) pay?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:42AM (1 child)
Actually, neither. I'm suggesting keeping profit levels the same or maybe increasing them a bit by hiring more people to handle the increased business. Remember the Walmart philosophy: profit through sheer volume. Honestly, I don't know what kind of screwed-up company wouldn't welcome increased business.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 09 2018, @05:21PM
I guess I left out my sarcasm tag. I agree that the sane thing is to hire more people, unluckily management (and the stock market) seems to be stuck in this idea that the fewer workers, the better, and have forgotten all the studies that show productivity drops of after 7-8 hours of work generally.
Ones that can jack up their price and profit margin without losing too many customers. Examples include my cell provider, where I have basically 2 or 3 crappy choices that increase their prices in tandem or the gas stations (maybe actually the refineries) where even with close to a dozen competing companies, prices go up in tandem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday June 08 2018, @12:25PM (2 children)
Well in that case the shareholders of UPS had better pay what their drivers are worth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:35PM (1 child)
A warm body with a clean driving record. And yes I personally know a UPS truck driver and she says they are the laziest people on Earth. (And she's getting a back pay settlement on the 26th from UPS)
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday June 09 2018, @05:00PM
If 100k UPS drivers withdraw their labour for a couple of weeks, and UPS share price drops by $10b, the value of those drivers not withdrawing their work is $100k per driver. You may think they aren't worth it, but they clearly are. Market forces.
If the driver wasn't worth anything, then share price wouldn't drop.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 08 2018, @01:04PM (1 child)
Thank goodness there are alternatives in FedEx, DHL, and the USPS.
DHL pulled out of domestic deliveries a while ago. They only do international deliveries IIRC.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday June 08 2018, @01:31PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 08 2018, @04:46AM (19 children)
As long as the employees get a reasonable work week, it shouldn't matter if they are M-F 9-5 or F-M 8-6. Of course, the actual work culture isn't humane and the pay is shit, so 60+ hour work weeks with pressure from management to only clock for 55 (If you don't do it, I'll hire somebody who will...) are all part of actual reality, and the company being active on Saturday and Sunday is just another avenue for power tripping low end managers to further abuse the rank and file.
We get UPS drivers blasting through at 8:15pm, especially during the holiday seasons. If they started shift at 2pm, that's cool - but you know they didn't, and couple fatigue, pressure and dark driving conditions and this will not turn out well for everyone affected, including the non-employee who gets run over.
Of course, nothing is worse than the entitled attitude of USPS drivers when they have to get their fat semi-disabled ass out of the jeep and actually deliver a package to the door. God forbid it might be heavy like a box of paper, the attitude you get from that crowd is a whole new level of "needs to find a job they actually don't despise."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @04:52AM (11 children)
We must assume people are too stupid to look after themselves; we must protect people from themselves; basically, Tyranny is the solution.
Won't somebody think of the children?!
Employees of a violently imposed monopoly are about as worthy as one would expect.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @04:57AM (10 children)
What the fuck have all the 3 points above to do with the employees of a private company deciding to take a action towards negotiating their work conditions?
(Score: 4, Informative) by captain normal on Friday June 08 2018, @05:06AM (3 children)
Don't get too worked up about that post. It's just another (or the same) Russian bot looking to create dissension.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:13AM
It's just the same ancap AC troll who always starts their comment in the subject line and baits tons of people into replying. Usually, when you collapse the entire discussion, there are barely any comments remaining in the article.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 08 2018, @03:05PM
Wait - dissension? Weak-ass Americans can't create enough dissension, so the Russkies have to help out?
(Score: 0) by fakefuck39 on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:05AM
waaat. those russkies must have finally come up with full blown artificial intelligence that can not only write but properly summarize hard to parse text in completely different words, while adding sarcasm - and after creating this modern marvel, they unleashed it on this nappy internet dugout with 50 users total. yeah, or you are a complete retard. you're a complete retard.
That's one awesome bot:
protection from powertripping lower managers being protected by a union: summarised to "people are too dumb, we need to protect them with tyranny"
christmas overtime = "think of the children"
post office full of fat entitled assholes = "usps being full of niggers because it's a force-backed monopoly"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:37AM
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @06:27AM
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @02:27PM
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @03:41PM
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @09:24PM
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @04:49AM
Get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:23AM (3 children)
But all our USPS workers are generally of fit build. Sizeable number of the newer ones are ex-military, and even the ones that aren't tend to be in shape, but then again there are lots of neighborhoods around here that are foot only if you want to get your route done.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 08 2018, @01:11PM (1 child)
Far from all our USPS workers are of fit build. The ones that are seem happy to have the job and do it well. The ones I have trouble with tend to be older, heavier, women who move like they've got serious arthritis, gout, or both. My comment was prompted by our latest display of "I HATE MY FUCKING JOB AND I HATE YOU FOR BEING A PART OF IT" when the USPS truck came blasting down our (long) private driveway at unsafe speeds, slid to a stop, creaked her fat ass out of the vehicle and lugged a box of paper to our doorstep, literally threw it at the door, though it landed about a foot short of the glass, upside down breaking the cardboard box but not quite the plastic strap holding it shut, then left the way she came: hell bent for leather past the neighbors' small children back to her route. Our previous house just had a normal 40' sidewalk from the roadside mailbox to the doorstep, and the mid-50s bad attitude carrier there actually opened her mouth and tried to justify why: A) she had to park her truck in the grass (braking, accelerating, and turning as hard as possible - for maximal turf damage - in the process) while doing the delivery and B) why the doorstep deliveries were such an injustice to her existence.
I think we've had a total of 3 "bad" USPS carriers in the past 12 years, but it's the bad ones you notice.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 08 2018, @03:20PM
We've had good and bad here. My favorite was Dave - a black guy just a little older than I, maybe 5'10", mild and meek, but a well built, solid guy. The man would deliver ANYTHING. A hundred pound package? No problem. And he didn't throw it at the end of the driveway, either - if you had a quarter mile driveway, he would drive in to the house, and put the package at your door. He is the ONLY mailman I've ever given a gift to at holiday time. His only shortcoming was, he didn't like or trust dogs - but he was a helluva guy anyway. Dude retired . . . .
Most of the rest of our USPS delivery people have been women. One, moderately overweight, the rest of them, not bad looking, if looks are important. But, universally lazy. None of them will deliver a package weighing more than about ten pounds. None of them likes coming to the house. A couple don't mind the dogs, most act like little sissies if they hear or see a dog. All of them are nicer in the spring and autumn than during the summer or winter, but even then, they aren't usually especially nice.
Personally, I like the UPS drivers. Male or female, old or young, black or white, they have always seemed willing to go the extra mile. Driving up the driveway is no problem. A two hundred pound package is no problem. I've had engines delivered, one of the boys or I climb on the truck and help to move it to the tailgate, then lift it down to the ground. I like UPS a lot better than I like USPS, or any of the others. Fedex isn't even in the running with UPS - they act like dainty little prima donnas in comparison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:13AM
Chicago. It's all black, they're all fat, and I don't know if a high percentage of them steal little, or if a low percentage steals lots, but I average 3 usps-stolen boxes per year. So fat niggers is normal here.
I'm sorry - where do tell are ex-military going to work at usps? I've live in nyc, westchester, stamford ct, chicago, nashville, atlanta, raleigh, greensboro, boston, and a few other places... it's usually fat niggers.
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Friday June 08 2018, @12:32PM (2 children)
And....your point is? While I would very much like to see UPS drivers handle packages and customers better (I've been lucky in that regard, but I digress), why should they like their jobs if the working conditions suck so much?
How about giving them good enough pay and good enough working conditions (within the limits of what UPS can control), that they shouldn't hate their jobs?
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Friday June 08 2018, @12:35PM
crap, I just realized I misread "USPS" as "UPS". My point stands, though (for any industry).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 08 2018, @04:43PM
So, I, personally, haven't observed the super-bad attitudes within UPS, and I agree that they should have decent pay and working conditions to enable most of them to have a good feeling about their work and a good attitude while doing it.
As for USPS, most of them are good, too, but over the years I have encountered several who seem to only find joy in their life by doing their job obnoxiously poorly. These tend to be older individuals, overweight and also in poor health, with an attitude that doing their job is an extreme imposition upon them, and they will jam package lockers beyond capacity, crush/shred boxes and letters, drive their vehicle for maximum damage on lawns, and otherwise just demonstrate bad attitude almost daring themselves to be fired.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edinlinux on Friday June 08 2018, @05:38AM (29 children)
I thought they sucked (which they do). However, not having them sucks even more.
My last job (I work IT) there was no union. We were working on projects on weekends, up at 2AM regularly calling from home with conference calls to India (and then 8AM again for onshore US calls at the office). Of course all the younger new hires in the US office were from India as well on visas..no American newgrads to be found anywhere (a fortune 500 company).
Now I work IT in a union shop. Guess what.. its reasonable, and people do their work well too because they like working there. I work 40 hours a week. I get 3 weeks vacation I can actually use. i don't need to check my mail and go on conference calls when I am on my vacation. There are no more calls to India at 2AM in the morning. Oh, and in addition to a 401K, I get a decent pension too.
What's not to like?
Americans need to wise up...seriously...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:54AM (7 children)
I have a nice job, too.
No union.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Friday June 08 2018, @08:33AM (6 children)
Lucky you. And it is luck, because there is no one to help if things go wrong.
But this is the US we are talking about! Individuals Rule! If you can't do it on your own, you are a loser, and deserve to fail!
Right?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday June 08 2018, @12:15PM (5 children)
Which covers a lot of things which most people would not consider luck. Just because something isn't purely deterministic doesn't mean it is "luck".
I know you're trying hard to be sarcastic and cynical here, but yes, that's pretty much true. Like most of the developed world, the US is an amazing place with a lot of opportunity. I grant that there are some people who are sufficiently crippled of mind or body that they can't fully enjoy these benefits. But that doesn't hold for the vast majority of the people who live in the US. Perhaps you have better things to do than make excuses for people who can make their own excuses?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 08 2018, @04:51PM (3 children)
I disagree with the entire premise. What's more American than good old Freedom of Assembly? The Founding Fathers valued it so much they put it in the very first amendment.
That's all a Union is: a bunch of people peaceably assembling.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 08 2018, @07:00PM (1 child)
Butbutbutbut COMMIES!!!1111eleventyone.
Seriously. Not even trolling. It's bloody *amazing* how willing the supposed liberty-and-freedom crowd is to trample all over our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights when you get them scared.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:52AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @02:59AM
And the definition of freedom of assembly? You don't have to belong to a particular organization or group in order to have the right to public association and assembly. It's by its nature an individual right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @07:58PM
There is the shithole bootstrapper! Its been a while and too many decent articles, I'm glad you found a topic you could pooptificate on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday June 08 2018, @12:14PM (17 children)
No need for unions, just change job</sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday June 08 2018, @12:18PM (16 children)
(Score: 5, Informative) by isostatic on Friday June 08 2018, @12:45PM (13 children)
Except in reality that doesn't, because in reality most people don't have a choice
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @02:30PM (11 children)
Why are you angry at the factory owner for providing an opportunity to live?
Instead, be angry at your parents for conjuring you into a shitty world of limited resources.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday June 08 2018, @02:49PM (10 children)
Why are you defending the factory owner who s**ts all over you to gild his spoons?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 08 2018, @07:01PM (9 children)
Because he's got "temporarily-embarrassed millionaire syndrome." Well, that, or he's a troll account, but I'd wager the money I don't actually have it's the first.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 10 2018, @01:40AM (8 children)
In other words, they have the expectation that at some point, they'll be wealthy enough that they'll be subject to the same attacks as are being levied against the factory owner. Why would the other poster want to sabotage their own future success?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 10 2018, @03:36AM (7 children)
The problem, dear Mr. Hallow, is that those expectations are...to be polite, misplaced. To be a little more direct, he's got a snowman's chance in the Malebolge of that happening. The boot won't stomp on your face any less crushingly if you lick it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 10 2018, @11:13AM (6 children)
The two obvious rebuttals to that are first, that people jump that fence all the time. The phrase "temporarily-embarrassed millionaire" exaggerates the extent of these expectations. And I think the phrase is typical of the scorn that Marxists and the like have for those who they supposedly support (the phrase apparently originated in a non-fiction article by John Steinbeck about the 1930s where Steinbeck illustrated [100-vampirenovels.com] this scorn).
Second, anti-rich policies routinely affect those well below. Tax brackets routinely hit those who aren't the wealthiest and other schemes for targeting the rich such as the alternate minimum tax have a habit of hitting those well below (the US doesn't automatically adjust the effects of the AMT for inflation nor could afford to do so). The spending that allegedly helps the poorest has to come from somewhere, and the middle class is easier to tax than the truly wealthy. Labor policies make everything more expensive (which tends to be regressive). Luxury taxes decimate the US industries that provide those luxuries. And of course, much of such policies and spending can actually be subverted to support the rich instead of the poor since the former has better lobbyists.
Sure, it's easier to believe that most people are walking around with delusions of becoming insanely wealthy any day now (and that's why they're not falling for your crap), than to understand their viewpoints and legitimate concerns, but such cheats yourself. If you fail to understand others, you fail to understand yourself.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 10 2018, @07:43PM (5 children)
You wasted a lot of text to say bugger-all besides "nuh-UHHH, you're wrong!"
The "obvious rebuttal" to your buttling is this: you're being an Aspie jackoff and going "butbutbut SOME PEOPLE DO GET RICH so you're wrong!" That is hardly the point. You hear about a few cases, yes, but what you don't hear about is the millions and millions who never do make it, who claw survival daily, weekly, from paycheck to paycheck, suffering who knows what and dying out of sight and so out of (your) mind.
The rest of your post consists of "these regulations don't work, therefore there shouldn't be any." Let me try twisting this around in a way you might understand: regulation doesn't kill wealth, people misusing it does. See how that works? If guns don't kill people without an evil or misguided person pulling the trigger, neither does regulation destroy wealth without deliberate regulatory capture by the ill-intentioned.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday June 11 2018, @12:29AM (4 children)
Millions and millions is not very many. There are after all millions and millions of millionaires too. For me the problem is that our obsession with these millions and millions is that we're ignoring the hundreds of millions and hundreds of millions. I don't think it's a good idea to screw over 100 people to help one person.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 11 2018, @05:23PM (3 children)
"Millions and millions is not very many?" Go to Hell! There are not "millions and millions" of tremendously wealthy people and there are far more poor than wealthy. Rich Uncle Pennybags not being able to get his sixth gold-plated yacht isn't anywhere near as much of a problem as someone not being able to feed their kids, and the fact that you equate them says a lot about you personally, none of it good. Stop trying to pretend you have some kind of moral high ground here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 11 2018, @09:44PM (2 children)
Why shit out a new term when we already had "millionaires" in play?
However tremendously interfering with Rich Uncle Pennybags ability to pay wages creates a bigger problem than someone not being able to feed their kids.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 12 2018, @04:58AM (1 child)
Pennybags doesn't pay wages, Hallow. It's a common fallacy that the ultra-wealthy are "job creators." They, by and large, are not. I know nothing I say will bring you back into reality; I do this for the sake of the people reading these exchanges who haven't completely sold their souls like you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:39AM
The defense against that accusation is truth. The "ultra-wealthy" routinely employ vast numbers of people and hence, are job creators in the meaning of the word.
Ignorance causes that. I have very limited ability to fix your ignorance.
The day you understand the ignorance in what you just wrote is the day you'll take a big step to being an ethical rather than merely moral human being. I haven't sold my soul to anyone. That delusion is all you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @05:44PM
Nobody has a choice. Science has proven many times there is no such thing as free will. Of course this applies to the business owners also. They have no choice either.
It's their fate to be rich and it is your fate to have a miserable life, dying alone in the gutter, cursing the universe. Enjoy what you can.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 08 2018, @03:25PM (1 child)
Disagree. A few decades ago, turnover was a metric among all the other metrics by which management was judged. Today - not at all. People are disposable. Turnover means just about nothing. Bring them in the door today, kick them back out tomorrow. Or, let them stay a few weeks, or a few months. It's all the same, as soon as they displease you, send them down the road. Or, just work them half to death, so that they quit on their own.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:20PM
For example, if you make workplace safety rules so onerous that only someone who breaks them can exist, then you can't get good behavior - you can't even afford to fully enforce those rules, if you wish to keep the business. In addition, that regulation game inhibits new business creation. Because they can't in theory exist, but in practice can by ignoring the right rules to the right degree, it creates a hidden knowledge that a new business would need to have in order to be a successful competitor. This is a barrier to entry, one of many.
I tire of the arguments to make things worse because there are awful businesses. The Teamsters Union is just another such business, created by yet more poorly thought out impulses to make life better for the worker, but which have the opposite effect.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by srobert on Friday June 08 2018, @02:02PM (1 child)
Welcome aboard. When I was a kid my dad, a member of United Steelworkers, talked about his union in a way that made me think that he didn't like unions. But when I asked him if he wanted to be non-union, he said, "Oh, hell no. Things are much better since the union got in. I hope when you grow up you don't need to be in a union. But I don't see how this country would work without them."
Well, we've seen for a few decades now how it works. I for one, have had enough of it. Let's bring the unions back.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 08 2018, @04:45PM
They never left. I'm glad the internet is finally wising up to their benefits, though!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @10:46PM
I did not need a union to pull that off.
I shopped around and got a decent job at a decent place. Whenever OT popped up it was "a #1" priority to get fixed the next iteration or whatever we called it. OT is a symptom of something is broken. It is not physical it is organizational. It is not even hard to get the others to go along with you. Very few want to be at work at 9PM on a saturday. Those few who do find out quickly they are all by themselves. We just shovel more work on them until they burn out, join us, or quit. Go the fuck home at 5. Yell it to the others as you leave 'go home, see you monday'. Set the pace and others will follow. Call me in on a vacation? Well I will just mark that as a work day and get my vacation when it is not very convenient. Call me in again? Rinse and repeat. Learn how to work the system or the others will work you over and shovel it all on you.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PiMuNu on Friday June 08 2018, @11:12AM (1 child)
The labour movement in UK made a huge difference to the working lives of the people living there. Look up the Great Strike 1926. I don't vote labour very often, but I am glad they exist. The effect was to force the government to manage massive unemployment and huge social problems following the first world war and great depression. One of the great things about it was that it enabled significant societal changes without resort to armed conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_Kingdom_general_strike [wikipedia.org]
Compare that to, for example, the effective state imposed slavery from the Truck system due to widespread use of company stores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system [wikipedia.org]
I know, in principle if you don't like the way you are paid then you can move jobs; but when all employers use the same payment system and you have no way to raise capital to set up your own foundry/coal mine that is not always practical. Employment mobility is not really practical (which is why for example the MBA concept of FTE "full time equivalent" is pretty much nonsense)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:19AM
The present world is not 19th century UK coal mining. Principle matches reality these days.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Friday June 08 2018, @03:04PM (28 children)
Yes, WSWS closes with advocacy for the socialist solution. But it bears mention that much like the original Communist Manifesto, this is not necessarily a prediction. It is a threat.
As long as there is a threat of Big Government stepping in and taking over, the corporation will do whatever it must to avoid that conclusion. And it has been successful many times in appeasing the people enough to continue to profit.
This is not about forcing businesses to do inefficient things, no matter what the straw-man libertarian may claim. The threat of socialism is just another economic force: one which trends the economy towards a more equal distribution of wealth, growing the consumer base and ultimately increasing overall growth potential.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @07:08PM (1 child)
As long as there is a threat of Big Government stepping in and taking over, the corporation will do whatever it must to avoid that conclusion
David Macaray, a writer I like, makes a similar argument about unions--in particular, in The Deep South.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:34AM
Didn't happen that way in the first place. Labor unions had power when workers had power. Similarly, they've lost power when workers have lost power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 10 2018, @01:50AM (25 children)
Except when it doesn't, of course. Venezuela didn't work out that way, for example.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday June 11 2018, @02:12PM (24 children)
The Communist Manifesto was written for England and France, and probably America. To a lesser extent, it was written for Austria, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Nobody was really considering the effect it might have on "hopeless backwaters" like Venezuela. Weren't places like that supposed to be colonies when all of this economics was developed?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 11 2018, @09:40PM (23 children)
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday June 12 2018, @04:03PM (22 children)
Again, saying that the proletariat will rise against the capitalists is a threat, not a prescription. And if the capitalists hadn't made certain key concessions, often at the insistence of their governments, that threat may have become a reality.
Everything after that threat just has to sound plausible, whether it's realistic or not, so that the threat would be made genuine by many people being willing to go through with it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:21PM (21 children)
I disagree. There was that fantasy about the "withering away of the state" and later Marxist bragging about how the capitalists were going to sell the rope used to hang them. It's always been a wish fulfillment fantasy. What can you do with "threats" that aren't based on reality?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday June 12 2018, @07:19PM (20 children)
What can you do? Well, you can take the reality you're dealt and use it to make things better for yourself and your loved ones. And if you're a smart person in the right place at the right time, you might get the opportunity to fix the game so that selfish economic rationalism leads to a better outcome for everyone.
That's what I think has happened in regards to a lot of communist thought. Capitalism was far too entrenched in western Europe and America by the time this thought experiment started. All those people who wanted the powerful to stop messing with the weak were given ammunition by the Communist threat.
Just think: even when anti-Communist hysteria was at its peak in the McCarthy era, battling Communism only made capitalists look weak and cruel. The only way for American capitalism to win was to be better than the Communists. I credit the battle against Communism for helping to raise the floor of America's standard of living. Without needing to prove that we are better, would we have social safety nets? Would we have anti-discrimination laws?
Even before there was a state actor to be the Communist boogeyman, proving that Capitalism is the better system drove us to do similar things. Factory building codes. Collective bargaining. Child labor laws. Worker's compensation and safety regulations.
I'm sure you're going to tell me these are all problematic for one reason or another, probably coming back to the evil of the institution used to enforce them. I am not going to defend their flawed implementation. I assert, however, that all of the above policies are an improvement over what came before. I do not want to live in the Gilded Age [wikipedia.org]. I hear work-related exhaustion was a pretty common cause of death back then. I also don't trust that I would have the good luck to never sustain a serious injury, workplace or otherwise, or be born into an oppressed social group, or find that my only option for making a living is wage labor in sweat shops.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 13 2018, @03:28AM (18 children)
Please keep typing these things out, as they're insightful and necessary for people to read. Just understand you're not going to get anywhere with Hallow; he's long since sold his soul, or whatever answered for a soul. Fight him as an example to those who might still be redeemable, not for his own sake.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday June 13 2018, @04:46AM (17 children)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 13 2018, @05:40PM (16 children)
> The one who is willing to harm hundreds of millions for vague narratives is not moral.
Yes, this is what I keep saying :/ The irony here is sickening...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday June 15 2018, @12:30PM (15 children)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 15 2018, @02:17PM (14 children)
I already do, Hallow. Not that you're privy to any of it, but half a dozen suicide rescues and a couple of trafficking victims are alive because of me. What have you done? When in your wretched life have you ever truly done anything for anyone else? This is what I mean about no morals. You don't even have the necessary mental machinery to comprehend this sort of thing. Just shut up and go back to masturbating over the Gilded Age.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 16 2018, @04:20AM (13 children)
When have I not? I've tried to be someone that my parents can be proud of and tried not just to carry my load at every place I've ever worked (though I have failed at that a couple of times), but carry my duties earnestly. I can't say that I know whether I've saved lives though I have gone out of my way to help people and I've worked jobs where helping injured and ill people were a minor part of the job. I've gone out of my way to prepare for such - I'm trained in CPR and first aid.
I've taught college level math classes (and support classes) for a number of years. Can't say I was ever much good at it, but I tried. I've volunteered at a cool aerospace non profit. Maybe their work will someday leave Earth.
I've amply demonstrated that your assertion is wrong. My view is that basic economics contains a lot of lessons for would-be moralists should they choose to pay attention. A key one is that intent need not match consequence. Consider the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." A classic example is the pursuit of the "Free" Lunch. While the mercenary sorts would pursue stuff that benefits themselves, often to their own ruin, the virtuous can also run afoul of it. For example, some words have been given here to "free education" without as much thought given to who will pay for it.
The thing is even the selfish often do lots of stuff for others. It is better to have a system where the immoral are encouraged to generate benefit for others (even if for selfish reasons like status signalling).
Finally, just because you occasionally do good things for others in your personal life doesn't mean you are moral. It still remains a act of evil to support harming hundreds of millions of people, even if you saves some peoples' lives personally through your own devices.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:48PM (12 children)
Every single time you post you prove my point harder :/ Jesus, this is getting boring...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:18AM (11 children)
Sounds like you don't yet understand what your point is.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 17 2018, @04:31AM (10 children)
I've made it before: you are quibbling over the law when what we have here is a problem of fundamental organization and ethics. There's also a fair bit of idolatry thrown in.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 17 2018, @12:45PM (9 children)
Which, let us note, is a small thing. Reality will not change by definition just because we choose to look at it slightly differently. For example, the harm inflicted on hundreds of millions of people won't become undone just because you or I change our views.
I've long ago ceased to care what you think "idolatry" is. For example, the piece of paper that you can use to buy a car will always be treated with more respect than the piece of paper that is just garbage. It's not "idolatry", it's merely common sense - failing to take reasonable care of stuff that can be used to buy a car, can mean the difference between having a car and not having a car.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:49PM (8 children)
You seem to make a living out of missing the point.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 18 2018, @01:33PM (7 children)
Not a mind-reader here, but I still don't buy that you have a "point" or that you understand what you are doing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 18 2018, @07:09PM (6 children)
Nor would you be able to, despite that I've said it at least 3 times to you in as many days :/ Just go away if you're gonna waste time.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:48AM (5 children)
Zero is less than three. I notice you don't bother to describe even in the slightest detail what you are counting or why you think it counts.
You didn't care before and do now without explanation? Why should I care?
Here's my take - you are worse than someone without morals because you offer no reason for your morality. For example, you wrote:
One gets the impression that you think saving the lives of suicide victims and trafficking victims is a good thing. But why should they agree? For example, if some hurts enough to consider suicide, are they hurting less merely because you temporarily convinced them to not do themselves in? And you're contributing in your own little way to human overpopulation.
Here, your morals come with a steep price tag in human suffering. You should be (perhaps ought to be) able to justify what you believe, right? Or are you just going to the mental shortcut of rival moral viewpoints are "soulless" again?
The related problem is that if you don't or can't defend your beliefs, then maybe you'll just arbitrarily change them at a whim and thus, we shouldn't give credence to your declarations because tomorrow maybe you'll spout a moral code more to our liking? Maybe saving potential suicides is good today, but killing them will be good tomorrow. It's not like you have a reason for either.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:45PM (4 children)
Well, seeing as all of them are still friends with me today and doing a lot better (ironically, 4 are doing a lot better than *me*...) you may wanna rethink that one. You know, you're practically the poster child for that corny old "evil cannot comprehend good" line from any number of preachy stealth-Christian childrens' books.
If you want to talk moral epistemology and moral ontology I'd be happy to, but first we need to see what, if anything, grounds yours. And I'm not even sure you've examined yourself or your beliefs enough to know that. Care to, heh, enlighten me?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:23PM (3 children)
That's a decent response. It still doesn't confirm that they're better off alive, but you probably could defend that as well. Now we get to the problem. What works ok for moral justification on the scale of personal action doesn't work when you extend to large numbers of people. For example, you wrote:
What's dishonest about that argument is that "millions and millions" of people are just as numerous as "a few cases" since we're speaking of a total population of several hundred million. The rhetorical dodge you used there doesn't change the relative numbers of people and they are close in number.
For example, the Pew Trust did a survey that found that in 2015, 29% of people were below middle class by their metric and 21% were above middle class. In 1970, those same proportions by the same people using the same scale had 25% of people below middle class and only 14% above middle class. While there was a significant increase of around 15% in the poorer tiers, there was a 50% increase in the wealthier tiers (the relative groups increased in size, with roughly 3 people in the upper classes for every 2 people the lower classes increased by. You're not going to see that information in your hearing about "a few cases".
You attempt to rationalize such arguments by example. When there's a few people in the group by absolute number, then all you need is a few examples to cover the entire set. Doesn't work when you speak of "millions and millions" or more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:24PM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:55PM (1 child)
Jesus motocrossing Christ...what angle do I need to turn this at to cram it through your thick skull?!
Let's try this: there is no reason in a country as wealthy as ours that anyone ought to be suffering the way some people do from poverty. Forget relative class ranking here: let's talk absolutes. One in seven Americans is on food stamps last I heard, and meanwhile there are people with worth (possibly "worth") in the multi-billions.
You are not, NOT, going to sit here with a straight fucking face and tell me it does more harm to the mega-rich to take enough from them to at least make a decent social safety net than to let people suffering like this continue to. Go to Hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:29AM
Try consistently the "angle" of reason. Flipping out every other post doesn't work.
Yes, there is. We're not perfect and in our world there are immense trade offs to taking from one group and giving to another. Those wealthy employ vast numbers of people. Taking away from them to dump more money on the "one in seven" means less people employed in the long run and creates more people on food stamps.
And yet, that's exactly what I'm going to do. The megarich just don't have that much money to steal.
What bugs me about your whole argument is that we're (in the US) already spending far more than enough for a decent social safety net. Why do more of what we already knows doesn't work? For example, we could scrap Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, trim at least 50% from the military budget, freeing up over 2 trillion USD in the process just from those three programs (and there's more where that came from!), and have the money for your social safety net. Meanwhile we could seize all the assets of every billionaire in existence world-wide (ignoring that most of their wealth is untouchable by the US in practice) and have somewhere around 10 trillion USD [theguardian.com]. That's less than five years of the revenue stream I mentioned above.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 13 2018, @04:38AM
Which has nothing to do with communism. But let's move on.
You mean populist politicians pandering to fear. The Soviets routinely used similar tricks. That didn't make them capitalists either.
I credit a century of growing labor power. Notice also the role you've attributed to the Communists. Your "threat" killed a hundred million people and enslaved over a billion. Also, there's a number of other countries such as Nazi Germany, Iran under the Shah, Chile under Pinochet, Taiwan under the Kuomintang, and South Korea after the Korean War that became nasty places while the Communist threat was fought.
A fair number of countries discovered that an effective solution to the Communist problem was to murder them. They have since become more humane places, but not due to the Communists.
Exactly. It weren't communism that mattered here.
Good points BUT...
Not if they result in the dissolution of the US. I don't consider US labor policy an existential threat. But it goes in a bad direction when the US needs to become more competitive labor-wise rather than less. And that could eventually contribute to the end of the US.
And yet that time was what created the US as superpower not its long dalliance with the USSR. So many people forget that considerable sacrifices were made for generations in order to have a great future. What sacrifices are you willing to make now? Every bit of greed that takes from the future also contributes to the very things that are commonly decried such as massive multinationals and a government that is unaccountable to the people.
It's a common tactic for proponents to hearken back to a mythical age where bad things happened even though circumstances are very different now. Well, you're going to need more employers, if you want to avoid that in the long run. It's just not that hard.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by conn8d on Friday June 08 2018, @03:06PM
Brazil had a strike affecting delivery truckers [theintercept.com] that ran for two weeks. The country pretty much stopped and the government had to bow down to their demands on diesel subsidies [reuters.com]. General strikes can be extremely hard on the general public, specially when we don't have another alternative. In this case we do, so I am hoping it won't be too bad.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @06:03PM (10 children)
"into publicly owned utilities under the democratic control of the working class."
lmao! control? working class? yeah right. parasites feeding from production until it dies, more like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @07:20PM (9 children)
Glad to known that you're so satisfied with your awesome privately-owned ISP's service.
If you go spouting your anti-public ownership nonsense in Chattanooga or Wilson, NC or Sandy, OR or Longmont, CO or several hundred other places, [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [broadbandnow.com] expect to be cussed out or even punched in your stupid mouth.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:35AM (8 children)
Because violence is the first refuge of the irrational.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:02AM (7 children)
There are other kinds of violence than the direct sort. Of course, you're too much of a moral nullity to figure that out, but it needs said.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday June 12 2018, @05:49AM (6 children)
No. The definitions [oxforddictionaries.com] preclude that.
Once again, words have meaning. In particular, it's complete bullshit to claim that merely expressing an unpopular opinion is in any way violence. But "cussed out or even punched in your stupid mouth" for having an opinion is violence. You bankrupted the word into "moral nullity". It's not just you, but I find that it's very common for people to do with reckless abandon the very things that they accuse others of. It's a sign of severe immaturity, but we all go through that phase.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 12 2018, @06:24PM (5 children)
Look, I realize I'm talking to someone with no morals and by definition won't get anywhere...but, again, it's not for you, it's for other people looking.
Let me ask you: if instead of punching you in the face, I pickpocket your wallet without you knowing, is that or is that not a type of violence? Explain your reasoning, whichever way you answer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 12 2018, @07:03PM (4 children)
You are simply wrong here. Just because you don't understand my morals, doesn't mean I don't have them.
No, it's not violence by definition. It can very easily escalate into violence and such would traditionally be considered the fault of the pickpocket. But how's that supposed to work in my case? Am I attempting to steal the ignorance of the people in the places mentioned earlier? Do you really believe physical violence a legitimate response to helping someone with their ignorance? Somehow I think not.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 13 2018, @03:26AM (3 children)
Your idea of "helping people with their ignorance" is one short step away from that snuff-porn troll's idea of "helping little children understand mens' rights." One symptom of not having morals is you're not morally competent to KNOW you haven't got any. Believe me, I see this all the time with actual religious fanatics who subscribe to theological voluntarism, AKA divine command theory. You may be a case of a secular fanatic rather than a religious one, but fanatic you are nonetheless.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 13 2018, @04:58AM (2 children)
How? It just looks like a more elaborate than usual ad hominem, attacking the messenger on an irrelevant (and I might add erroneous!) basis rather than a legitimate and ethical discussion of any points they bring up. I'm willing to engage you respectfully when you argue honestly and thoughtfully. That's not happening here.
You got that moral incompetence in spades. So what? Does that mean you don't have morals too?
There's that little religious saying about such things. Take the beam out of your own eye so that you may see clearly enough to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
Here, there's a huge problem that is glossed over. Consequences. Morals are fine until they start hurting others. Then they become immoral. The consequence of throwing employers under the bus to placate the greed of employees, is that you get less employment and poorer quality employment. There's this fantasy that if we pay the employees enough, somehow the jobs will follow. That's never been how it's worked in the past. The benefits follow the empowerment of labor not the other way around.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 13 2018, @05:40PM (1 child)
Why in the name of Cthulhu's eldritch betentacled asshole did it take you THIS LONG to make your point, and even then, only in the last couple sentences of your last post?!
You're missing the point entirely, as usual: the entire system is fucked. A fair minimum wage would be a start, but ONLY a start, and possibly a dead-end one at that. We need to overhaul, fundamentally, the entire nation's ideas and values about money and the role of companies and production. Because right now they're Moloch-idols, massive burning meatgrinders into which we throw everyone and everything we have in the name of shareholder value. This can't continue, and it won't much longer. So if you really give a shit about the "empowerment of labor," instead of sitting here bitching, suggest something to do about it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 15 2018, @12:19PM
Because you weren't interested. I kept hearing how I was a doodie-head instead.
No system is perfect. Everything is and will be fucked in some way. Let's use an analogy. You have a car. You drive it over some berm and it gets stuck. Now your car is fucked. Do you abandon it and go back to the horse and buggy (which incidentally isn't so hot at going over berms either)? Do you buy a monster truck with massive tires so that no berm will ever get you again? Or do you get a $50 tow and stop driving your car over large berms in the future? All I know is that if you embrace one of those other solutions without consideration of the drawbacks, then you're going to end up in a mess. A lot of systems work well enough that you can solve the problems of the system from within the system rather than scrapping everything and starting over.
The same goes for calls to abandon capitalism for some untried, nebulous approach. If you're looking for a great way to kill people, that probably would be your thing. But if you're trying to improve on capitalism plus whatever for the world as a whole, you really need something that you know works better beforehand rather than half-ass and confidently hope your way out of the problems you create. Meanwhile you're ignoring that one can merely patch over a lot of these problems with regulation or even removal of regulation.
Moving on, I suggest here waiting about thirty years. At that point, China will reach developed world status and India will be close behind. Most of the global disparity in wages that exists today will be gone. There will still be a large number of poor people willing to work for low wages, but they'll be a relatively small part of the world's population. That in turn is what drove most of the stress on developed world labor for the past 50 years.
Even if the US merely encourages business creation and growth at the same rate as of the past thirty years, it'll still probably be in an enviable situation with respect to the power of its labor.