Update: A majority of workers have voted not to form a union at the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Bessemer, Alabama. The result of the NLRB's initial vote count was 1,798 votes against the union and 738 in favor. Hundreds of additional ballots were not counted because their authenticity was disputed. But the "no" side already has a majority of the 3,215 votes cast, making the issue moot.Original story, April 8: A closely watched effort to unionize an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama appears to be headed for defeat. With about half the votes counted, 1,100 workers have voted against forming a union, while only 463 voted in favor.The National Labor Relations Board is counting the 3,215 votes that were cast by workers at the Bessemer facility. The union needs to win at least half the votes in order to become the official representative of the roughly 6,000 workers at the Bessemer facility. Counting has ended for the evening and is scheduled to resume at 8:30 am Central Time on Friday.
Update: A majority of workers have voted not to form a union at the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Bessemer, Alabama. The result of the NLRB's initial vote count was 1,798 votes against the union and 738 in favor. Hundreds of additional ballots were not counted because their authenticity was disputed. But the "no" side already has a majority of the 3,215 votes cast, making the issue moot.
Original story, April 8: A closely watched effort to unionize an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama appears to be headed for defeat. With about half the votes counted, 1,100 workers have voted against forming a union, while only 463 voted in favor.
The National Labor Relations Board is counting the 3,215 votes that were cast by workers at the Bessemer facility. The union needs to win at least half the votes in order to become the official representative of the roughly 6,000 workers at the Bessemer facility. Counting has ended for the evening and is scheduled to resume at 8:30 am Central Time on Friday.
Also at The Washington Post, c|net, and Al Jazeera.
I wonder if people actually voted their conscience, or if there was...*interference...* beforehand. "Nice job you got here. Shame if you all unionized and we upped stakes and hired elsewhere."
It was the bathroom signage that convinced them:
FakeNews! We all know Amazon workers don't get to go to bathroom stalls.
That's right. The placards are actually printed on the bottle labels.
This is torture, these guys ought to at least demand a wide mouth pickle jar or something. That way two or three guys will be able to go at once and not have to have to wait for the bottle to be passed around.
if people actually voted their conscience
Because that has something to do with this? It's self interest all the way.
or if there was...*interference...* beforehand
We already know that. From the story:
The National Labor Relations Board is counting the 3,215 votes that were cast by workers at the Bessemer facility. The union needs to win at least half the votes in order to become the official representative of the roughly 6,000 workers at the Bessemer facility.
The union already has the law interfering on their side.
Amazon got a mailbox installed shortly before the vote right outside of the building so that they could see who was voting. This wasn't a situation where Amazon was just sitting idly by and let the workers vote their conscience, they've been firing union organizers and have networks of spies in their facilities looking for anybody that might be organizing.
It's hard to say what the outcome would have been without Amazon going to those lengths, but it certainly would have been closer, at the bare minimum.
See who was voting
Wasn't every worker supposed to vote? Seeing who voted doesn't tell you who voted which way unless every vote was the same.
Yes, but these people all have mailboxes at home or in their building. They could vote at home without being surrounded by spies and propaganda material. They could talk things over with their spouses and make a decision for themselves free of influence. It's hardly the only underhanded thing that Amazon was doing to try and get a No regardless of what the actual workers wanted.
This outcome may be a legitimate expression of what the workers want, but don't be fooled into thinking that Amazon wasn't engaged in shady shenanigans to get the result they wanted above and beyond what is generally considered as ethical. They've recently been busted for illegally firing employees that were trying to organize.
Was anyone forcing them to use the company supplied mailbox? Does Amazon providing a mailbox somehow prevent workers from talking with their spouses? Does anybody fill out their ballot at the mailbox, or do they fill it out at home and then drop it in whatever mailbox is handy? I still can't see how this is anything nefarious.
You may not be aware of this, but Southerners are suspicious of unions. There are quite a number of reasons unions were never real big in the south, and one of those is, Southerners are always suspicious of Yankees and their grand ideas.
Nope, you just like slavery ;^)
Like the Negro, they're playing a long game...
1. Slavery for a few years2. Wait a while3. Wait some more4. Just a bit longer5. Reparations! Profit!!
Slavery is history, moron. But think about this: In the non-unionized South, a couple who brings home just $20,000 to $25,000 per year, can scrape by, and even raise some kids. Depending on their situation, they might even be living moderately well. In your unionized North, and in California, that money won't pay for rent or mortgage, won't pay for the upkeep on a car, won't put food on the table. Won't even pay the taxes if you own real estate and/or personal property in many areas.
Enjoy your unions. They help to ensure you can't get out of the rat race.
It's not unions that make the south cheap, it's low income tax, cheap land, and lots of farms and food production facilities making local food cheap. The only one of those affected by unions is food. Rather, general rurality and cheapness of the south is caused by people with a choice not choosing to live there. Probably because southerners always want to kill each other over petty shit and idolize corrupt patriarchal leaders.
Private slavery was banned in the USA; government slavery is allowed. Slavery still exists around the world. look it up.Slavery isn't the worst condition; there are peasants who are disposable, functionally trapped, and beg for it out of desperation. A slave is valuable property and needs to be guarded.
DEMAND drives up costs, duh. Civilized successful parts of the USA attract more people and cost more to live in because they are better - proof is in the numbers. CA isn't losing people to Texas. BS for over a decade says otherwise but CA still grew from #8 to #5 in the world economy and are still overpopulated, under-housed, and disaster prone. If it's so bad why do the "great" places remain relatively empty?
Unions are why you have weekends.
Slavery is history, moron.
Heh. You're telling the wrong people both those things.
Not as much as one might expect when the working conditions are terrible. Setting up unions down South is hard because the politicians have set up the laws to make it hard to organize and the federal government hasn't been much better the last 30 or 40 years. This isn't a case of Southerners in general as it is Southerners in particular that can see how horrible the working conditions are.
I seem to remember something about them being whipped by a union once.
I suppose that is one way to save gas on the commute.
Likewise, don't be fooled into thinking the union wasn't equally engaged in shady shenanigans to get the result they wanted.
Precisely what shenanigans were they engaged in? We know about the mailbox, the spies and the literal Pinkertons investigating the workers organizing. We've already had NRLB rulings that Amazon violated employee rights trying to stop them from organizing. Precisely what is it that the union did that was anywhere near that level of sliminess? I get my news from a variety of sources and I didn't hear about any actual improper activities on the part of any unions. Yes, they were probably secretive and sneaky, but so what? When my department unionized last year, we were sneaky and secretive until we had the votes secured to make the move.
Prove your assertions. Evidence, here and now. Or shut up.
Likewise, don't be fooled into thinking the union wasn't equally engaged...
Define 'equally'. I ask because those are VERY mismatched opponents.
In my observation, it's usually the union that has the excessive clout.
Okay. So if unions are excessively powerful, why don't they exist in a de-facto sort of way? In simpler terms, why now and not when Amazon was advertising they could only fit inside a couple of warehouses?
Because their power is dependent upon the stage of development.
Until and unless workers say: "Yeah, we gon' get some UNION butter on our breads!" the union's basically irrelevant. UAW, Teamsters, IBEW, all irrelevant because nobody cares.
Once the workers scratch together a petition, all sorts of things start to flip the way of the union. They get legally mandated bennies, that they will aggressively defend on their way to the big vote.
Once the union crosses the magic threshold of a representation vote, they're in harder than a crack team of made men. They're immune to antitrust law, they get to require all sorts of things in terms of negotiations, and they get a chunk of worker pay regardless of any other considerations.
As a practical matter, they also have their own ability to intimidate or drive out workers who don't play ball, so the theoretical ability for workers to vote them out is mostly there as a kind of legalistic fig-leaf.
Even the dimmest bolt turners on the production lines have twigged that this isn't a great deal for them, which is why private industry union numbers have been sagging harder than Bob Dole once the Viagra wears off, for decades. In the government, the structure is different so that it's effectively a closed shop (with narrow exceptions) which is why civil servants are pretty much the pet poodles of the unions.
The people who push unions the most either work directly for one or have never been in any.
4 places I've worked had unions and all we saw was dues disappear from the check. Lots of go do x and y for the union, but not much of the union did z for you.
The usual bennies were the employers offered some insurance and there was a disciplinary system with set rules. So if you needed that or were a fuckup, the union had your back.
Not saying Amazon wasn't full of shit and wrongdoing. But people are talking like that automatically makes the union the pure and righteous alternative, when fact is unions have a long history of major-league shit and wrongdoing, especially when trying to weasel their way into a shop -- so why should this time be different?
In my observation, you are just making shit up.
and let the workers vote their conscience
Never a problem with union elections.
> if people actually voted their consciencelol, have you ever held any kind of a job, seriously. what do job compensation and benefits have to do with conscience? employment negotiations are about getting the best deal for your employment.
> if there was...*interference...*good thing you put that in *stars* - because the only interference that can exist is someone preventing you from casting a vote, and there is no evidence of that. putting up ads, threatening to fire an employee for an action, or even lying, is not interference. even in the case of Russia helping Trump with lying spambot farms - that is not interference. people are allowed to lie. it is up to the voter to believe it or not.
> we upped stakes and hired elsewherecorrect. there is a large number of unskilled workers who would love to take amazon's decent benefit package and their $15/hour *minimum* pay, and if amazon doesn't want to deal with unions, they can just get replacements for literally all those workers, train them, and be back on their feet. A process likely to take under a week, during which they'll just ship things from a different warehouse.
The real reason they chose to not form a union is because they didn't want a union, period. It's because whatever issues they have with management now, they don't want more of by electing to be under yet another level of incompetent and corrupt management - something unions are famous for.
My buddy was an electrician in Chicago. Buildings were coming up, it was a great trade to get into for him. And for everyone else. So we got a lot of electricians. Then building projects slowed down, and you had too many electricians. So instead of doing contract projects (if you do one, you get dumped from job rotation by the union), he sat on his ass, drank, and partied. He sat there collecting unemployment for 3 years - something the union bullied the city to spend our tax dollars on. Instead of getting a different job he was qualified to do (had a computer graphics degree), he sat on his ass, because a different job would... Bump him from the wait list.
Hundreds of dollars of his unemployment checks went to pay the union, the purpose of which was to keep extending his unemployment checks beyond the 6 month limit, and to prevent him from getting a different job. Which he did end up doing after 3 years, when he gave up on the union job queue.
Unions were a great idea. They very quickly turned to shit. Here's an idea - the people who Elected to not be in the union, did it because whatever they're unhappy with, the union would fix some of those things, then introduce many more new things to be unhappy with. It sounds like you support unions though. Enjoy your police union.
(had a computer graphics degree),
(had a computer graphics degree),
Those “degrees” have no value. Adult education programs shorn them out in bulk, and the “graduates” have wasted money on a worthless certificate. It’s a scam that the government often subsidizes to keep unemployed people from showing up as unemployed on the official statistics, same as the “learn to be a webmasters assistant “ (whatever the fuck that is) or “learn to code in 3 months.
So a year later they’re still unemployed, but because officially they’ve changed trades, they are only qualified for regular unemployment benefits, which run out so they end up on state welfare roles. A different budget from a different agency, so somebody else’s problem.
Look for them scrounging on fiver for scraps.
literally every movie made and every ad and publication and book is made by someone w a cg degree. you are an idiot. and my friend got his cg degree 3 years after finishing highschool, so what are you even on about? a college degree is not a certificate. yeah, i know, you and your peers have "certificates." you live in a shitty blue collars world. you're the ant my peers step on. enjoy your groceries from walmart and your truck.
If you believe a tradesman who sat on unemployment had a university degree you’re the idiot. And if you think all those book publishers and magazines are paying more than gig economy rates you’re doubly an idiot.
Print graphics arts is dying. Same as print. Which is why high schools are offering certificates in print graphics - they don’t give a shit if you can earn a living - they’re just there to make money off you from their continuing education certificate mills while helping people extend their unemployment benefits. Same as all those “offices automation” certification programs that just teach you Working d.
You can tell when the economy is bad for significant portions of the population when the TV ads for such scams move from 1 AM to daytime TV.
I went to college with him for the first year before I switched majors, and went to his graduation. Starting salaries for CG are a lot less, and if you already know almost enough to become an electrician, it's a valid choice. Literally everything you visually see is made by someone w/ a CG degree, print or any media. Even the web UI you use on most websites. CG is not "print media" lol. Everything you see with your eyes that's not naturally made, is made on a computer is CG - yes, even the dashboard design on your car. And the logo of the car maker.
>You can tell when the economy is bad for significant portions of the population when the TV ads for such scams move from 1 AM to daytime TV.
and the ad for that scam was made by a CG artist. Congratulations, you are literally dumber than a doorknob. Those ads are for CG certificate programs at non-accredited "universities" like Trump-U. That's not a college degree. That's what you and your peers have and are angry at. Enjoy your shitty world, angry redneck ant. The rest of us, we qualify for real colleges.
Second, when you write “ Even the web UI you use on most websites. CG is not "print media" - you really betray your ignorant of all those Photoshop monkeys making mock-ups of web site interfaces that are SO fücked up. Because they replaced functionality with pretty, forgetting that form should follow function. Otherwise we’d all be eating with sporks “because it’s different, and in theory should be more efficient.”
Seriously, there’s as big a difference between a shit CG and CGI as there is between a course in office information that teaches Microsoft Word and real office automation.
UZ “experts” need to die.
You truly say the stupidest shit. "literally every movie made" is made by someone with a cg degree? Computer graphics in movies weren't even around until the 70's, and then only used sparingly until the 90's. Ditto for books which predate computers by centuries. You are completely fucking retarded.
saying stupid shit would be reading a statement for the present tense, pretending it's past tense, like "literally every movie ever made" - and then attacking that strawman for the whole internet to see. but, talking about past tense, those computer graphics artists were just graphics artists before, getting that degree from that same famous Chicago Art Institute.
"Made" is already past tense. The dog made a mess. Titantic was made in the 1990's. I made you look stupid again. But then again you've shown repeatedly that your English isn't very good, not to mention that you aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
me: The dog made a messyou: how do you know, were you there in 1850 when the dog made a mess?
when someone says "movies are made using CG" they mean made now, in recent times. they're not talking about metropolis made in 1920. you ESL immigrant retard. learn a language before using it. when we say "cars are made with airbags" and you point out that the ford model 1, available only in black, did not have airbags, you're screaming to the internet that you are a retarded clown.
English. Learn it before living in this country.
Yes, literally every car was made with airbags, like how literally every movie was made using CG. I like how you try to lecture someone on English when you can't properly use capitalization, punctuation, or can barely form a coherent sentence. You're truly a special kind of stupid, someone who is so fucking stupid they don't even realize just how fucking stupid they really are.
as someone who knows english, i realize that grammar has different levels, and what's appropriate for a phd dissertation or a work email, does not have the same rules as typing on my phone on a random forum with my thumb, as i'm taking a shit. when someone tells you "literally every movie made" and you assume it to mean "every movie ever made" - you do not know english - either due to being an immigrant, or a dumb redneck. yes, literally every single movie made, but not ever made, is made using computer graphics. even one with zero special effects. because to even put shots together into a movie, you'd use something like adobe premiere. on a computer. you absolute doorknob. there is zero things that are visual made today, that do not use computer graphics. even a silk-screen sign you order from a sign shop, that some redneck made by hand, starts on a computer.
literally every movie made and every ad and publication and book is made by someone w a cg degree.
No part of this sentence is true.
no, now you.
we make graphics on computers now these days boomer. the area of study to make graphics on computers is called computer graphics. to make a simple book with only text both inside and on the cover, software like quark and indesign is used. the area of study which teaches you those is called computer graphics.
but go on about how leading is putting pieces of lead between the lines on your printing press. here in the real world, it's a slider you move, set to 120% by default.
There are so many fallacies in here I don't even know where to begin.
I suppose that "enjoy your police union" one is a good starting point. The fallacy here is "one type of union seems to have done us more harm than good, ergo, all unions are bad." This neglects the problems with the culture of policing in the US, which taint the entire enterprise; is it any surprise even their unions become full of self-serving thugs when things like "qualified immunity" are on the table to begin with? Or, put another way, the police union is a subset of "people who want to be, and are, cops." Think about the kind of people who fall into "people who want to be, and are, cops." The problem was there long before any police union and will continue with or without them.
Fallacy two: anecdote is not data. This becomes less of a problem in bulk, but you've provided what is essentially a social (soft) sciences study with a population n = 1 and no defined endpoint.
Fallacy three: the conflation of management with unions ("another later of incompetent and corrupt management"). What you fail to attend to is the fact that a functioning union is *at odds with* management. While the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, the enemy of your enemy may very well be doing useful things that benefit you when dealing with the enemy (which one I mean here is left as an exercise to the reader!).
For my part, this job at a rather large hospital in WNY is the first time I've had a union and I absolutely love it. Yes, it means some of the workers here coast, and I notice explicitly that I do more and better work than most of them despite being here not even 6 months. But that is a price I am willing to pay for having excellent and fairly cheap insurance backed by said union, documented and extended grievance and discipline processes (no one gets fired for losing a popularity contest), and in general just knowing management can't just do whatever the hell they want.
This security allows me to give my all for the job and the patients. The freedom from the most basic existential worries about keeping one's job or not having healthcare is amazing. Safe from this kind of needless, borderline-Lovecraftian injustice, I can pour every last erg of my effort into becoming the best technician I can be. This benefits patients, the hospital, the union itself, and the development and trajectory of my soul personally. *This is a union functioning as intended.*
But sure, go ahead and tell yourself unions are all evil. You're doing the labor-relations equivalent of the grandsons and great-grandsons of WWII vets in the South who fly the stars and bars.
Not self-serving thugs, but thugs for hire. Otherwise, TL;DR
>Fallacy two: anecdote is not data
correct. the data is the people who voted against the union. when you see this data, you apparently immediately assume "voter interference," not "oh look, these people don't want a union. you know, like my singular anecdote of "the electricians in Chicago" which also includes several thousand people.
honestly, I didn't read the rest of your dumb rant, whatever that was. you're literally as dumb as the stop the steal retards, just on the other side of the spectrum. you are the reason people say both sides are the same. because the sides have nothing to do with being a retard. you people (you, the nazi retards, the antimask retards, the blm retards) are the group - the group of retards. within your group, you have different opinions on some things. kinda like russia and ukraine. two monkeys fighting about how different you are. to me, someone who is human, you're still a bunch of monkeys.
You didn't read it because you have a willful reading comprehension issue. You've lived a fast life and sucked all the joy out of it; with nothing left but your own self-delusion and sense of superiority, your tiny, hollow, solipsistic worldview cannot *afford* to consider data that might show you to be wrong in even the smallest respect.
The "data" say only what they say; I am asking about what is *is* that they say. Yes, there was a majority vote against unionizing: my question is, WHY? That is, what motivated this vote, can we be certain it was truly uncoerced, etc.?
People who have never enjoyed the benefits of a union job are really not in a position to say unions are bad.
Unless, of course, they have enjoyed the costs of a union job. That seems fairly common.
Oh boy, this old chestnut again. "You can't learn from the experience of others! Your tiny widdle brain can't do that! You have to try it first! Put on the union hat, you'll love it! Promise!"
Quite aside from the fact that many coders weren't in that position all their lives, and have been in union positions, many more coders have been in union shops where their position just didn't happen to have been unionised. But you don't seem to think that that counts.
If it's so great, make your pitch to Microsoft or wherever, see how that goes.
No "we" don't. Your contribution to this fight is mostly the textual equivalent of belches and farts. Only not as amusing.
nah, I didn't read it because you're a moron here for my entertainment, and the one line that jumped out at me from your wall of retard-text was enough for me to respond to, to laugh at you. whatever other retard-information you provided is for the birds, and useless to me, for the purpose which you serve for me by typing things here. on a related note, the first few words of the last post is also all I read. but you keep typing.
Sure sure, everyone but you's a moron, placed here by the great Goddess solely for your entertainment. The entire world's disposable except you, we get it. You're the alpha-male, the top dog, the mutant offspring of Chuck Norris, Hugh Hefner, and Albert Einstein, and your power level's over 9000. You've got it alllllllll figured out. Congratulations, you won the game. *paper-squeaker noise*
...damn, ow. Warn me next time before you post something like that so I can do some warm-ups on the ol' eye-roller muscles.
You are a moron. Your purpose on this site, for me, is solely for my entertainment. I have no other use for morons besides them making me entertained. For you, this site is part of "entire world" as you come here to "socialize" with your keyboard. For me, I've come to a football game to play football. You can complain all you want that football players are unbalanced adults because they attack a guy simply for having a ball, and that they should get psych treatment for whatever is making them do that. For the normal people, we're here to play football, and you're the moron who decided to have a romantic picnic in the middle of a football field, and then complain about how the people playing on that field are acting as unbalanced adults. You are retarded, so it's funny for us normals. Yes, I do have all that figured out. You, in your life, seem to have the internet confused with the physical world. Because of your stupidity, you are and will always be confused, and will always be the clown.
I didn't read that but it's pretty obvious it's more of the same. So have another -1 Troll, and remember, public masturbation is a crime.
My reading skills are better than your self-editing skills. It's hard to tell if you hate yourself more than you do any prospective reader.
It's much easier to catch errors in other people's code than to write perfect code.
A good lesson. Instead of bursting in like Crazy Uncle Mame, maybe somebody should go have a cup of coffee, and then do a good self-review (AKA sanity check).
" it is up to the voter to believe it or not."
Because some arbitrary arbitrator is supposed to be the arbiter of truth. How about this, I appoint myself to be the arbiter of truth. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, at least most anyone would be better than AOC (then again who am I kidding, most people are clueless). Most of the time when she talks she has absolutely no clue what she is talking about, it's hilarious watching her talking about stuff she has no clue about.
no moron, because anyone is free to say any bullshit lies they want, and them saying it is not election interference, it's free speech. if you choose your vote to be changed by some rando redneck or russian bot spouting garbage in the internet, and believe it, and don't bother to check it, that's not interference. that's a retard voting. retards are allowed to vote.
>some arbitrary arbitrator is supposed to be the arbiter of truththe arbiter of truth is the voter. nothing arbitrary about that. it's not the job of the world to present vetted, balanced, and honest information to you. it's your job to not blindly believe random shit you hear and let that random shit make up your mind for you. if you don't do that, that's fine too - you have a right to make up your mind whichever way you want, for any reason you want. but don't blame you being a moron sheep on someone. it's not interference. it's you - the retard.
Yeah, organized crime took one look at unions and said "Hey, we know this game!". And there's so much money moving from them to politicians that the laws were written to make sure it stays a choice between a single union or unemployment.
Remember that the union wouldn't let Amazon provide cameras to secure the storage area for ballots.
Fortunately for Amazon and the workers, the union wasn't able to get enough fake ballots in. Amazon probably paid humans to stand guard, making it difficult to sneak any fake ballots into the storage.
Fucking Trumpers need to die. And they will, since they believe Covid is a hoax, and will keep saying it with their dying breaths. $WORKS_FOR_ME:
Let's all make up things about our boogeyman enemy, and get upset at them for it.
Yeah, all them non-union thugs intimidating people is legendary.
The Pinkertons would like a word with you, if we could 1) find a decent medium and 2) get anything but agonized shrieks out of them, considering "where" most of them are now and will remain for a goodly while...
get anything but agonized shrieks out of them, considering "where" most of them are now and will remain for a goodly while...
In other words, Hell. Pinkertons are going straight to Hell.
Have gone. And, again, it's not so much a place as it is a state of mind. I suspect the minor minions have mostly or all reincarnated by now (and some of them may very well be some of today's downtrodden pro-union protestors!) but the real psychos are still burning, or whatever other form their karmic backlash is taking on them.
I can't help but notice that you get extremely upset whenever people bring up the idea that the obviously guilty and evil are going to pay for their crimes. You've started double-posting in that thread about Dominion, and the content of most of those pots amounts fo sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala, I can't heeeear youuuuu~!"
You are hiding something. If we ever get our hands on those leaks from Parler, Gab, etc, we will find out what. In the meantime, you are *not* doing yourself any favors by acting like this.
I can't help but notice that you get extremely upset whenever people bring up the idea that the obviously guilty and evil are going to pay for their crimes.
I can't help but notice that you get extremely upset whenever people bring up the idea that the obviously guilty and evil are going to pay for their crimes.
With fantasy punishments not real ones!
They are as real as it is possible to get. In death there are no more illusions, no more excuses, and no places to hide from yourself. No angry God or vengeful demon torments you; you torment you, with what you are in the dark and what you've done in the world.
I understand why you don't like this idea. You've clearly got a lot to answer for. I don't pretend to be perfect or even that much better than the average (median) human, morally speaking, but it's clear from your post history that you have some serious darkness in you. Fairly be ye warned: dying does not make you a different or better person. We die as we lived, it's just that we don't get to hide from ourselves any longer once dead.
They are as real as it is possible to get.
LOL. I assure you it gets more real in the real world.
In death there are no more illusions, no more excuses, and no places to hide from yourself.
Except, of course, if that's not true. Then it's not.
I understand why you don't like this idea.
It's a copout. You're weaseling out of thinking about your morality or considering arguments of others.
Projection again. I am not the one running away from the idea of consequences for my actions. You are. You seem to need the hard-materialist conception of the consciousness to be true on a deep psychological level.
I notice whenever someone starts smacking you around, you ball up and fart out "no u!" in rapid succession in lieu of any actual arguments. Runaway does that too, I've observed. You two must either have guilty consciences or else be in the moral equivalent of locked-in syndrome.
Projection again. I am not the one running away from the idea of consequences for my actions. You are.
Projection again. I am not the one running away from the idea of consequences for my actions. You are.
Nobody has gone to the extreme of inventing an afterlife system merely so that they don't have to think about other viewpoints.
You seem to need the hard-materialist conception of the consciousness to be true on a deep psychological level.
There's a million opinions on what's going to happen when we die. What makes yours the right one? You need to cut the crap. Evidence or GTFO.
What's particularly obnoxious is the pointlessness of the argument. By your own assertions, the afterlife is what it is no matter what we believe or do. Nor have you ever given any usable advice on how to improve our stay in the afterlife - just don't disagree with Azuma.
I notice whenever someone starts smacking you around, you ball up and fart out "no u!" in rapid succession in lieu of any actual arguments.
When "tu quoque" dismantles someone's argument, there's no point to going any further. I'm not you, thus, I'm not going to get the benefits of your Azuma-centered arguments.
I've given you plenty of advice: if you don't want to spend time "in Hell" (remember, it's a state of mind, not a place), don't cultivate a Hellish mindset. The fact that you refuse to take this under consideration is on you, not me.
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with me in and of itself; it's about positions one takes on certain matters that *ought* to be utter no-brainers as to which one is correct. When I warn you that your positions will get you fried, it's not because you disagree with me; it's because *what* you disagree with me on involves you coming down on the side of evil.
You desperately, desperately need to believe this is just me acting like you, in other words, stroking my own ego. It isn't. And you won't believe any evidence I present to you because you've already decided it's not possible, so what's the point? All I can do is forewarn you so you're not surprised when you drop your body but keep existing and aren't happy with the state you find yourself in. Fine, I know I can't force you to be a decent human being, but don't say you were never warned.
I've given you plenty of advice
And I've ignored it because you speak from ignorance on many levels. You don't have a clue what the afterlife entails. So no point listening to your strangely detailed fantasy where the black hats get what's coming to them.
Second, you don't have a clue about me, but are willing to fantasize multiple mental illnesses and disabilities on straw man khallow, who getting pretty beat up by all this attention.
Third, you don't have a clue about yourself. All the above is powered by a very potent self-delusion.
So I'm going to skip yet another clueless lecture.
I mean, that's your right, but don't say you weren't warned :)
Hell hath no fury like a... nevermind.
Okay, beware the Wrath Of Kahn!
But Kirk beat Kahn.
But rock beats scissors.
Let's try again: Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock
Nice job you got here. Shame if you all unionized and we upped stakes and hired elsewhere.
Erm, yeah, it would be for the workers. Nothing plus 45% is... Nothing, times nothing, carry the nothing... Why, it's nothing!
And it'd be a legitimate and even correct business decision if the projected increase in labor costs was more than the cost of relocating. Businesses don't exist for the benefit of the workers, they exist for the benefit of the owners. Workers are obliged to see to their own benefit.
And that would be all well and good if the playing field were truly level. It's not, though, which is the precise problem unions were created to address in the first place.
Most of humanity is not atomized apart from others like you are from the rest of the human race, Uzzard. Your insistence that everyone thinks like you and is in the same situation as you facing the same problems as you is bordering on solipsism, and the most charitable thing I can say about it is that in the context of this discussion you're not being helpful. More specifically, it seems you don't have the cognitive tools to process this; you know the words but not the music, as it were, which is perfectly in line with your bizarrre description of empathy as purely understanding another person's emotional state on an intellectual level.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Which explains all the tone trolling I get when I start clowning on the ones who deserve to be clowned on...! :D
Maybe you should try being a happy clown. Instead of...
Telling you you're being a raging cunt isn't tone trolling. You need to learn the meaning of the phrase.
You seem to have the same issue with this that you do every time someone kicks your shit in and you run away while crying "Ad-hom! Ad-hom!"
In the same way an ad-hom is when someone issues insults *in lieu* of an argument instead of *with* one as I do (because I'm generous like that!"), tone trolling is when someone deliberately disregards the actual content of what someone else says because they don't like the surrounding package.
Well too bad, carrion-breath. Content is king. If people are delivering you packages of truth and it's wrapped in the equivalent of a Howler from the Potterverse, 1) that does *not* make the truth any less true, 2) that does *not* give you permission to ignore it, and 3) maybe you need to do some self-reflection as to why people are being meeeeeeeeeeeeeean to you.
...hah, that'll be the day.
Rule 5 only works if the people supposedly being ridiculed give a shit. If they think that the ridicule is the squawking of flustered chickens, they will give precisely 0 shits. "Oh really, a bunch of people who burned their own city down think that I'm bad for business? I'll pencil in some time to pretend to care about their opinion in Q3 of 2027."
It's analogous to why Gandhi agreed to back the British Empire in WWII: not because he liked them, but because he realised that his methods of nonviolence would work on the brits, while the nazis would cheerfully machinegun everyone and then shake hands over what a good job they did with the shooting.
That's all well and good regardless. If people are willing to work for $wage, you've no right to tell them they can't.
And if a group isn't, good on em. They can try renegotiating. And if they can't come to an agreement, they're either all fired or the company moves. That don't say anything bad about the company, that says those demanding more are demanding more than they're worth.
Nothing plus 45% is... Nothing,
Basic TMB math error. Makes you wonder how good of code monkey he really is! Nothing plus 45% is 45% of what ever the 45% was 45% of. Now the multiply by zero, well that is true, and it is the old company threat. Comply to our will, take our offer, and pray we do not alter the deal. If you vote for a union, and health and safety and fair wages, we will shut down and you will have nothing. Thugs, pure and simple. Extortionists. They do the same with taxes by State and local government. We need regulations to keep the criminal bastards in check. And that is why it is a public service to support unions. Call their bluff, boycott their "services".
Every time someone doesn't vote the way you want you assume that it's because they are all somehow either being coerced or suppressed or that they are stupid and brainwashed by ads or some other nonsense.
Just like how California voted against making Uber drivers employees.
You're somehow more enlightened than everyone else. They were all coerced and manipulated because you are the enlightened one.
Or you simply don't believe in democracy.
Which fits right into the context of why the democrats don't care for good election security measures all the while making up voter suppression nonsense.
At the very least the Republicans don't want to suppress votes any more than the democrats want to cheat. Sure there may be some small instances here and there of election fraud just like there are small instances here and there of republicans that were trying to mess with districts and vote windows (which they shouldn't) along with some on both sides that were trying to trick people into going to vote on the wrong date but, overall, I think we should make sure that we have strong voter integrity measures in place (which we certainly don't) and we should make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to vote.
Unions are a mixed blessing. If the employer is being abusive (as some reports for Amazon do indicate), then a union can counterbalance that by giving the employees a united voice.
On the other hand, look at the old unions in the rust belt. They have too much of a voice, pushing for ridiculous work rules in order to preserve jobs that should no longer exist. On top of that, the union leadership is often corrupt, becoming just another parasite sucking on both the workers and the companies. Teachers' unions are another example - remember the "rubber rooms" where schools have to put teachers they cannot fire, but cannot allow back into the classroom?
Would a union help counter Amazon abuses? Probably. Once those abuses have been brought under control, will the union quietly retreat into the background, with the leadership giving up the power it has obtained? Unlikely. The cure may well be worse than the disease.
Well that about covers it. Well said. I have worked for a number of unions. The teachers union in NY. I didn't know much about what went on closer to the top, but I was generally pleased to be a part of the union. Being young I enjoyed slapping the "man". I never had to spend my own money on supplies or insurance. Well, prescriptions were $1.00. Most of what I was aware of was complaints about the administration spending ridiculous amounts of money on things they did not need. Sadly things are much more lopsided today.
I have worked in a number of places where it seemed the union was really unnecessary. The union had helped the employees at some time in the past, but there was no longer any obvious benefit to them operating, at least not to the employees. Union members got plenty out of the deal though.
I worked for another union, which had a wildly variable need for hands from week to week and season to season. This one would hire hundreds off of the street to meet demand for labor and collect dues from every hire. But, only a select few people were actually in the union. They had very nice benefits as a result of fleecing all of the temporary workers. The pandemic hit this organization very hard, and the money that was left, very rapidly flowed straight to the top. Benefits were reduced or eliminated. Even well established members were cast aside as soon as the heads realized how tough things were going to be.
All of the unions I have dealt with had one really annoying thing in common. The reps would make the rounds and tell us how we were expected to vote in any given election. Not a suggestion mind you. More like, "remember, you're voting for "Politicritter" of union heads choosing. Ironic how I could feel empowered by my union association one day, and then feel reduced to sheeple level or below by the organization I supported. Hmmmmm
The tough thing here is how do you maintain balance when there is power at the top of any organization like this? Furthermore, how does one prevent the inevitable development of corruption that accompanies the power of leadership. The type of people who seek out these positions are most often the types who will abuse the power and connections that result from attaining the position in the first place. And this inevitably leads me to the reality of, "My ism is broken."
Teachers' unions are another example - remember the "rubber rooms" where schools have to put teachers they cannot fire, but cannot allow back into the classroom?
I can't speak for all teachers' unions, but in my locality growing up the only time the union prevented a teacher from being fired, it was because politicians were trying to get rid of somebody with about 40 years in the classroom because they didn't like the political implications of the contents of one of his elective history courses and also opposed his political activities outside of school (he'd been arrested for passing out leaflets in a mall). They never stood in the way of firing teachers for gross incompetence or abusing students, for instance.
Also, looking up the "rubber rooms", it certainly sounds like from the reporting that (a) this was in 1 city out of many many many jurisdictions, and (b) the union actually agitated to end the system, and (c) there was significant indications that it had been set up in part as a way for administrators to punish teachers arbitrarily, including doing it to a union rep for basically no reason. Now, you could argue "but the union should have allowed administrators to just fire whoever they want", but that would almost definitely lead to all of the most experienced and thus most expensive teachers getting fired and replaced with cheaper, less experienced teachers. The other way to have prevented the problem, which the administration noticeably didn't try to do, was to substantially speed up how long it took for complaints to be processed and hearings to be held so that, among other things, a teacher who was in fact not guilty of doing anything wrong could be put back in a classroom as quickly as possible.
In general, I'd point out that Amazon's employee contracts, like most employee contracts these days, don't allow workers to sue Amazon for breaking US labor law. And government-initiated enforcement has been neutered for decades. That leaves workers with only unions if they want to both continue to have jobs and not have routine egregious violations of labor laws. So if you stifle unions, you're basically saying that US labor law should no longer exist, and we should become a country of sweatshops again.
In general, I'd point out that Amazon's employee contracts, like most employee contracts these days, don't allow workers to sue Amazon for breaking US labor law.
How is that in any way legal?
One of the most important legal issues you've probably never thought about: Binding arbitration clauses + class action waivers. The binding arbitration clause means that any disputes of any kind end up going not to the courts but to a private arbitrator selected by the company (and the company can and does ensure that the arbitrator will minimize how much they have to pay out). And the class action waiver means that the workers can't respond together if management does the same thing to all of them at the same time.
The US Supreme Court has steadily and fairly quietly made that legal in more and more situations, including when state law says they're illegal.
Yes, that's as ridiculous as it sounds, and lots of law professors and such have pointed out that this is effectively an attempt to eliminate the entirety of civil law for employer-employee relations.
Oh, Christ! Khallow is on another "obvious rebuttal"! Can't we form a Soylentil union to prevent such eggregious abuse?
The thing is, that requires affirmatively proving the bad intent in a court of law, in the face of a motion to dismiss before discovery starts, which means you don't have access to documents and witnesses about how the policy was created. So basically, you can't prove the contract is unconscionable, even if it is.
In a civilized society, you wouldn't be allowed to sign away that right and especially not without being compensated for the loss. Signing away your right to sue is uncomfortably close to signing up for slavery. If they want to make you work for free or violate your other rights, the only recourse is to quit or hope the owned arbitrator doesn't know which side their toast is buttered on.
Money, honey! When you can buy politicians and laws, you can make *anything* legal. And for the few things you can't directly, you can stall out any lawsuits (and settle the others out of sight) and in general make it so the law does not apply to you in any meaningful way. It's all about money.
The union you describe seems to have protected the teachers against the worst excesses of free market capitalism, while trying to do right by the spirit of the educational system. It sounds like this union "worked properly", in contrast to the counter-examples of unions that collect dues primarily to benefit their management [youtu.be].
The union you describe seems to have protected the teachers against the worst excesses of free market capitalism
W8ords mean things. "Free market capitalism" means capitalism with "free markets" more or less. It doesn't mean:
Politicians trying to fire people? A public school jurisdiction? Neither is free market capitalism.
Teachers' unions are currently telling members to make sure not to post vacation pictures so they can continue to argue against reopening schools, despite medical science saying "Why the fuck are you keeping the schools closed? We already said go ahead and open them back up."