this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1717 points (99.4% liked)
Work Reform
11220 readers
1638 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What kind of 5th dimensional chess are you trying to play where penalizing someone for joining a union is "caving to the union's demands?"
if salaries depend on union decisions then surely they are following the union's demands.
i think the thing that makes it confusing is the missing context of whether unionised workers at that site are being paid less than non-union workers. i assumed the answer was no because it sounded like they had a CBA that the person was not aware of, since the alternative would have been immediately struck down by any union worth its salt.
My guess would be that this person is part of the collective bargaining block, but does not pay dues (possibly public sector). So the contract she describes was negotiated by the Union, and is the same contract that everyone in her position gets, union or otherwise. She probably just doesn't realize it.
Could be wrong, but the above situation is unfortunately pretty common.
One of the main goals of unions is to increase worker pay. Mission accomplished.
The issue here is that if more people choose not to join a union for the pay raise in the short term, unions become weaker in the longer term. The capitalist in this case is paying a premium now to divide up labor for the chance down the line to save more money on labor overall in the long term.
Thank you, this is exactly what I said, but since you don't have a .ml next to your name people might not just randomly attack you over it.
Great, they increased pay for non-union workers, the workers leave the union for increased pay, now the company cuts union pay, and now there's no organization for the workers to do anything about it. "Mission accomplished" indeed.
collapsed inline media
Yes that's capitalism, how exactly you're baffled by that this late in life is in itself quite the quandary.
Literally what have I said anywhere that suggests I'm in any way, "baffled?" I'm just pointing out how fucked up it is to others who don't understand, such as the person I replied to.
You keep asking basic civics questions as one would of they are baffled.
What's fucked up is you're appearantly just learning about it but are old enough to use the Internet unsupervised.
Basic civics questions that you can't answer because I know the answers to them and you don't, or you do and they prove that you're wrong so you evade them, since you're a troll.
Already did and provided sources and I might add you have a cacophony of people telling you you're wrong and that you should actually look into it instead of making what you think are pointed questions about a subject you clearly don't understand and appearantly can't be bothered to look into but you certainly have no issue getting obtuse about it.
You provide two links to random unrelated pages after having previously lied, claiming that sources had already been provided, entirely so that you could then repeat the lie and have something to point to, even though again, the links were irrelevant. Troll.
No one lied crybaby.
They aren't unrelated you're just retarded or arguing in bad faith. I'm know my guess as to which.
You literally did lie. You claimed I had been "provided sources" at a time when not a single source had been provided anywhere. That's called lying.
I'm pretty sure someone else did, it's irrelevant because I provided links and you didn't bother to do any research you just discarded them by look alone. So again dumb or not arguing in good faith so you can drop the indignation as it's fairly stale.
No, they did not. You are lying when you say that, just like you were lying when you claimed it the first time.
Here's a link that proves every claim you made this whole conversation is wrong. It literally says on this page that, in this specific comment chain, nobody had provide a link to a source at the time you claimed they had. The link is: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/
See, I can provide irrelevant links and lie about what they say just like you do.
Who cares?! You have them now and you're not bothering to use them because you don't care you'd rather just object to object.
I literally did use them and they didn't show anything you claimed they showed after I said they wouldn't and you doubled down that they did. I literally provided screenshots. Liar and troll.
You already admitted you didn't, why lie now?
I didn't at first, then I went back and did.
How do you think I got screenshots of the page without visiting the page, exactly? Please tell me, I'm fascinated to hear your explanation.
Yeah that's called inconsistency like I said.
The point isn't to screenshot it, it's too use the bar resources of the aflcio, nlrb and BLS websites which provide pretty literally any statistics you're curious about. Your laziness or inability to do research isn't my concern, I'm not your teacher so I'm just going to point you in the right direction and how you can figure it out on your own. You apparently can't or didn't and instead want everyone to do the leg work for you so all you have to do is find some increasingly idiotic reason to say "Nuh uh" and provide no counter evidence.
You could've used any of the resources you mentioned to accesses the relevant statistics. Your laziness or inability to do research isn't my concern, I'm not your teacher. You apparently can’t or didn’t want to find the information and instead want everyone to do the leg work for you so all you have to do is find some increasingly idiotic reason to say “Nuh uh” and provide no counter evidence.
You mean I could teach you how to do research but doing it for you. You won't learn if entering is just handed to you. Critical thinking and moderate motivation would a answer every question you've posed including your modified version you're claiming now.
As for the rest.
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
You take the negative you bear the burden of evidence.
Correct! I asked a question, you said no, therefore you bear the burden of evidence.
No you disagreed with the person a comment ahead then went on a tirade about people saying it's not "fucked up" which you can't evidence.
They can't cut union wages that's the whole point of collective bargaining and they're just maintaining competition with union rates which is legal. That competition might be specifically devised to draw potential employees away from union contracts and people may be dumb enough to go for it but that's capitalism however dumb that may be.