when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.
Because that's literally the entire point! They want to pay people more if they leave the union so they can later cut wages without resistance, it's an extremely simple and basic concept. I have no idea why you're treating this as some bizarre, added assumption, like literally what are we even talking about if not that?
Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn’t have power. Fucking duh. It doesn’t work that way because it’s illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people’s rights to collective bargaining.
That... is literally the thing being discussed here.
Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.
No, you didn't. I'm quite sure this is the first time I've seen anyone make the claim that what Cathy is saying in OP is untrue and would be illegal.
Cry more. You’re the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.
You're Madison420's alt, right? If not, I don't see why you're both so randomly hostile or why you both go off about me "crying." All I'm doing is discussing facts and pointing out when people say things that are wrong. Occasionally, when someone comes at me with random, unprovoked, hostility, I point out that that's what they're doing and may give it back to them. If you can't take shit don't start shit.
They contain literally all of it you just can’t be bothered to do the math.
Literally none of them have even a single relevant number for me to use. The only number you've provided is the one you pulled straight out of your ass, the 8% one. I can't do math without numbers, no, and unlike you I don't just make numbers up.
Nice try but you didn’t even bother reading that did you? https://www.iww.org/pamphlets/
Does not contain the relevant information. This is the fifth source you've blatantly lied about, if we're keeping score.
You could try responding in good faith once and go from there
I've replied in good faith many times, both to you and to others. You are an obvious, bad faith troll.
What part of it doesn't make sense?
They are random because they don't contain any of the relevant information you've claimed they do. They are tangentially related to what we're discussing.
Here's the IWW website: https://www.iww.org/
See how linking that had fuck all to do with anything we were discussing and was just randomly dropped - even though it's the website of a large union?
I don't know why I keep responding in good faith when you've demonstrated you're a shameless liar and troll countless times. Also, I believe you're the only person I've called a troll here, and that's with extremely good reason.
Yes it does
No, it doesn't. I can't invent numbers out of thin air like you do.
That’s a picture and you already said it isn’t dead you’re just lazy or uninventive
I was able to access it further down the thread, yes.
You are no doubt making this comment in hopes of getting me to make a bunch of comments about the PDF, so that your lie about me having made "like 7 comments" about the link, when I had made two (one saying I couldn't access it, and one addressing the contents once I was able to) would appear to be true to anyone not following the timestamps.
You really are quite shameless.
What unions are able to negotiate is a function of how large, powerful, and organized they are. Rejecting what the company offers can mean going on strike, and if they aren’t powerful enough for that to be a credible threat (because people left the union for higher pay rates), then that means they have very little power to negotiate or say no to what’s offered.
Literally not you or a single other person in all the comments responded to me has said a single word that actually explains why it wouldn't work this way. You just started randomly attacking me for no reason. Maybe it's because you can't provide an actual answer?
They will never be able to agree to pay off an entire sector to do what you suggest, because these companies are competitors.
That "never" is a pretty big claim. You could just as easily argue that since workers are competing against each other for the same jobs, they would "never" form together into unions, or choose to go on strike in solidarity with others instead of scabbing for an individual pay raise. Class consciousness works both ways, just as workers can benefit more from working together with each other, so too can companies. This is especially true in cases of monopolization (or near-monopolozation), when there are only a handful of companies that would have to coordinate.
Unlike the businesses that are competing in a race to the bottom by lowering wages, the companies that have union agreements are competing in a race to attract the best employees.
Wages are not just determined by the value a worker contributes to the company but also by the power that the company and the workers hold relative to each other. If this were not the case, then there's be no reason to have unions at all.
Even if the most skilled/desired candidates are able to shop around, there will also always be less skilled/desired candidates who don't have the same individual bargaining power.
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.
I did literally none of that but ok.
You’ve made about 7 dude, why lie about what is clearly evident.
I have no idea why you would lie when it's clearly evident that you're wrong, both about that claim and in general. Other than that you're a troll who lies as easily as they breathe.
Look it up, is like 8% of college graduates in unions.
Oh really? Where did you find that number? How deep in there was it, and did you wash your hands afterwards?
Who's "we" then, if not non-union members?