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.
Objection
joined 1 year ago
You edited your comment to add demographic information of any kind for the first time, however, that document does not break down union membership demographics by college education, so it is completely irrelevant to the point being discussed.
Moreover, even if the majority of members in a union, or even in unions in general, are not college educated, that's still not the claim being discussed. The question is whether college educated people are more likely to belong to a union than non-college educated people are. Since there are more people without college educations, most unions are probably primarily people without college educations, despite people with college educations being overrepresented relative to their size in the general population.
You haven't provided it a single time, let alone three. Link one time you provided it.
I said higher education jobs tend to not be union jobs.
That's not the claim that's in dispute. The claim was that higher education people are more likely to be in unions.
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.
No, you didn't, liar.
You claimed it was on the page you linked. You lied. Or more likely, you didn't know because you didn't read it either, because you just grabbed a random link so that you could claim to have "provided sources" for the purpose of trolling.
Please provide any source, from them, or anywhere else, supporting your absurd claim that college education discourages union membership.
:::spoiler Here's screenshots of the page you linked to prove you're just blatantly lying, again.
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
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.
I didn't ask if they'd "discuss unionization with me." I'm sure they would! What they wouldn't do is back up your complete bullshit, unsourced troll claim that college education makes people less likely to join unions.
If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt
Hold up, what if the strike leads nowhere and society doesn't grind to a halt? Because the strike is ineffective, because the union lost most of it's members because of pay incentives to leave the union?
OK, here's the source of the confusion.
What the fuck did I say that made anyone think I was talking about cutting union pay outside of negotiations? Literally where is anyone getting this from??
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.