I love how one person cites a statistic, and another person just dismisses it as false because of their anecdotal experience.
Sounds like every online platform ever.
False! Source: my ass
That’s good. I’m taking it haha
There are two schools of thought:
Those who want as good life as possible, and Those who want to have a better life than everyone else, no matter what.
I live in California, so there was a lot of bemoaning the rising minimum wage.
“Why should someone flipping burgers earn as much as I do in a trade field?”
Mate, you should be arguing for increased wages, not trying to keep others down.
Seattle metro area has the highest minimum wage in the country. The top 5 cities in the US are all in this metro. This is because when the wage increases were passed by city, they were tied to the inflation rate so that increases every year, so no new laws have to be passed year over year to get this increase. No arguing every year for a simple cost of living adjustment.
Together we bargain, alone we beg.
This needs to be on a fucking t-shirt.
“your statistic is false because I have an anecdote” is literally the entire basis of the conservative understanding of science.
union workers don’t make more on average because I earn half a dollar more.
global warming isn’t happening because I brought a snowball.
vaccines cause death because my friend walked out of a clinic after a shot and got hit by a self driving tesla.
vaccines cause death because my friend walked out of a clinic after a shot and got hit by a self driving tesla.
😂
Well 50 cents are enough for cathy to forget her mathy
Cathy is a dumbass. Don’t be like Cathy.
That’s up there with refusing raises to avoid going up a tax bracket.
I will forgive people who were previously had a low enough income to have benefits that magically disappeared completely at a certain threshold when they received a raise for assuming that making too much money could be a negative. They generally never made enough to understand how tax brackets work and assumed the worst.
If it is explained to them and they refuse to learn, that is on them.
The fact that Cathy has a blue check mark proves Twitter is fucking stupid.
How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union? Is there a limit to that, or can companies just say, “Anyone who joins a union will be paid minimum wage.” Ofc with at-will employment they can always just fire you, but like, if you think about it it’s pretty fucked up right?
I don’t think it’s preferential pay. It’s just that they pay more, somebody in the union also can get more money than the union minimum. Somebody not part of the union can get less or more than somebody in the union, just not below the union minimum.
It’s not that if they join the union that they get less money. The union + 0.5 just means that they earn better than the minimum and the employer gives them more than the minimum, because people like that.
At least that’s how it works where I live and union contracts are common.
Not everyone part of the union has to get exactly the union minimum, it’s just that you cannot legally get less. People might not be part of the union but they still fall under the union contract negotiated by the union, because it applies to the entire company.
So even then, the union people might be making more than the union minimum, so the non union person might still be making less than an average union person while not getting any union benefits.
Why does everything have to be sooo left or right?
Some unions are good, some are bad.
Not left or right, it’s up and down. Only one union is getting murderers and rapists off the hook. The rest are objectively good.
I would argue that the problem with police unions is that they’re too good at what they do. They’ve managed to achieve a degree of militantism that rivals any black panther or international world worker.
A single, heavily armed, deeply insular and dogmatic, horrifyingly MAGA-pilled community of workers would be bad in any sector. But to make matters worse, police have this natural affinity with media that makes them the recipient of tons of free positive publicity.
Would that everyone could claim membership in a union this strong.
The issue is that the purpose of a union is to give power to the powerless, but police already have all the power. Their union makes them unstoppable.
police already have all the power
That’s a superficial analysis. Police departments and other military and paramilitary organizations need to extract their revenues through the bureaucracy of the state. Your municipal PD officer isn’t showing up at your house, hat in hand, and taking collections to fund his beat. He needs the comptroller to impose taxes and the financial sector to move the money and the administration to divvy it out to employees based on rank and tenure.
What’s more, the police require the consent of the public at large. Which means a friendly media and religious community, willing to legitimize their functions. The US occupation in Afghanistan failed, while the Taliban that replaced them consolidated control, because one set of police was seen as illegitimate and another seen as representative of the public will.
Their union makes them unstoppable.
Their union forms a foundation of mutual support and affords individual officers confidence in their security through collective action. But cops are notoriously lazy, stupid, and trigger-happy. When media turns on a police department and the administrative state peels away from them, these institutions disintegrate rapidly.
The reason you don’t see police chiefs walking into the offices of some Fortune 500 companies and announcing “I’m the billionaire now” is rooted in their vulnerability on these fronts.
Unions are meant to bargain against capital.
Capital is already on the side of police.
This is not nearly at complicated as your making it.
No idea what you are referring to.
Yep, I figured as much
A union getting rapists and murders off the hook is not what the image is about.
You do realize I was responding to someone else right? Like this isn’t a direct response to the image. There is context that you clearly didn’t see or understand.
You replied to me, so I assumed you were responding to me. And I guess I still haven’t seen another message that you would have been responding to. Just a mix up.
My bad for sounding rude.
Who negotiated for Cathy? She didn’t need collective bargaining, she needed to learn to stand up for herself - as every worker should.
“who negotiated for Cathy” well if her contract is pegged to union pay then the union negotiates for cathy
Management probably giving that $0.50 bump hoping to discourage union membership and undermine their negotiating power.
poe’s law is real. Can’t tell if unmarked joke, or just doesn’t know anything about the history of labor or what.
Individual workers do not have the leverage to “stand up for themselves,” they just get knocked down. In all likelyhood, this was just the contract that Cathy was offered.
Their leverage is their value to the company. If you’re not capable of providing more than minimum value for your employer, then why should you work for that company? Find a company you can do more for.
