Politicians affect public employees, but they are by no means their boss. There is literally no difference in working conditions in public and private employment -- it's the same kind of stuff both places.
Yeah, corporate management is totally reasonable. They never decide salaries based on who their golf partners or sisters in-law are... just value to the company, despite the fact that middle management generally makes the same thing regardless of who they employ.
Well, that is not how all unions are. I am on the board of mine, and when we are of "no bloody use whatsoever," it is because we need the membership to do something and they just won't do it. We need them to fight back in individual cases when shit is going on -- they don't want us to make waves. We need them to show up in large groups and DO something when something that affects us all is going on -- they won't do it. "Isn't that what I pay YOU for?" is sometimes asked. Yeah, becuase a board of 8 or so and a staff of 3 or 4 is going to be able to accomplish anything. "We want X!" -- "No." -- "Well, you'd better give it to us?" -- "Why?" -- "Because if not, all 12 of us are going to be angry." Unions work because they have a large number of members. If the members side with inertia, it's not getting fixed. If everyone assumes "eh, the other guy will picket," there's no move that can be made.
Except, until recently, that wasn't even allowed (political donations at my union are still voluntary, but I believe Citizens United changed whether or not they legally have to be). And it wasn't unions who fought for that one.
It would not surprise me to learn that this guy got bad information. I hear sometimes people complaining to me about things the union won't let them do, aka. things that the organization told them the union wouldn't let them do. Don't believe what HR tells you about your union.
No, that's bullshit. Maybe individual unions and individual officers are bad, but that is true of any organization. Are you in a union? Are you an officer of one?
Slashdot Mirror
Except I'm only talking about stuff that has actually been said.
It still isn't.
Politicians affect public employees, but they are by no means their boss. There is literally no difference in working conditions in public and private employment -- it's the same kind of stuff both places.
Congratulations, you're now in the tank for the anti-union shills. Way to go.
Forming a union IS taking personal responsibility.
The rest of your post doesn't need responding to because it's basically FOX talking points.
Agreed. However, your boss is easily replaced with one who DOESN'T care about you. Your income is probably not.
Why would they start here, and why wouldn't they compete in the way that the others had?
Dues money was not, until recently, used for campaign contributions. At my union, it still isn't.
Why does everyone think that working conditions are divorced from politics?
...except in this case it happens to be accurate.
Lots of people want union labor working for others and slave labor working for them. I think there's a name for that.
Yeah, corporate management is totally reasonable. They never decide salaries based on who their golf partners or sisters in-law are... just value to the company, despite the fact that middle management generally makes the same thing regardless of who they employ.
Someone get this guy a history lesson.
And if they weren't, you'd be hearing "he doesn't care what happens to us -- he doesn't work here."
Well, that is not how all unions are. I am on the board of mine, and when we are of "no bloody use whatsoever," it is because we need the membership to do something and they just won't do it. We need them to fight back in individual cases when shit is going on -- they don't want us to make waves. We need them to show up in large groups and DO something when something that affects us all is going on -- they won't do it. "Isn't that what I pay YOU for?" is sometimes asked. Yeah, becuase a board of 8 or so and a staff of 3 or 4 is going to be able to accomplish anything. "We want X!" -- "No." -- "Well, you'd better give it to us?" -- "Why?" -- "Because if not, all 12 of us are going to be angry." Unions work because they have a large number of members. If the members side with inertia, it's not getting fixed. If everyone assumes "eh, the other guy will picket," there's no move that can be made.
Issues come up, and unions deal with them. It's not all about money, time off, etc.
Grievances don't get filed against other members.
"Boss likes you" is the metric in absence of that. Seems to me that one isn't any more fair.
Except, until recently, that wasn't even allowed (political donations at my union are still voluntary, but I believe Citizens United changed whether or not they legally have to be). And it wasn't unions who fought for that one.
Those people in the last line are called "Libertarians."
Because they work at a place, same as anybody else? It's OK to have slaves, so long as they work for you.
If you want a better job than they have, quit crying and fucking unionize.
Everything in the parent post is uninformed malarkey.
It would not surprise me to learn that this guy got bad information. I hear sometimes people complaining to me about things the union won't let them do, aka. things that the organization told them the union wouldn't let them do. Don't believe what HR tells you about your union.
No, that's bullshit. Maybe individual unions and individual officers are bad, but that is true of any organization. Are you in a union? Are you an officer of one?
Unions are the reason labor laws even exist, and help to protect people when they are being violated today.
To start off calling a post "stupid" when yours is uninformed is not a great move.
NameCheap offer free DNS hosting.