Antiwork

[MissThundercat]

Still laughing at John Deere salaried employees trying to use heavy machinery and failing miserably.

[psych]

Seeing all of the strikes, one wonders if more people will finally notice the theft from the lower part of the economy to the top. I kind of doubt it, but one can hope. I just can't see people realizing that they are being manipulated for single items so that tax cuts can happen.

I think plenty of people all across the country recognize they’re getting ****ed up the a— by concentrated wealth and monopolized industry. I’d say thanks Republicans, but Democrats were, and plenty still are, just as much to blame for America looking the way it does now.

[MichVandal]

My read on the strikes is that unions have correctly seen that the opportunity to do so is there.

With strikes, the only ones that have really been effective are the ones involving employees who can't be replaced. Major league athletes are a perfect example.

Everyone else is replaceable, ultimately. However, in today's economy where employers struggle to even fill current job openings, the likelihood of locating a pool of replacement workers in the event of a strike is diminished greatly, and unions have figured this out and will seek to take advantage of it. Seems like a good play in my book.

The problem with the situation right now is that the upper management all see themselves as not replaceable, and pay themselves as such. The reality is that they are just as incompetent as anyone else- having seen CEO's fail miserably on their stated goals, and still get a massive golden parachute is pretty frustrating. Anymore, almost all white collar jobs are also seen as replaceable. So it's just the concentration of salary at the top that seems to get around this problem.

[The Sicatoka]

The problem with the situation right now is that the upper management all see themselves as not replaceable, and pay themselves as such. The reality is that they are just as incompetent as anyone else- having seen CEO's fail miserably on their stated goals, and still get a massive golden parachute is pretty frustrating. Anymore, almost all white collar jobs are also seen as replaceable. So it's just the concentration of salary at the top that seems to get around this problem.

Frankly, that's part of the problem with public education. Districts have gone top heavy with "assistant" and "associate" superintendents for every specialty, and with salaries 2 to 5 times a classroom instructor. Buildings have a principal and multiple assistant principals, and now this thing called "dean of students". Why does a middle school with 500 kids need three, four principals and a dean of students? And still the teachers get to deal with discipline issues. The teachers are getting screwed over in too many top-heavy districts.

The main (positive) difference: no golden parachutes.

[psych]

Tackling the concentrated wealth/monopolized industry is something I think people across the political spectrum can agree on. Even Republican voters respond positively to (now) Democratic ideas of increasing taxes on the rich, etc. Obviously, there are myriad reasons, many of which have been discussed on this board, that broad agreement among voters of all political stripes doesn’t translate to meaningful policy changes in government.

[Kepler]

With strikes, the only ones that have really been effective are the ones involving employees who can't be replaced. Major league athletes are a perfect example.

Everyone else is replaceable, ultimately.

Hence the need for general strikes and worker solidarity writ large.

Capital colludes against labor continuously through the bribery of the legislative and regulatory process (and just good old fashioned financial extortion of their workers). The only legal recourse for labor is strikes: early and often. It's the only way to level the playing the field. This is also why there is constant action to discredit unions and circumscribe or prohibit collective action. Capital has all the cards except, in a democracy, voting numbers, but even there capital can typically manufacture the consent it needs to exploit labor by playing demographic divide and conquer, hitching its interests to usefully idiotic social and religious movements, or just flat out disenfranchising voters with the "wrong" characteristics and stifling candidates with "impractical" (read: redistributive) policy preferences.

[MichVandal]

Frankly, that's part of the problem with public education. Districts have gone top heavy with "assistant" and "associate" superintendents for every specialty, and with salaries 2 to 5 times a classroom instructor. Buildings have a principal and multiple assistant principals, and now this thing called "dean of students". Why does a middle school with 500 kids need three, four principals and a dean of students? And still the teachers get to deal with discipline issues. The teachers are getting screwed over in too many top-heavy districts.

The main (positive) difference: no golden parachutes.

The problem with public education has consistently been tax cuts for people like you, which has gutted funding for public education. Lets not get distracted by what you see as structural management issues when the core problem is greed- just like the accumulation of wealth at the top.

[SJHovey]

Hence the need for general strikes and worker solidarity writ large.

Capital colludes against labor continuously through the bribery of the legislative and regulatory process (and just good old fashioned financial extortion of their workers). The only legal recourse for labor is strikes: early and often. It's the only way to level the playing the field. This is also why there is constant action to discredit unions and circumscribe or prohibit collective action. Capital has all the cards except, in a democracy, voting numbers, but even there capital can typically manufacture the consent it needs to exploit labor by playing demographic divide and conquer, hitching its interests to usefully idiotic social and religious movements, or just flat out disenfranchising voters with the "wrong" characteristics and stifling candidates with "impractical" (read: redistributive) policy preferences.

Have you ever been through a strike? Been a striker yourself, or married to one? Have a family member as a striker?

Barbara Koppel did an excellent movie many years ago about a strike that occurred here in Minnesota, and the toll it takes on the individuals involved. It isn't pretty.

My guess is you are sitting there thinking about strikes like we see in France where a bunch of people go out and chant and wave flags for a few days, tying up traffic, and then everyone goes back to work without really accomplishing anything.

Yeah, we'll probably see that here, some day, but to about the same lousy effect they've seen in France.

[psych]

Have you ever been through a strike? Been a striker yourself, or married to one? Have a family member as a striker?

Barbara Koppel did an excellent movie many years ago about a strike that occurred here in Minnesota, and the toll it takes on the individuals involved. It isn't pretty.

My guess is you are sitting there thinking about strikes like we see in France where a bunch of people go out and chant and wave flags for a few days, tying up traffic, and then everyone goes back to work without really accomplishing anything.

Yeah, we'll probably see that here, some day, but to about the same lousy effect they've seen in France.

I’m confused. Are you saying the few strikes we have here are actually effective?

[SJHovey]

I’m confused. Are you saying the few strikes we have here are actually effective?

No, unless you mean effective in severely damaging the lives of the striking workers and their families.

Striking is sort of like being married, and having two girlfriends on the side. In theory it might seem great, in actual practice it usually ends badly.

[psych]

No, unless you mean effective in severely damaging the lives of the striking workers and their families.

Striking is sort of like being married, and having two girlfriends on the side. In theory it might seem great, in actual practice it usually ends badly.

So, in your opinion, if striking isn’t the answer to better wages and working conditions, what other avenues do they have?

[Kepler]

Strikes are like a strong military. They are a deterrent. If you have to use them, it's very bad for both sides. But unless they are a threat capital will just rape you whenever it wants.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

So, in your opinion, if striking isn’t the answer to better wages and working conditions, what other avenues do they have?

When management won't listen you can either suck it up and try to make the most of it, or quit and find another job. Those are your options in this country. Many non-union folks are currently exercising the latter option. So, unions are rightfully exercising their option to strike at a time when supply chains are already squeezed globally. The ball is in management's court.

[Jimjamesak]

No, unless you mean effective in severely damaging the lives of the striking workers and their families.

Striking is sort of like being married, and having two girlfriends on the side. In theory it might seem great, in actual practice it usually ends badly.

A strike is literally what created the position I work in right now.

(UPS didn’t have non-driving full time positions until after the strike in 1997)

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Will someone please think of the difficult, thankless work of Pinkerton agents back in the day and how hard it must've been to recruit good candidates for a job so hated by half the public?

/sarc