It wasn't your boss telling you how to do that though. The direct power imbalance is pretty different, I think.
The GGP seemed to think that there was something particularly bad about the detailed six page instructions. But the GP correctly pointed out they do the same thing in regular government elections (to milk as many voters as they can).
Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.
>The outrage is about them telling you to vote no.
Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to).
If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment!
Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking.
If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.
There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear:
> Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark no? Thanks, amazon.
We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does.
If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?
After an explanation that you clearly understood, I'm not sure why you're still complaining about conversational opacity.
Edit: I did get some completely separate, independent arguments, if that’s what you mean, but I’m saying I got no explanation of the original comment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26263369
There were others that gave different reasons, but none that made any sense of the "OMG six pages of instructions! Horrible!"
Imagine a handy guide from your bank that included instructions for how to wire money to its author.
Second paragraph of response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26265969
It seems possible that Amazon may not have properly accounted for that.
I’m still waiting for the Teachers’ Union to endorse the Libertarian party one day soon -I’m sure it’s gonna happen.
If you think they do not represent them, then maybe the solution is to develop better union structures that are more democratic and representative.
But by and large, teachers do not support the Libertarian party and instead favour the Democratic party, quite heavily in fact. So why is it wrong that their alignment follows their base?
However, using that line of thinking people voluntarily join a company too.
Often to work for a company with union rep one HAS to join, whether one agrees or not, so it’s not entirely voluntary in a strict sense.
All this said, I do believe Amazon is treating their warehouse workers unfairly and they deserve pushback though I admit I do not favor bringing in a Union due to my past member experiences with them.
In contrast, for the union, even if you were forced to join, you'd still have democratic control over the union itself.
So there is a big difference. It's the difference between choosing in which dictatorship to live and living in a (sometimes direct!) democracy.
A choice between starvation and warehouse job at amazon where you’re penalized for taking a bathroom break is not a choice made freely.
To repurpose a famous Churchill quote "Unions are the worst solution to labour equality except all the others that have been tried before."
They are indeed not a cure, but the cure to the symptoms we are seeing is nothing short of a total overhaul of the capitalist system, which is both not politically feasible, and requires something like unions to make politically feasible to begin with. That is because by definition such a changé even if it was in the larger interests of society wouldn't be in the interests of capital.
But that brings us right back to my original point: if my choice is starvation or $5/hour, I'm going to take the $5, but that's a coercive choice. I was forced into it by the threat of death. Now explain to me how that's different from holding a gun to someone and forcing them to work? You didn't determine the value of my labor, you determined that I don't want to die.
So an attempt to increase the cost of labor (minimum wages, credentialing/protectionism) is an attempt to extract the true value of labor, even though the threat of death-by-starvation remains. Like a previous commenter said - unless we want to radically re-org our society - that threat of death is irreducible. For example, if every person was granted enough arable land to subsist off of by the state, we'd see a very different labor market.
Exploitation or at the minimum the potential for it exists in every economic system. It’s not a feature exclusive to capitalism as much as people dream it to be so. Even in a barter economy, can I not take advantage of another worker? Of course I can!
Workers unions in socialist countries were basically illegal, there was only one legally allowed union pretty much. In the Soviet Union the role of labour unions were mostly for the state to resolve interpersonal problems, and in theory to allow the state to receive feedback from employees to optimize production, but not in practice due to dysfunctions because of the broken political and economic framework.
So it is no wonder that unionized teachers would oppose the Libertarian Party, libertarians want children to get a good education and allow parents to choose the type of education their child gets, taking away large amounts of power from Teachers who believe they should supplant parents and "know better".
This has never been more clear than in the Age of COVID where the hypocrisy of Teachers and their union has been on full display with their refusal to teacher (aka their job)
The three Rs are kind of incidental.
Now to be clear, we do need to grow up to be functional adults, but public schooling is not the only one option to achieve that.
It's a sneaky name designed to make you conflate the two.
Every parent has a voucher, that voucher can be redeemed at a school of their choice, could be the public school, could be a private school, etc.
School vouchers can easily lead toward incentivizing minimizing education spending.
Oh also, private schools are often not held to the same standards of avoiding religious teaching as public schools are (by virtue of being a public service). The result is that the vouchers can end up funding religious education, but that's a whole other can of worms.
It is completely false to charatice a school choice program as "more choices for the rich" as the rich already have those choices, poor and middle class people have zero choice because their money has already been taken to fund the public schools. redirecting this money to better more efficient systems is preferred and gives the poor and middle class choice that is normally reserved for the wealthy
>> This voucher results in funds being diverted from public schools
yes, that is by design and the desired outcome of libertarians.
>>Oh also, private schools are often not held to the same standards of avoiding religious teaching as public schools are (by virtue of being a public service). The result is that the vouchers can end up funding religious education, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Another red herring and strawman, but I (and most libertarian) are fine with the limited amount of religious education that would result from school choice if it means dismantling the failed and unethical public school system we have today.
I am sure you are a huge supporter of the Public School System and see nothing systemically wrong with it. We disagree with this position
I do actually see a lot wrong with the school system, I think the fact that education is largely funded from local property taxes goes strongly against most ideals around American opportunity and that the highly localized management means that a cartel of local officials can run a system into the ground with only limited options available to the DoEd to address is quite problematic.
There's a bunch of things wrong with the school system, certainly, but I can't see how partial privatization would do anything but exacerbate the issues.
Nothing I say will change anyone's minds on this topic, it is one of those things where no amount of data or facts will change minds. You either believe in a unionized Public school that only fails because we do not spend enough money, or you recognize that giving a monopoly over education to a group of people based on geography will always result in bad outcomes no matter how much money you spend.
While Libertarian and Authoritarian do exist on a spectrum in some ways, you are either on the Libertarian side of that spectrum or the Authoritarian Side.
Some of us see the need for aspects of regulation and frameworks, others prefer the more idealist semi pastoralist view of the world. I’m more in the Johnson camp ;)
I'm not so sure about that.
I have strong libertarian (small 'l') leanings, specifically that government should stay the hell out of people's lives and bodies as much as possible. And that humans should be free to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others doing the same.
But that's where I part ways with the Libertarian (big 'L') Party.
Because I do believe that, human nature being what it is, that the government does have a role to play in helping those who are disadvantaged in our society.
What's more, I believe that government has a role to play in evening the playing field and attempting to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in our society.
The Libertarian Party doesn't believe in any of that, so I have no interest in supporting them.
I'd note that privatized everything (not saying you support that) isn't libertarian at all. Rather it's anarcho-capitalism[0], which would completely destroy our society.
While the implementation of the idea that minorities should be protected against the "tyranny of the majority" by the government has been pretty poor in the US, it has improved somewhat in recent years.
I look forward to that progress continuing. And the Libertarian Party won't be the one's that help us do that.
It's a very revealing tell that this is even being asked.
Generally, why do Libertarians seem to act as if Rest of World owes them, but relationships are solely for their personal benefit with no reciprocity of any kind?
I’m also not surprised how Amazon wants their members to vote either.
That seems weird.
And unions once established have their own balance of power, and that's not in favor of the individual.
The literal purpose of a corporation in all its varieties, for profit, non-profit, co-op, S Corp, C Corp etc. is to pool the resources of its owners and serve their interests.
Unions are just another type of corporation.
Their interests may align to mine even if they're doing it for their own benefit. And if the union's interests don't align to mine, then I'm better off without the union and with the employer.
I don't think that's a hypothetical scenario, either.
For example if the union wants to pay by seniority and the employer wants to pay by results, and I have low seniority but good results, who am I better aligned with?
For example you morally support allowing new people to enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of more established people and they vote for credentialism to restrict supply.
Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!
Well... until you start looking at advancing into upper management and realize that seniority-based hiring decisions and credentialism are very often in the best interest of the established managers and higher-ups.
In most large companies, the people making hiring decisions in upper management probably don't want to lower barriers of entry for their fields. They want to hire people who look like them, who have gone to the same schools as them and worked the same jobs as them, and they want to set up a performance system that makes it hard for them to get fired or demoted.
It's easy to make the mistake of thinking of corporations like they're some kind of impartial oiled machine, but the reality is that they're made of people who are just as biologically prone as anyone else is to forming cliques and gatekeeping their own jobs.
Consensus-building and making of viable compromises has always been part of governance, any institution comprises people with diverse, sometimes competing interests.
That said, the usual workplace conflict between employee and management is about working conditions and promotion. And for that it's useful to have a paid witness on your side, because HR is always working for the employer.
Codes of conduct are fashionable these days, but at the end of the day they are upheld by HR, which will always work in favour of the company.
But I'm not sure the union is going to be on my side. I know that's their pitch, but lots of people claim they want to act on my behalf - I'd be a fool to trust most of them!
This just isn't true.
If I'm a junior worker in a union with a pay-by-seniority agreement because the majority of workers are senior, then they aren't on my side are they? They're on the side of the majority senior workers. They're on the side against me and my aspirations to get paid more.
If you aren't, check the agreements the union has with you and your employer. These are contracts with enforceable terms and are upheld.
Stop and think this through for just a second.
Try this thought experiment:
If I want dogs in the office and my colleague wants dogs banned, you’re telling me you think the union will simultaneously negotiate for both our positions with our employer?
Does not compute. It is not possible for them to be on everyone's side.
Why the rudeness?
I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer.
You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.
You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be politically astute so I returned the favour!
> I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer.
But my employer pays me. And they're an essential part of the agreement. The union wants me to pay them, and they're optional, so yes I expect them to do a better job aligning to me otherwise why bother with them? What is the point joining a union, lending them what little power you have, as well as actually giving them money, if they aren't very aligned?
My current work negotiation is me and my employer. I have what I want and my employer has what they want. Why involve a third party, who may want something completely different, possibly morally offensive to me? Why do that?
I guess you're going to say 'because the union acts in your interest'. Well, let me tell you - there's a whole world of people out there offering to 'act in my interest' in return for something. Most of them are charlatans. Beware.
No, I did not. If you can't be bothered to keep track of whom you're talking to, I'm done with you.
The person I was replying to said it. You asked why I was rude to them.
Unions complicate an otherwise cut and dry relationship of your employer trying to extract value from you and you trying to extract value from your employer until you reach an equilibrium.
What would an organisation that serves your interests look like?
Why don't you try to start one - and see how corporate management responds?
Why should I? You can start an organisation if you want, but you'd need to argue why it's in my interest if you want me to lend what little individual power I have. And the employer can present their arguments as well, which is fine. But if you think I'm going to trust you've got my interests at heart just because you're not my employer, then you're delusional. Why should I trust you more than them?
No, unions are not just another type of corporation. They are a very special type of corporation: One which is exempt from anti-trust laws.
What you’re failing to understand is that while there are different types if corporations as legal constructs, with differing advantages and disadvantages mostly related to their overall tax liability, a corporation in the general sense is just a group of people come together for a common goal. Usually that goal is profits. You join up with 5 people putting in 20% of the money, you are entitled to 20% of the future proceeds.
So if you take a distribution of $1000, all other shareholders holding equal shares, they must also take a distribution of $1000, or equal to their share of equity in the company.
A union has a different structure, different legal privileges and burdens, and different goals, but fundamentally it is a group of people with a common goal. I think where they tend to fall down is that unions can grow so large that the power is so diffused amongst individual members that even people in unions may come to resent the union more than their employer, particularly if they are always in the minority on union issues. In which case they might find they are actually more in alignment with their employers rather than their union leaders.
That does not violate anti-trust law in the US. It is not a special exemption the union has, it doesn't violate anti-trust law in the US even if there isn't a union involved, for employees to "collude" to get higher wages.
Or if there are such laws I'm not aware of, feel free to share. But I gather you think it ought to be illegal? Why?
Serve the interests of the majority... and even like a corporation sometimes they don't even manage to do that.
Human organizations kinda stink sometimes, although I wouldn't really endorse another kind...
This becomes more complex as you go from small business to startup with investors to a larger business, but the principles remain the same.
Nobody starts a business to have others dictate to them what to do with their business, and to be told whose interests they should really be serving. I’m not sure why you would expect that to change just because the company in question is valued at over a trillion.
Should employers be able to make an anti-union case? I'd have to say yes on free speech grounds, but I'd also say that they really should be subject to more restrictions on what kind of anti-union organizing they can do than the union should be on what kind of pro-union organizing they can do. Yes, that's deliberately giving the union an advantage -- but, again, management has the advantage of being the side that literally writes the checks.
> unions once established have their own balance of power, and that's not in favor of the individual.
I mean, that's kind of the point, in a way, isn't it? The employee/employer power balance is almost always weighted toward the employer, because the employee alone is one individual and the employer is a corporation. Employees acting as a collective are theoretically on more equal footing. That doesn't guarantee every single individual employee will support every collective action the union makes.