09094920394314

Posting this here, because I realize this poster is literally spreading FUD: you can not be fired for not joining a union in a unionized shop:

http://gotfired.com/blog/2016/04/can-i-be-fired-for-not-join...

>You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.

So you want to protect your free choice...by taking way the free choice of others to organize? For fear of something which does not happen because there is already a law against it?

http://gotfired.com/blog/2016/04/can-i-be-fired-for-not-join...

>You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.

What exactly is "my attitude" please?

And good on you, others will either agree or disagree with you. But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? And with whom would you...organize to stop union efforts?

> How about we change the laws so that people who support the union are free to join, and people who DON'T are free to leave?

>If unions are so great, then they should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to join them.

If you can convince enough people, you can? But if people organize against you, be a good loser. Nobody except the very hardcore is saying:

>If private property is so great, then everyone who wants to have it should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to accomodate them

to argue against private property or capitalism. But the same social contract that allows for private property can decide that if you want to have its benefits (e.g. the aforementioned private property) can recognize and protect the hard won rights of unions and workers. Stealing a bit of rhetoric, those who don't like it can go to some warlord ridden backwater, I hear there you are free to not follow any social contract if you are up to it

> Just to make clear, I am not on either ones side here. Striking is a right in Italy and Germany, so the employees sure can do it. But the reality is how it is as well :/

I hope I didn't come off as aggressive. While I am very much on the sides of the workers here as a self identified socialist (since I run a company I don't really get much cred from most socialist in-groups though), I try not to be blind to market realities and alternative view points

>Not really. Germany is small enough that it doesn't really matter if you get it from a German or a Polish warehouse (that sits directly behind the border). (Amazon Prime deliveries and similar stuff excluded - but that's a very small percentage)

Margins matter at that scale, otherwise amazon would have never opened warehouses in Germany (they never did in switzerland AFAIK). Same thing with the "small percentage" of prime: anecdotaly, if I can't buy it with prime, I don't bother with amazon, because then I can just support some independent store. It won't affect people too much, but it is definetely not a no brainer.

>You don't fire anyone. You just don't invest there any more to keep up with your xx% growth every year. You just do that behind the border.

True. But then you also have politics to think about...without investing, you don't have as much indirect political clout.

If anything ,while the most likely outcome is what you describe, there will be the next time the question of an "amazon tax" comes up and without being an employer, amazon will have to invest more into lobbying, which might work but fuel resentment...nothing ever stays still, unless people just accept the status quo

It's still FUD, it just means some unions are corrupt. Or maybe more whataboutism.

Imagine if we all (and not just the left) talked about companies the same way we talk about unions, using the countless examples of managerial abuse, wage theft etc. as examples. Would you say that would be reasonable?

And preemptively, this is not a "both sides" question either. Everything is grey, but there are shades of grey. And while neither unions nor companies are perfect, both are at the same time vital to how things work right now and not above criticism. They both are definitely preferable to 1820s style enterprises for example, but worse than the Culture.

Which is why Foodora and Uber are seriously pissed in Germany/UK about the resident Gigsters unionizing

(source in german)

http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2017-04/crowdworking-click...

As a human who is also an employer, I take great second hand pleasure in seeing people refuse to take that shit

And so will either increase prices or slow down delivery. Also, I don't know wether Italy has sane strike laws or not, but in Germany amazon would not be allowed to just fire the strikers, and there is and was non-negligible PR fallout from the strikes.

Just to present the full picture. In the end, either there will be a price found. But I'd say good for Italian workers for making the labour market more of a market

>Pay transparency detrimental to you, as an individual. To live a happy life, you must figure out your own purpose and use your mind to achieve it. Happiness is not the result of income, nor is money required to be happy. Your happiness is a function of the achievement of the values you have defined for yourself. If you allow the income of others to influence your decision making, you are only hurting yourself. You should not leave a job that is satisfying in its essentials - that is, it fits with your purpose, you do meaningful work - merely because you discover someone else makes more; that would only hurt you. You don't know - can't know - their purpose, their value, their preferences, that lead to their income and work environment.

How about we let people judge that themselves? It's everyones job not to hurt themselves, so how about we make sure everyone has as much information as the most powerful in the room. Otherwise, let's make the top 1% "happier" and impose a 100% tax on all income more than 3 standard deviations from the median eh?

//edit: I saw in another comment, you talked about pay transparency not making the wages rise. It might now. But then it will cause people to quit jobs where they are not valued, increasing their happiness.

//edit2: also, you sidestepped the question. Humans are not as unique as random numbers, amazon goods are not all the same. If there are 5 brands of battery, we don't say it is immoral to share the prices and compare because "each brand carries its unique and special history". It's a battery, 5V, X watt, Y $. Likewise, if I get hired to design a product, they don't care about my extensive research in japanese mud ball culture. I'm a project designer, education X, working hours Y, pay Z, expected outcome for the company Z*(1+some positive number).

>The problem with pay transparency is not that it doesn't work; the problem is that the entire concept is immoral and evil. How much money you make is, properly, strictly a conversation between the parties in the transaction.

so how does this differ from any other good/transaction where we DO share prices? Why is it not immoral and evil that I can compare prices between amazon and walmart?

All the problem you describe can be resolved by employers either justifying themselves to their employees like adults, paying more, or the employees quitting. All of which are free market actions, the first of which having the added bonus of humanising the relationship. The only downside: you can't just treat your employees like "human resources" and get away with it as easily. You need to treat them as people

Sounds like the only benefit is keeping A in his delusion, instead of informing him via a competitive market that his skill is not as high as he thought he'd be. Oh, and saving the company money. And making it easier to have private favorites.

If someone is in an executive position, and something like you describe happens, it is their fucking job description to resolve the problem. Meanwhile, by having open salaries, everyone has the information needed for a competitive market. Including college graduates, who get screwed over routinely

//Edit: Oh, and if A ever DOES need to find a new job and advertises his "delusional" skills, either him or his next company will feel the pain from the lack of price information here

What you, CGP Grey and other people tend to not say is that this is not a deterministic outcome of democracy at all. Even the second link you posted has some exceptions in the article . The book that the video is based on (the Dictators handbook, great read) contains some ways out of it dilemma. It shows how and why democracy is more efficient at creating wealth for a bigger number of people, and so there is a strong market pressure towards a free society. These forces can be smothered (e.g. by making pessimistic youtube videos because those get viral views) or tapped into and strengthened (by offering counter points, becoming active in your local political sphere etc.) Culture shapes us and is shaped by us. This is not a game where fate is a player (oh, and as a side note for those that need it, it is also in your personal monetary interest to become involved in politics, even if you do not get corrupt. Knowledge and connections are power, even without corrupt behaviour)

Sure, just give me definition of factually wrong and I'build it for you:)

Less snarky: not really

And lack of neural plasticity And power leakage And overheating And no self repair

First and last one are the most pertinent here, but there is probably more I can't think of of the top of my head

The wikipedia link mainly mentions crypto-methods...how exactly is a non-engineer supposed to end to end verify this? If you use paper ballots you can simply sit down and count...heck not even that basic math if you get creative with sorting

Not worthless. This has some clear assumptions on what holds. He looks at individuals playing a certain game, with no outside information. What the parent describes is two games: 1. Prisoners dilemma between each "slave" and the "master" 2. The actual tournament

except around 4 $ in transaction fees