grasshopperpurp

They also get to negotiate their contracts more frequently than the public gets to vote on minimum wage increases - in practice, anyway.

The other thing I forgot to mention in my previous post - minimum wage doesn't address benefits and working conditions; though, it could affect those things if high enough (if the wages are high enough everywhere, the other things would have greater impact on where people choose to work). But, unions get to specially argue for things like breaks and better/safer equipment. Certain standards cross industries, and it makes sense to legislate those, but it makes sense for workers within their respective industries to have the ability to ask for accommodations specific to the industry/its conditions.

If I were the one paying the workers, I'd rather address their specific wants and concerns than I would the wants and needs of the working population. Of course, they (in general) would rather address neither, and it's easier for them to defeat legislation than collective bargaining.

I have a link from a 2018 study that shows the benefits of unions, but I wasn't able to find any studies that pit unionization vs min wage. I'm sorry I couldn't do better, but I'll share where I'm coming from.

Denmark, where fast-food workers make something like $20 per hour, doesn't have a minimum wage (as other posters have noted). I'll see if I can circle back to this later, but I'd guess that countries with strong union presences have higher rates of people who make more than whatever the minimum wage is for that country. Rather than a race to the bottom, and a constant need to redefine the bottom as it gets too low, you (collectively) have a seat at the table, where you can voice your wants, demands, and concerns.

Setting a minimum wage, especially in a country as large and diverse as the United States, is a pretty convoluted process. I know HN has some pretty large threads discussing the $15 min wage proposal from a few years back. A living wage is different in Seattle than it is in Boise, etc., etc..

It's convoluted, and it relies on legislation. A union says, "We're not doing shit unless we get X, Y, and Z." People hoping for a minimum wage increase beg people to consider the poor. So, setting aside the fact that one is arguing for middle-class (or upper-class) accommodations while the other is arguing for lower-class accommodations, one is arguing from a position of power while the other is asking for pity. One is saying, Your operation will grind to a halt if the compensation isn't adequate, and the other is saying, Please do the right thing, and give me enough money to live.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/97/2/495/502559...

I think we've been trained to fixate on labels, because it limits our tools to solve problems, and the people in power don't want us solving these kinds of problems. Depending on which labels you (general you) ascribe to yourself, most ideas are DOA, because they don't fit in your identity box.

Who cares if it's free market or not? A strong union presence is significantly more effective than a minimum wage. One amounts to a voice and the other amounts to table scraps. We typically associate unions as anti-free market, because the Right is pro free market and anti union, and the Left is pro regulation and pro union. I'm not talking Republicans and Democrats but Right and Left, to be clear.

I have some hope that people are tired of boxing themselves in, that they're realizing we need real solutions to real problems. It doesn't help when we gotcha each other with different political ideologies when they step outside of their boxes. If someone on the Right wants to argue that unions are Free Market, and that makes it palatable to them, high fives all around.

Side point: I think it's a bad idea to let cops work OT. I understand that preventing OT would create logistical issues, but I think they're solvable, and for the safety of everyone - including police - I think we should want officers to be as clear-headed as possible.

Can't help but think of this.

https://youtu.be/41U78QP8nBk

Separating needs and wishes would be a good start. Security and dignity would serve as nice starting points imo. Then, we could argue over the rest, but we're not there. Most people - in the US anyway - see everything as something to fight for, and if you fight for more than you need while others are unable to fight for what they need - or fight well enough to get what they need - it just means you're winning.

I agree with both your posts, but I want to share an exception. At the Post Office, almost all the smart people, who have their shit together, are carriers and clerks - the blue-collar jobs. The difference in pay between workers and management is small, and it's very easy for OT to push carriers/clerks above management. This is not a secret within the Post Office, so it only makes sense to go into management if you're shooting for upper management, which most don't reach, or you just hate physical activity or like telling people what to do.

Most of the people who go into management seem to do it reflexively. They see the word promotion and go for it. As you can imagine, they don't even get a respect upgrade, because everyone knows the cards.

Of course, the Post Office has a relatively strong union - particularly by US standards. That's the major hurdle for most blue-collar jobs. They don't even have a seat at the negotiating table. Without a coordinated voice and some power, workers take first offers. Companies can afford to pay shit wages the same way that factories during the Industrial Revolution could afford to work people to death.

What's myopic is expecting people to "do better" when they make more money (or even think they'll make more money) by doing worse.

Yes, it is! Back when I was in the middle of my discovery phase we went to a Cigar City release party for their barrel-aged stouts. It was June or July, and everyone was packed into the warehouse - sweaty and impatient, as the event was a mess. But, the Cucumber Saison was the best thing about the experience. Unfortunately, it's only good (imo) on tap.

But, to your point, even Cigar City's flagship IPA is 7.5% and way too heavy for the climate. We find it very ironic that a brewery from Michigan makes a wider, better range of refreshing beers.

I hope they're able to stay open after all of this, but my favorite brewery in the area is Flying Boat (St. Pete). They don't distribute, but their beers are consistently refreshing across styles. It's located at the end of a quiet, suburban neighborhood, so you you can have a beer outside and watch the neighbors mow their lawns.

I like the Daytime, but I don't believe I've tried the others. I'll sprinkle them in the rotation - assuming they're available in Florida. Ty!

I'll keep an eye out for it - very cool idea. Thanks for the rec!

I used to be really into discovering beers, but I usually just drink Founders All Day IPA these days, with a German Pilsner as a backup. There are only a couple months out of the year here in Florida where I'd want something that over 5%, though.

>I have to ask people how they feel about something, what their thought process is and why/how. I can't understand it. I have difficulty understanding your common moral compass. I am not joking when I tell you to explain small gestures and facial expressions. And I feel sad too. I just can't show it always. I don't need to cry or look dead serious to say something serious.

That's really rough, and I'm sorry you have to go through it. There are people out there that are understanding, and I hope you're able to find them sooner than later. I also hope you're able to find more things that bring you joy.

>I think clarity there generally helps people change their conditions more than it urges them to just accept them.

It can work either way. Any mental approach can be used for clarity and motivation or as an opiate - or something worse (justification for harm, etc.). It depends on what you emphasize. For kids in school, they're probably not going to be able to change their own conditions, particularly at school.

I've experienced both in myself. Meditation, discovery, and self reflection helped me deal with very bad work situations, but it also eventually made it clear where balance was lacking and the motivation to find better balance, which is very difficult in the US (and I'm sure most of the world).

I also think there's a big difference between wanting it for yourself and having it pushed on you. If I didn't seek it out but instead had school or work force it down my throat, I doubt I would have benefited much from it. I'm sure there are kids and adults who were ready for it anyway, so when it was forced on them, they scooped it up and ran, but I doubt that's the typical experience. Balance is different for different people, because we're all off balance in different ways, so I might need to learn a little this way or a lot that way to find balance, and you may need to lean in the opposite directions. Mindfulness is vague enough to give people room to adjust according to their needs, but in an institutional setting, it will be filtered through the balances of whoever is presenting it. Because some of these approaches helped me, I'm inclined to want other people to experience them, but I also understand that different things work for different people and that I shouldn't expect my experiences to translate to everyone else.

In the morning and early evening, there's a window where it seems like all the mockingbirds are singing from the various canopies, and it creates such delicate walls of sound. With the transitioning light, it's about as good as it gets. Once the blue jays start squawking, you know the chorus is nearing its end.

>That's a very playful way to phrase a characterization: what's the song of. I'm stealing it ;-)

Reminds me of one of my favorite books from childhood, Goose Goofs Off.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/967059.Goose_Goofs_Of...

>Maybe that's true of low labor jobs, but Employees in six figure jobs have tremendous power.

You may be right. I don't know enough about those specific dynamics to argue against it. It doesn't feel right to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. It does bring to mind professional sports in the US - Football, Basketball, and Baseball. All have player unions, and all have players that make six figures at minimum, with a fair amount making tens or millions and some making hundreds of millions. But, the NFL is famous for having the most toothless union, and, as a result, its players have the worst contracts/conditions - by a wide margin. It seems to me that unions could still help people who make six figures.

One issue I saw with the pre-Covid job market is that it's too often all or none. Either you spend a ton of time and resources getting a position that pays well and then asks you to work 60+ hours a week, or you take a job that lets you scrape by (even if those positions still ask its workers to put in a lot of hours). It's hard to find balance in either situation, and unions could help restore some of that balance to both situations.

>One of the reasons companies try to create anti-potching rules is exactly to try to get back some power.

What I've read indicates that anti-poching rules are BS. They seem to exist so that employers can control their employees without adequately compensating them. Pay for talent or let it walk.

>The unemployment rate in the US was 4% prior to covid, and even lower for tech and white collar desk jobs.

Beside the point, but the 4% figure doesn't account for gig work, underemployment, or people who have stopped trying. I believe you, and it makes sense, that white collar desk jobs would be in better shape than lower-class positions.

>This issue simply must take a back seat to bigger problems in America.

The hollowing of the middle class is as big as any issue imo, and if we prioritize building the middle class, it will aid in solving many of our other issues. As far as I can tell, nothing would help bring people out of poverty more than a strong union presence.

It is hourly. These are issues that arise most often, but the union is most concerned with wages, positions, benefits, etc.. But, all of that is negotiated in the contract, so it only comes to the forefront every few years.

The tracking of work affects future contracts, though, because management (particularly at the corporate level) is continually looking to cut hours and positions, and the union looks to justify keeping them.

In non-union jobs I've worked, those hours/positions get cut without meaningful pushback, and the workers left were forced to do more work without receiving more compensation.

I'm in a union and see similar things, but instead of using lawyers, the union would note that the contract had been violated, and management will typically agree to pay the people who would have done the work. If it's just 10 minutes, the union probably wouldn't bother with it - unless it's a pattern, and in that case, they'd add up all the 10-minute transgressions. I often disagree with the focuses of my union, but I'm still happy to support it. As many have noted, the main thing a union does is balance the leverage. Without them, the employer has all of it.

For seemingly silly rules like the ones you're describing, the union is attempting to protect jobs and hours.

I wish my union was more like some European unions I've read about, where they're involved in the decision-making process. Mine fights for wages, positions, and conditions, but management decides how things work - so long as they're not violating the agreed-upon conditions. I expect your workplace is similar. Instead of mapping out a path with management, my union reacts to the path set out by management, and I think a lot of the weird rules come as a result of reacting, rather than helping to create.

I also think this sort of collaboration would be better for companies, particularly larger companies, where there is a disconnect from how things actually work and how corporate thinks they work. We have this particularly terrible piece of machinery that corporate is obsessed with justifying. We have other machines that do its jobs better, but it does the jobs of many machines - just much worse. It just wastes a lot of time, but corporate incentiveses management to use it, and when discussing the POS machine, management cites those incentives as reasons for why the machine is actually good. When you say, "Yes, but how does wasting all this time using this particular machine help the company?" management highlights the incentives.

>A statement of what? Why is it profound?

I view it as part of the wider conversation at the time, where many artists were challenging the standards of art. The Fountain is a little more on the nose than - say - Paul Klee intentionally using imperfect lines to give his art more feeling (which brings to mind J Dilla's slightly off-beat drum patterns). On the nose works better for some people.

>I wish we didn't have to be this careful about language.

I didn't mean to say you do. I was talking about perspective, because it impacts how we experience things and can help or undermine our ability to enjoy and understand.

>This has definitely happened to me, but with books and movies.

Same - also happens a lot with music.

>you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage.

>I "know" it's worthless to me.

So long as one understands the "to me" is implicit, and so long as one understands that POV to be one of countless POV's, I don't see any issue with criticism.

For myself, if something doesn't work, and I see that it's not the work of a novice, I tend to default to, "It's not for me right now," rather than, "It's garbage." I can still discuss the reasons it doesn't work, but I find this perspective to be more helpful. It makes me more curious about the opinions of people who like it, which gives me more access to more perspectives. When something doesn't work for me, I want to know why it works for others. I don't mean this to come off as a game of semantics.

A lot of the older homes in St. Pete (FL) have detached garages with inlaw suites. Looks better imo.

I've had a similar experience from a different angle; I'm not over anyone, but I have engaged in conversations that cover politics, religion, philosophy, etc.. I avoid politicianX vs politicianY types of conversations for obvious reasons, but I think the restrictions are good for conversation - not so dissimilar from the restrictions on HN vs FB or Twitter. It forces me to find common ground, to listen to what people want and how they think things should work. I have found that people wildly diverge from party politics in this scenario. When we focus on the issue and hypothetical ways forward, we tend to agree on the big points - or agree in spirit, at least.

When we remove the labels and the expectations that come with those labels, we can have a conversation where both sides operate in good faith. Of course, we can still have those conversations with the labels, but, in practice, we tend to get distracted by them.

I had someone ask me what I thought about the riots (this was within the first couple days), and based on his background and other conversations I had with him, I knew his POV was very different from mine, but we are on friendly terms, so I engaged. Tone is important. My focus was on what we could do so that things don't reach that point, and I was empathetic toward the people he felt the worst for - business owners who lost things to the riots. And, in turn, he was empathetic to the people who suffer systematic abuses. In these scenarios, I just try to focus on understanding where the other person is coming from and to make my thoughts clear. I don't get frustrated when someone doesn't say, 'Gee, never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.'

I think a lot of people - all over the map on the big issues - are tired of conversations that center around your mob vs my mob. They're ready to have real conversations about real issues. The depth will depend upon what each person brings to the table, but on a basic level, depth is almost beside the point. It's enough to listen to an on-paper enemy and have them listen to you and walk away understanding that you're not enemies at all, that you both want what's best for your community, city, state, country, and world. We can disagree on how to get there, but if we trust the motivations of others, we can work together. We can't work toward progress with people we don't trust, which is one of the underlying issues with starting with labels.

Of course, there are people to distrust for various reasons, but if I find people who are willing to honesty discuss why they believe what they do about anything (and what they know and don't, etc.), I want to hear what they have to say. And even as I cringe at a conclusion, I want to show them respect and that I took the time to understand how they arrived. Just like anything, angle/perspective makes all the difference.

This is just where I'm at - not meant to tell people how they should behave or how well my perspective meshes with their personality and experiences.

Some more on Wanda Coleman. I'm not very familiar with her work, but this post has caused me to look closer. Ty!

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/wanda-coleman

Really enjoyed this. Thanks for posting. It doesn't directly address the abuse of the lower class. Is it assuming that a stronger middle class will lead to a system that better protects the lower class?

Quick note: according to the owner, it was a 17 y/o employee that called the cops, and the store's policy is to only call the cops in response to violence. The employee was fired, and the other employees received additional training.

Thanks so much for the excellent response!

Everyone is different, and I can only speak to my experience, but here's what worked for me:

I meditated on the differences I felt when high and not. Getting beyond the physical sensations, which are very nice, the biggest difference was that I was able to relax my mind and enjoy things when high. When I was high, I was not eating an apple and worrying about my daily/weekly/big-picture stresses. I was just eating an apple. I already knew that this was preferable on an intellectual level, but getting high allowed me to feel it - to know that it was actually like.

The first time I quit, I had not practiced enough to enact this in my non-high state. Even though I knew I wanted it, I let my thoughts hurt me. This last time, I had practiced/meditated enough to naturally be in the state of just enjoying an apple (btw - I don't just eat apples all day). Enjoying nature, taking walks, and my interests/passions also help a lot.

I don't know if that will be helpful to you, but I hope it is :^)

Thanks for asking, tomjen3!

I'm generally curious about the role of culture vs specific mechanisms (laws, regulations, etc.) and how they intermingle. I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch, but these are the questions that immediately come to mind:

How is Denmark able to limit corruption (relative to most countries)?

How is Denmark able to pay its working class such a high wage (relative to countries like the US)?

How are you able to institute regulations that are both effective but not overly burdensome?

How is Denmark able to balance a strong social-safety while promoting a productive working class/discouraging freeloaders?

What areas would you most like to see Denmark improve?

Thank you again!