HR rule : 196

[-] hotdogcharmer@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago

It always blows my mind that people would get offended by something like this. Like, who cares? You're going to go get teacher because someone you barely know said something that is honestly barely even mean?

This presumably didn't happen, but similar things do! People just get upset over nothing, it's wild.

[-] cRazi_man@europe.pub 14 points 3 days ago

The news regularly has stories like this.

Sorry I can't find the BBC article, but here's an example.

[-] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 46 points 3 days ago

eyes of a killer. stone cold, will go have breakfast directly after without even mentioning it.

[-] theUwUhugger@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago

I could fix her

[-] balsoft@lemmy.ml 41 points 3 days ago

Damn girl, have some worker solidarity

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 34 points 3 days ago

There's solidarity and there is suffering from unwilling colleagues that increase your workload. Covering someone who is struggling is fine. But someone who refuses to be productive is something else.

Those also were punished in the glorious Soviet past, dear mister ml. Worker solidarity did not extend to those.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Yeah part of solidarity is making it so others aren't always having to carry your slack.

[-] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago

oh, I fucking hate, how soviets cultivated the "solidarity". Nowhere else you'd see as much crippled old people, as in post-ussr countries. Well, that's the pay for the forsed progress and industrialisation. "Догнать и перегнать" (to catch up and surpass), as they said. Tbf, they did it, because of how harshly the world ostracised soviet countries literally from the start tho. But saviets where the ones with the agressve "world revolution" propaganda.

What a fucking disasterous topic, i regret writing any of this, but i needed to vent, sorry.

[-] balsoft@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

Refusing to be productive in a capitalist society is a valid thing to do. The proper solution is not being an asshole to that person but fighting the common enemy (who the HR represents; so I concede this particular coworker is also in the wrong).

Also ml is multi-sectarian, and I oppose and even despise some particular Bolshevik policies while acknowledging USSRs achievements.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 10 points 3 days ago

No, it's not. Work still has to be done. The world depends on people doing things to keep each other alive

The founding principle of Marxism comes from observing worker exploitation. The work isn't the problem, it's necessary. The fact that workers don't get the fruits of their labor is the problem, and it has all sorts of knock on effects

You should work at a maintainable pace. You shouldn't overshadow or underperform compared to your peers, because that fucks the workers over. You do have to keep the business afloat, otherwise you fuck the workers over.

You should seek to organize. Ideally, you should do work that improves the world or the lives of others, but sometimes you don't have even that luxury

[-] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Work still has to be done. The world depends on people doing things to keep each other alive

That's true in a general sense; but it's not an ethical imperative to do more work than required in a capitalist society. You are paid either by the hour or by the month; if you do more than what it takes to not be fired, the excess is stolen by the capitalist. If everyone both did less and consumed less, on purpose and in coordination, it would be a "soft" general strike, which would go a long way towards overthrowing capitalism.

You do have to keep the business afloat, otherwise you fuck the workers over.

This is once again technically true but also the exact same argument used to stop people from unionizing or fighting for their rights. You are not responsible for the business failing; the business owner is. If they didn't steal excess value, you could do the same work and the business would be afloat.

You should seek to organize. Ideally, you should do work that improves the world or the lives of others, but sometimes you don’t have even that luxury

On that I 100% agree.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 2 days ago

That's true in a general sense; but it's not an ethical imperative to do more work than required in a capitalist society. You are paid either by the hour or by the month; if you do more than what it takes to not be fired, the excess is stolen by the capitalist. If everyone both did less and consumed less, on purpose and in coordination, it would be a "soft" general strike, which would go a long way towards overthrowing capitalism.

That's not how any of this works. This reads like voting with your wallet. Your can't do collective action alone

You can't go on strike on your own, you're just forcing others to cover for you until you get fired. You can't slow work on your own, you're just not pulling your weight and forcing others to pick up the slack

You know what they call it when everyone independently consumes less and works less? Market conditions.

It's already happening now, and companies will never think "what if I paid my workers fairly and skimmed only a sustainable amount off the top...". No, they will learn the wrong lesson every single time, because it's their job to do so

The organization part is not optional.

[-] cepelinas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

One question. Are you from a post-soviet country?

[-] balsoft@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Yes, born in Russia.

[-] cepelinas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

So the one which was the best off in the USSR...

[-] balsoft@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah, that's true, there's been plenty of sketchy shit in USSR, bordering on racism at times (especially during stalinism). There was also of course flagrant homophobia, transphobia and puritanism (again, especially during stalinism).

Still the sheer amount of good changes for the working people of the world can not be overlooked.

You can pretty much thank USSR for your universal suffrage, socialized healthcare & education, 8-hour work day, 5-day work week, and almost all other labor rights.

And, while the expansionist policies of the early union had their drawbacks for sure, the improvements in material conditions of workers in occupied territories are hard to argue with.

[-] cepelinas@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago

I mean also people getting sent to siberia wasn't fun.

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

i need a job in HR so I can high five those people

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 days ago

Honestly, that applies to me and I think it's funy.

[-] snoons@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 days ago

I wish I had co-workers like that. Unfortunately they're all LIVE LAUGH LOVE*

*some exceptions apply

[-] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 days ago

[removed by mod]

[-] tgirlschierke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

i'm like half sure i saw the same caption on another platform (either tumblr or threads)

[+] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -13 points 3 days ago

You think it maybe also had something to do with the blackface?

[-] lime@feddit.nu 34 points 3 days ago

...that's mud

[-] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

It being mud has no bearing on whether or not it's blackface, just fyi

[-] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 3 days ago

fair

[-] Crewman@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 days ago

They're Dutch, it's a part of their culture!

[-] Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

I have Dutch friends who were legitimately terrified that Zwarte Piet would kidnap them and take them to Spain.

[-] zout@fedia.io 10 points 3 days ago

That was up until the eighties I think, the character was later rebranded to be more friendly. Which makes you think that if they can do that, they could also rebrand to not wearing black face, but I guess you need to be right wing to understand why that's not possible.

[-] Visstix@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

And the funny part is that the original zwarte piet doesn't even have blackface, they just had some soot stains on their face like they do now. But apparently it's "tradition"

[-] zout@fedia.io 3 points 3 days ago

The original is the Krampus. But I really don't care, if you scratch of the veneer of any tradition, most of the time you'll find that it isn't really that old, and has changed quite a lot in the years. At least in my area there are a lot of these "traditions" that weren't around when I was a kid in the 1970's an 80's, and they all amount to some degree to people wanting to be antisocial.

[-] Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

They did rebrand him as "sooty Pete", a white dude with soot on his face (black patches instead of full blackface). At least a lot of people do that. But obviously you still get a lot of people clinging doggedly to their ~~racism~~ tradition.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago

It does look like it though. And they are painting a picture akin to"You can't say anything these days!"

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

I genuinely thought that was part of "the joke".

[-] lime@feddit.nu 0 points 3 days ago

yeah :/

[-] RedStrider@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

196

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

Other rules