19
Cathy, do the math. (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 month ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/workreform@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

"your statistic is false because I have an anecdote" is literally the entire basis of the conservative understanding of science.

union workers don't make more on average because I earn half a dollar more.

global warming isn't happening because I brought a snowball.

vaccines cause death because my friend walked out of a clinic after a shot and got hit by a self driving tesla.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

vaccines cause death because my friend walked out of a clinic after a shot and got hit by a self driving tesla.

😂

[-] BullishUtensil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

There are two schools of thought:

Those who want as good life as possible, and Those who want to have a better life than everyone else, no matter what.

[-] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I live in California, so there was a lot of bemoaning the rising minimum wage.

“Why should someone flipping burgers earn as much as I do in a trade field?”

Mate, you should be arguing for increased wages, not trying to keep others down.

[-] auginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I got higher at position as senior. But It wasn’t until I was able to join the Union that my income doubled. Year before I joined like in 2007 manager gave me a .10 raise. This shit is real.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

"Rising waters lifts all ships", Cathy. Ever heard of it?

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

"This is my water! You go float on your own water!"

[-] mmddmm@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

It's worse.

It's "I'll have you rising my water thank you, but I refuse to concede anything that could help you."

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I love how one person cites a statistic, and another person just dismisses it as false because of their anecdotal experience.

[-] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Cathy do the mathy. Missed opportunity

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The fact that Cathy has a blue check mark proves Twitter is fucking stupid.

[-] Someone64@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Well it doesn’t mean what it used to anymore. Now you just pay for a subscription and you get it. Hell, I don’t know why you ever thought the check mark pre-Musk ever meant anything other than somebody’s identity being verified as true judging by what you’re saying... Never meant that their opinions were Twitter approved or whatever.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

The blue check went through some twists and turns. Originally it was meant as "your identity is verified", then it became a status symbol, then it had extra features attached to it. At one point the people approving them were literally taking bribes to expedite or guarantee your blue check (like personal bribes, not a payment to Twitter). And at some point along the way it somehow became a "Twitter approves" thing, because at least one person had their blue check stripped for going too far as a right wing troll (Milo Yianno-whatever). All of that pre-Muak.

Post-Musk, it's just a subscription you pay for with some extra features and there's now a different checkmark for corporate or government entities that merely verifies their identity.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Net income is a small factor. One should compare the total package because the unions are usually way ahead of the non-union.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My union gives me benefits that are included in my $30/month dues and I’m not even full time.

[-] varjen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Together we bargain, alone we beg.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

This needs to be on a fucking t-shirt.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Cathy is a dumbass. Don't be like Cathy.

[-] ExistentialCrispies@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Well 50 cents are enough for cathy to forget her mathy

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

When somebody insists, "X doesn't matter because my salary depends on X," it's time to stop beating your head against a wall to teach them anything.

[-] Alaknar@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Nah, nah, you see - I had an excellent breakfast today. Clearly that means world hunger doesn't exist! Checkmate, leftist!

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union? Is there a limit to that, or can companies just say, "Anyone who joins a union will be paid minimum wage." Ofc with at-will employment they can always just fire you, but like, if you think about it it's pretty fucked up right?

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the union has other benefits that more then make up for the 50 cents, e.g. better medical, vacation, or whatever.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I get that, I'm just highlighting the potential for abuse. Or rather, that it's fucked up in the first place.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I mean of course it's fucked up of course there's room for abuse. That's capitalism. The point of capitalism is abuse. The point of capitalism is the exploitation of the worker. In essence that's the problem here. You keep asking why are things aren't Fair, the answer is capitalism it's inherently unfair. There are no rules in a capitalist Society to keep things Fair. The point of capitalism is to make things unfair.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm well aware of that. As I said, "Ofc with at-will employment they can always just fire you, but like, if you think about it it’s pretty fucked up right?"

There are so many replies that don't get it. 1 2 3. You're explaining to me how it's "obviously" fucked up (which I already acknowledged), but most of the replies are telling me that it isn't fucked up at all - maybe you should try responding to those people instead of to me.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

They're not trying to tell you it's not fucked up. They're just surprised you're stuck on the most Elemental aspect and are moving on to the next aspects. Everyone knows it's fucked up and has moved on to the next topic. Fundamental truth to the world aren't something we spend a lot of time talking about.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Are reading the same replies?

sure, but whether or not they know it they have caved to the union’s demands by doing that

You think this demonstrates that "everyone knows it's fucked up?" Because it sounds a lot to me like they're saying it isn't fucked up at all, and is in fact, "caving to the union's demands."

I wish that when my critics attacked me from completely opposite angles, they spent half as much time criticizing each other for having 100% opposite positions on why I'm supposedly wrong.

[-] Sheldan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't think it's preferential pay. It's just that they pay more, somebody in the union also can get more money than the union minimum. Somebody not part of the union can get less or more than somebody in the union, just not below the union minimum.

It's not that if they join the union that they get less money. The union + 0.5 just means that they earn better than the minimum and the employer gives them more than the minimum, because people like that.

At least that's how it works where I live and union contracts are common.

Not everyone part of the union has to get exactly the union minimum, it's just that you cannot legally get less. People might not be part of the union but they still fall under the union contract negotiated by the union, because it applies to the entire company.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

My contract states that we make $0.50/hr above union wages

You may be right, but it certainly sounds like she's claiming it's contractual, explicit, and general policy.

[-] Sheldan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I don't read it like that. The sentence just says that their pay rate has that amount, not that it is connected to them not being a union member.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Who's "we" then, if not non-union members?

[-] Sheldan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement.

You are thinking way too much into that statement, the way I described is the way it works here, and that seems much more likely tbh.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement.

That's literally what I'm saying.

[-] Sheldan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

You are saying it's union members vs non union members being separated.

And it's not.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

The union members are included in the "we" that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than... union members?

[-] Sheldan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

The contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

I can't tell if that's a yes or a no to the question of whether the "we" that gets paid more than union members includes union members.

[-] Sheldan@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Yes, because the union contract defines the absolute minimum of the rate, and union members can also earn more.

This will be my last response, it's frustrating, these are basic principles of how these contracts work and I'm tired of explaining it.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

So their contract states that they'll be paid $0.50/hr more than the wages they negotiated in their contract. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

[-] sfu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

Why does everything have to be sooo left or right?

Some unions are good, some are bad.

[-] Vreyan31@reddthat.com 0 points 1 month ago

"Why do Unions have to be considered Left?"

Tell me you have no idea about the history of labor rights without telling me...

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago

Not left or right, it's up and down. Only one union is getting murderers and rapists off the hook. The rest are objectively good.

[-] sfu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

No idea what you are referring to.

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago

Yep, I figured as much

[-] sfu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

A union getting rapists and murders off the hook is not what the image is about.

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago

You do realize I was responding to someone else right? Like this isn't a direct response to the image. There is context that you clearly didn't see or understand.

[-] sfu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

You replied to me, so I assumed you were responding to me. And I guess I still haven't seen another message that you would have been responding to. Just a mix up.

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

My bad for sounding rude.

[-] sfu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

Its all good, no biggie.

this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)

Work Reform

11698 readers
41 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
seeCseas@lemmy.world
tintory@lemm.ee
TinMod@lemmy.world