submitted 1 month ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/workreform@lemmy.world

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 4 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.

😂

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 4 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.

[-] slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Sounds like every online platform ever.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 0 points 1 month ago

And I've never heard of a contract that explicitly ties non-union workers' pay to the union contact, but I'd be cheering the union guys on if they ever asked for a raise if that was the case.

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

That's actually more common than you think. It's not explicit.

My niece who works at a very popular coffee shop where some are unioned, the non-union ones get paid a bit extra and reminded on the daily about that benefit of higher pay for being non-unioned.

And my aunt works as a receptionist in a non-union hospital. Her counterparts in a union, when they went on strike and got a huge pay bump... She suddenly "mysteriously" got a pay bump aligned with it because the non-union hospital was afraid of employees unionizing (which secretly, they were).

[-] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 2 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.

[-] varjen@lemmy.world 2 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 2 points 1 month ago

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

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

Cathy do the mathy. Missed opportunity

[-] 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.

[-] 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.

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

Well 50 cents are enough for cathy to forget her mathy

[-] 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."

[-] 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 1 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] 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.

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 1 month ago

Who negotiated for Cathy? She didn't need collective bargaining, she needed to learn to stand up for herself - as every worker should.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 0 points 1 month ago

poe's law is real. Can't tell if unmarked joke, or just doesn't know anything about the history of labor or what.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025

23 points (100.0% liked)

Work Reform

12036 readers

131 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:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world