4
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Danterious@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Danterious@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
2
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Danterious@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world
1

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2607190

This isn't directly advertised as left-wing content but has a focus on social change and philosophically has implications related to anarchism.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Voluntarily chopping off your arm. (To replace it with something else)

44
submitted 1 year ago by Danterious@lemmy.world to c/canvas@toast.ooo

Someone wrote Chapter 1 on the board but didn't put any words so I thought I could get it started but I need to go to sleep so can someone continue please.

Thanks.

1
3

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2607190

This isn't directly advertised as left-wing content but has a focus on social change and philosophically has implications related to anarchism.

2

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/2356612

Front-line grocery store workers at Metro, who are into their third day of a work stoppage, vowed on Monday to stay off the job until they get a fair deal from the company.

More than 3,000 store workers at 27 Metro locations in the Greater Toronto Area began strike action on Saturday after rejecting a tentative collective agreement reached last week between the company and their union — Unifor.

"We want the company to come back and give us a fair deal," Tammy Laporte told CBC News outside Metro Danforth.

"We're on strike because we want fairness from our company. We want Metro to pay their workers what they're worth and we'll stand out here as long as it takes."

Unifor Local 414 represents some 3,700 grocery store workers across the GTA.

Unifor said stores affected by the strike include those in Toronto, Brantford, Orangeville, Milton, Oakville, Brampton, North York, Islington, Willowdale, Mississauga, Etobicoke, Newmarket and Scarborough.

Laporte, a produce and fruit clerk, who has worked with Metro for 25 years, said "wages is the top issue" for the workers.

"We want more money. They make great profits and we want to share in the benefits," she said.

Another worker with the company for 25 years, Mike Labatt, said workers are "fighting for what they believe in and what they need to get by."

He said some workers are forced to go to food banks because they cannot afford to buy groceries.

"We're not being able to buy the food we want from the grocery stores we work in, right? So why not give us what we need so we can survive paying rent, paying our bills, groceries," Labatt said.

Metro says it remains committed to bargaining process In a statement on Monday, Metro Inc. said it remains committed to the bargaining process.

Marie-Claude Bacon, Metro's vice president of public affairs and communications, said the company "worked constructively with the union and the employees' bargaining committee" and reached a mutually satisfactory agreement that they unanimously recommended to employees.

"It provided significant increases for our employees over the four years of the collective agreement in addition to improved pension and benefits, building on working conditions that are already among the highest in the industry which were negotiated with this union," Bacon wrote in the statement.

According to Bacon, the proposed wage increases are above the inflation rate for 2023 and future increases are above the projected inflation rate.

"Every part-time employee who wants a full-time position has opportunities. For example, in the last two years alone, we've opened up a number of full-time positions and we haven't been able to fill them all from our part-time ranks. Even today, we have full-time positions posted that part-time employees can apply for," Bacon said.

On Saturday the company said it was "extremely disappointed" the employees rejected the agreement even though the union bargaining committee unanimously recommended it to its members.

Metro Ontario said the 27 stores will be closed for the duration of the strike, but pharmacies will remain open.

2

A.I. company Worldcoin has rolled out 1,500 Orbs to more than 35 cities in a bid to create digital identities for the world's citizens.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

This is my answer in another comment on a different post.

I only heard about them recently too so I might give an incomplete answer but the general gist is that mutual aid is when a group of people band together and share whatever resources and services that they have to offer to other people in that group.

So if someone made an excess of vegetables in their garden they would give that to others in the group with expecting anything immediately in return in the hopes that when their fence breaks down and they request help someone with knowledge on how to fix it would be willing to come help.

As for finding mutual aid groups I’ve seen mutualaid.wiki and mutual aid hub but I’m not sure of what else there is.

39

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2258784

I've been looking through some US and EU labor data and I have started to wonder why don't more of the working poor join local mutual aid groups instead of staying at their likely shitty jobs or relying on charities?

This is a study on the labour distribution in the US among the working poor

On table 4 it shows that there are about 5,812,000 people that are classified as working poor ( Its says number in thousands so I multiplied the number given by 1000) and that alot of those jobs are in essential services like making food or providing support to others.

Similar diversity is show in the EU as well

So if most of these people decided to stop working at their current job and instead bring that those skills to a mutual aid network wouldn't they still get most of the resources they need because other specialists would be there to help them and also live a generally more happy life?

Also the reason why I am saying instead of charities is because charities become less effective the more people request from them because they have limited resources to share and also mainly supported by wealthy people that can unilaterally give and take away support.

Whilst mutual aid networks can take the diversity that more people joining the network gives them and use it to offer more services to other people in that community.

This seems like a no brainer so what am I missing?

40

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2258784

I've been looking through some US and EU labor data and I have started to wonder why don't more of the working poor join local mutual aid groups instead of staying at their likely shitty jobs or relying on charities?

This is a study on the labour distribution in the US among the working poor

On table 4 it shows that there are about 5,812,000 people that are classified as working poor ( Its says number in thousands so I multiplied the number given by 1000) and that alot of those jobs are in essential services like making food or providing support to others.

Similar diversity is show in the EU as well

So if most of these people decided to stop working at their current job and instead bring that those skills to a mutual aid network wouldn't they still get most of the resources they need because other specialists would be there to help them and also live a generally more happy life?

Also the reason why I am saying instead of charities is because charities become less effective the more people request from them because they have limited resources to share and also mainly supported by wealthy people that can unilaterally give and take away support.

Whilst mutual aid networks can take the diversity that more people joining the network gives them and use it to offer more services to other people in that community.

This seems like a no brainer so what am I missing?

34

I've been looking through some US and EU labor data and I have started to wonder why don't more of the working poor join local mutual aid groups instead of staying at their likely shitty jobs or relying on charities?

This is a study on the labour distribution in the US among the working poor

On table 4 it shows that there are about 5,812,000 people that are classified as working poor ( Its says number in thousands so I multiplied the number given by 1000) and that alot of those jobs are in essential services like making food or providing support to others.

Similar diversity is show in the EU as well

So if most of these people decided to stop working at their current job and instead bring that those skills to a mutual aid network wouldn't they still get most of the resources they need because other specialists would be there to help them and also live a generally more happy life?

Also the reason why I am saying instead of charities is because charities become less effective the more people request from them because they have limited resources to share and also mainly supported by wealthy people that can unilaterally give and take away support.

Whilst mutual aid networks can take the diversity that more people joining the network gives them and use it to offer more services to other people in that community.

This seems like a no brainer so what am I missing?

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah sometimes the best thing for your mental health is to spend time with your own thoughts by yourself off of social media. I have family members that are connected online all of the time and barely spend time thinking without being influenced by what's going on in the news that day. It has a toll on them.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Requests? Are you ChatGPT?

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

This whole post is written by AI. My only question is why.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Yeah real politics is complicated and messy but that doesn't mean we should demonize the act of fighting for our rights. And that is the thing that I am worried about. That people are starting to see fighting for your rights as a bad thing.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago
[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

I wish people weren't angry at the protest but instead at the more oppressive forces of society. Also sorta unrelated but what does Otoh mean?

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Well that sucks if that is the case. People shouldn't be focusing their anger at protesters it should be at the companies and CEOs.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the text of the article

We aim to bring you surprising and important findings from the world of research. I fear this week’s offering may not manage the “surprising” part but it is important.

In a great new study, Swedish researchers investigated how policy outcomes reflect public attitudes towards those policies. They looked across 30 European countries over 38 years on issues ranging from welfare to immigration, foreign policy to the environment.

The good news from the democracy side of things is that more popular policies are more likely to happen. Phew.

But the authors go on to ask: who specifically is more likely to get what they want? The rich. That’s less good.

The size of the difference isn’t enormous – the average share of households who support policy that happens was 57.1% for rich households and 53.7% among low-income ones (the middle class… is in the middle). But what is staggering is how consistent it is across countries and decades.

We’ve known for a very long time that American politics is sensitive to the preferences of the rich. That’s generally been seen as obvious – a system where having or raising huge amounts of cash is a prerequisite for being competitive electorally is a politics with a price tag, and in a highly unequal country it’s the rich that can pay to play.

But this research is telling us that high-income citizens are more likely to agree with policy changes than low-income citizens in all but two European countries, and that income inequality levels or tightness of financial rules around political campaigning don’t seem to be driving the effect.

In democracy you can’t always get what you want, but being rich gets your chances up. Who knew?

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah I remember reading that article. I just wanted to find a more recent one to remind people of this.

Edit: I like how accessible the article and video makes it so I am going to put it in the description.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't understand?

Edit: Is this posted on the wrong thread?

view more: next ›

Danterious

joined 1 year ago