• Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    When a company spends money to discourage collective bargaining, whether that’s in production of “training” videos, or closing facilities, or punishing organizers (who are more likely to call foul on that illegal activity), it means that they think that will cost them less than bargaining with labor in good faith.

    They know they’re taking advantage of labor, and it costs them less to keep the bootheel on than it does to negotiate. Seize the means of production.

    • downpunxx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      93
      ·
      10 months ago

      sure sure seize it, then who’s gonna manage it afterwards, and how much will they get paid, more, less, the same, for what sort of responsibility, who determines that, do managers count as much as front line assembly staff, do they have to work more or less. sooner or later the pigs become the man and the man becomes the pigs. seize it, we’ll all be back here in a hundred years telling people to seize it from you.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Management of labor resources is labor. So is accounting, and marketing, and training. Ownership is not labor. Stifling collective bargaining serves the purposes of owners by ensuring that more of the compensation for work product is taken away from those who labor and given to those who own.

        Seize the means of production.

          • Nougat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Everyone forgets that things like leadership and management provide value, and deserve fair compensation. Simple ownership can provide some value, if the owner(s) are putting real capital at real risk in order to operate a business which creates a product or service.

            For large companies, there is no real risk. They regularly get bailed out by government (i.e., taxpayers, all of us). “Privatize rewards, socialize risk,” you know.

            Owners ultimately determine the direction of the business, and the compensation of all labor. When executives have giant compensation packages, where a huge proportion of that compensation is in the form of company stock - more ownership - and they’re protected by giant golden parachutes, so that they get a big cash out even if they fail miserably, those owners take on no risk whatsoever. Executive ownership inappropriately pits labor (that which adds value but does not have control) and ownership (that which does not add value, but does have control) against one another, in the same person, high on the power ladder of a company. Executive owners are incentivized to serve the purposes of the ownership portion of their roles, because that is what brings them personally more wealth.

            Not only should “regular” labor see a greater share of compensation, the amount that anyone is compensated with company stock should be limited to a very small fraction of their overall compensation amount. If you want to add a stock incentive to someone’s compensation, it should really be in the form of options.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              the amount that anyone is compensated with company stock should be limited to a very small fraction of their overall compensation amount.

              I don’t understand. Why? Wouldn’t more stock options to regular workers be a form of seizing the means of production? Always sounded like a good idea to me.

              • Nougat@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                Let’s first clear up the difference between a stock option and a stock grant (in the US).

                A stock grant is “Here’s some stock, you own it.” It is taxed as income at the price it has when you take full ownership of it. Many employee stock plans also include a vesting schedule, where you have the stock, can vote with it, and receive dividends on it - but you cannot sell it until it vests. In that case, you would pay taxes on its price when it vests.

                Stock options, on the other hand, are the ability to buy the given stock at the price it had when you were issued the option. You pay no taxes upon receiving an option, you pay no taxes when you exercise the option (choose to buy the stock at the option price). You do pay taxes on the profit made between the price at purchase and the sale price, as with any stock trade. Options can also expire, and if you don’t exercise them before they expire, they are gone.

                For regular people, you would do a trade which exercises and sells your options at the same time. Option price $5, current price $10, exercise and sell, and you have $5 cash. This requires no outlay of funds from you. It is also possible to just exercise the option and the hold the stock, which has a tax benefit if you hold it longer than a year, when it is taxed not as income, but at the lower capital gains rate. But regular people don’t have the liquid cash to be able to lock up for a year like that.

                Anyway, the amount of stock grants that are given to regular workers are an absolute pittance compared to what is given to executives. There is no practical way to wrest corporate power away from primary shareholders by increasing the amount of stock granted to employees - especially since the primary shareholders are usually the CEO and board members, or some capital organization (venture capital, holding company, what have you). The primary shareholders would never let that happen. Even if they would, employees who need that wealth to live right now are far more likely to just sell their stock grants when they vest and pay off loans and bills, do home/car repairs, maybe go on a short vacation. They’re not going to hold the stock and wield their ownership votes - which are far too few to challenge anything anyway.

                I think that, for public companies, separating control of the company direction from ownership is the best choice. Shareholders (really the primary shareholder) should be able to vote on corporate board members and executive committee roles. And that’s it. The board and executive committee should have control over the company’s direction without being primary shareholders.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just so you know. This idea is literally the same idea the evil guys have in the book 1984. They convince the main character that revolutions never make anything better, they only change who is in charge, and so there is no reason for anyone to change the dystopian system they have created.

        • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          10 months ago

          Holy shit literally 1984.

          I find it funny that the protagonist’s arc peaks at him realizing (what he already knew) that the one thing that will free people is the lower class learning class consciousness but somehow* it’s the big gobbunism bad book.

          *McCarthyism, American School system

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            10 months ago

            People don’t want to accept that Orwell was a socialist. Probably because of Animal Farm. Being disillusioned with the Soviets didn’t make him less of a socialist.

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s funny (in a frightening way) how relevant this meme is these days.

      • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’d be managed democratically by the workers in the way that best fit their needs. You act like those are all questions that couldn’t be discussed and voted on.

        • Grimfelion@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          10 months ago

          Right… since people never step in to fill a power vacuum and no matter their intentions become corrupt… because absolute power corrupts absolutely… and once you get a taste historically people want more…

          Seizing the means and fantasizing about a functional democratic version of communism in the workplace is absurd…

          The real goal should be to regulate the wage gap. Because the top won’t voluntarily shrink the wage gaps laws need to be in place or bargained for that set a limit to the gap between the top and bottom… i.e. the CEO can only ever make 30% more per year than the lowest paid employee in their business. That way when the business is more successful everyone is brought up. There is recognition that various roles have more or less responsibility (and should be compensated as such) but everyone in the org benefits equally when the org does better…

          • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I mean under that same logic capitalism is always going to be corrupt because at its core it concentrates wealth and thus power at the top in the hands of a few. I’d rather at least try a way of organizing that puts the power in the hands of the people. No matter how much you try to regulate capitalism the rich will always try to gain more wealth and power.

              • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                10 months ago

                And they’re engaging in one of my favorite logical pretzels: presenting their ignorance as proof in and of itself that their opponents are ignorant. “I don’t know what your plan is, which means you don’t have one!”

                I think they also referenced Animal Farm, a book written by a socialist.

              • Grimfelion@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                10 months ago

                I mean… I’m not anti Union… have lived and worked in TX and CA… TX is as anti union as anywhere and it sucks because of it.

                I’m anti corrupt unions, anti blind faith in “unions”, I’m anti overly simplistic internet bullshit rhetoric that sounds good in a vacuum but isn’t helpful in the world we live in…

                But you do you Boo… nothing much our internet discourse here will accomplish other than both of us being annoyed and feeling morally superior to the other for no reason. 🍻

                • Nougat@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I’m anti corrupt unions, anti blind faith in “unions”, I’m anti overly simplistic internet bullshit rhetoric that sounds good in a vacuum but isn’t helpful in the world we live in…

                  We agree on all those points, even if you’re implying that my position is “overly simplistic internet bullshit rhetoric that sounds good in a vacuum but isn’t helpful in the world we live in.”

                  One way to make sure that no unions are corrupt is certainly to have no unions at all, but I highly doubt that that would reduce overall corruption in business. I believe it is better to have strong unions first, and address all corruption, wherever it hides, than to abandon unions and kneecap their ability to fight corruption in ownership. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

                • Sunforged@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Understanding what conditions lead to business unionism, in which the people at the top of the union no longer represent the rank and file members, is a vital part of the current labor movement. Every other post you have made in this thread lack any nuance whatsoever.

                  Rank and file union members need a militant approach to business owners. Being apart of a union isn’t just paying dues and expecting other people will take care of it. No full time union staff should take home more than the average union member wage, keep their skin in the game and give them a reason to fight. Unions power doesn’t come from a leaders ability to negotiate with the bosses, it is in fact the opposite, unions leadership ability to negotiate comes from the power of the rank and file members.

            • Grimfelion@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              10 months ago

              I agree… unregulated capitalism will always be corrupt. We’re seeing that now…

              But again… you literally can’t place power in the hands of the people because someone (or a small cabal) will always rise to the top and assume control and we end up in the same spot under a different name…

              • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                If you looks at history “regulated” capitalism eventually deregulates because it’s in the interests of the rich to do so and even “regulated” capitalism has exploited the global south for decades and decades. I reject your idea that a few will always rise to the top and be malicious with the power, but even saying that’s true how is that any worse than the current state? I would rather at least try to find a new way to do things than resigning the world to having this be its peak where millions are hungry and destitute.

                • Nougat@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Echoing you here:

                  Yes, we’ve already seen that in every version of “owners taking advantage of labor” from feudalism to capitalism has tended to produce corrupt people at the top. It’s kind of built into that kind of system. People are incorrectly assuming that changing the fundamental system to “labor produces and is compensated for it” will experience the same corruption. Maybe it will, if corrupt people gain ownership of that system, and take it back to “owners taking advantage of labor.”

                  But how about we fucking give it a try and see what happens? You’re right; it can’t be worse than what we already have.

        • downpunxx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          10 months ago

          as evidenced by how successful the ussr, china, cuba and venezuela, and every other fucking group who has ever tried it, have been in their efforts in this regard, yeah yeah i know, you’ve got a “better plan”. see you in a hundred years.

          • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Im not as familiar with Venezuela but the first 3 you listed massively increased the quality of life for their citizens versus how it was pre revolution. Cuba today is still a massive achievement considering the embargo. Just like capitalism didn’t achieve its optimal form when it first came to being, socialism hasn’t been perfect either but we learn from past mistakes and strive for something better than thinking that the current system that only benefits the global north at the expense of the global south is somehow the peak of how human society can be.

            • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              A lot of people don’t realize the USSR went from being relatively technologically primative to launching satellites into space within 35 years. It wasn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination but what other country can claim the same?

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            China and the USSR didn’t “try” it. They just claimed that thsy do it in the workers’ interest. Don’t know too much about Guba and Venezuela, but I’d wager that the same happened then.

            … Ever heard of Catalonia, bootlicker?

          • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Hurdy durrrrrrr what about Guba, the Ruskies, and Vuvuzela?! Where’s your Karl Marx now?! He’s dead, another victim of Gommunism! Checkmate, libtard!

            It’s like there’s a playbook for how to sound like someone with issues with, but no actual knowledge of, alternate economic systems and you’re quoting directly from it.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Idk if you noticed but unions arise naturally in free markets in democracies. There’s a reason dictators like hitler tend to go after unions and labor organizers - they don’t like workplace democracy similar to how they don’t like fair elections.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        sure sure seize it, then who’s gonna manage it afterwards

        The people the workers choose to be managers?

        how much will they get paid, more, less, the same, for what sort of responsibility

        They will be paid by what the workers and the individual agree is fair?

        who determines that

        The workers…

        do managers count as much as front line assembly staff, do they have to work more or less.

        I feel like all of that is hard to apply to every situation… the whole point is that labour will able to come to a consensus about all of these organizational theoreticals you’ve erected.

        later the pigs become the man and the man becomes the pigs. seize it, we’ll all be back here in a hundred years telling people to seize it from you.

        Lol, are you saying that certain people are inherently the management and owner class? And after a hundred years of a system with a completely different organizational hierarchy, they should somehow still inherently perceive themselves as a higher class?

        Do you hold the same insane opinions about other political hierarchies. Do you think there are like a group of deposed Royals that people are just aching to put back on thrones?

      • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Believe it or not, there’s actually a lot of books about all of those things, and even better, they aren’t fantasy books used by North American and other capitalist schools to make young kids think communism is bad and drive them to inaction.

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s pretty wild to me that healthcare workers would only earn $5 more per hour than McDonald’s workers.

    It’s also wild that the $30,000,000,000.00 that the UPS drivers are splitting, would have only gone to a few incredibly wealthy people, had the workers not made a stand.

    • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Let’s not get too caught up on comparisons, everyone deserves a living wage. McDonald’s is a job just as much as healthcare work is, an hour of your life takes just as much of your time no matter where you work. The big question to me is why this minimum wage isn’t being applied across all industries

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nobody is saying it’s not a job. You’re required to be there and commit your time for both industries. But the effort required to get a nursing job is magnitudes greater than the effort to get a McDonald’s job, and the pay should reflect that. $5 an hour more isn’t enough to justify all the hoops a nurse has to jump through to get the job, and the ridiculous shit (sometimes literally) they have to deal with. Some other commenters pointed out that the $25 is for anyone who works in a hospital, not necessarily for healthcare workers in the traditional sense, which makes more sense.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          Nurses aren’t being paid $25 an hour, that’s the minimum wage. Do you think doctors are being paid $25 an hour too?

              • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You’re latching onto the examples meant to illustrate a point, instead of understanding the overall message. And no, they wouldn’t necessarily be making more. EMTs are notoriously underpaid. Since it still hasn’t been clear to you, I’ll try to spell it out plainly: Working at a hospital in the healthcare industry is orders of magnitude harder than working at a fast food restaurant, and I don’t think $5 more per hour reflects that reality.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Why is emptying bedpans and making cafeteria food (those are who will be getting paid $25 an hour) so much harder than working fast food?

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Honestly at this point, I feel like $25 should be the minimum wage. Because let’s be honest, 7:25 might as well be slavery with how much it can buy you.

          • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I feel like we need to get inflation under control and prices back to reasonable, rather than making sweeping pay changes across all industries, while prices soar, and our currency valuation falls. Changes that are too drastic and far-reaching can cause the entire economy to collapse and our currency to falter.

            • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              What if we pegged minimum wages directly to prices? So it doesn’t matter how much prices rise - the wage is pegged to them, so it rises accordingly.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve worked food service, retail, office work, and currently I’m a janitor. Of these office work was the least demanding. The most demanding, definitely retail.

        At this point a worker Bill of Rights for retail workers needs to at bare minimum not only include pay being triple, but workers absolutely need the right to self-defense from an unruly customer. Main reason don’t work retail is because a drunk asshole got me fired by calling up corporate because I ask him multiple times to leave the store instead of hearing out his crazy rant about how flat the Earth was. To make matters worse it was closing time, so if I hadn’t had let him out, I would have been fired for not escorting him out of the store. Making it a true damned if you do damned if you don’t.

        Personally all the office work was easier, I prefer being a janitor because I don’t have to sit and stay in one place, I am autistic and I have attention deficit disorder, I can’t sit in one place for too long it drives me crazy both physically and mentally.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      I remember back when the fight for 15 first started, I had plenty of people on Facebook that were quick to point out that EMT workers only made 15 an hour, and that how Ludacris it was that fast food workers would want to be paid that much and claimed you wouldn’t have EMTs anymore because they would all go flip burgers.

      Missing the point that if 15 is so low it is what fast food workers would need to cover their expenses and nothing more, and maybe EMTs need a raise of Their Own.

      I quickly learned a slogan that I would give these people that, just absolutely, I am a big fan of, and that slogan is. We all do better, when we all do better

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I elaborated on this and even specifically included EMTs much further down in the comment chain. To summarize it, I don’t think this is doing enough for healthcare workers, especially those doing actual healthcare work, like phlebotomists and EMTs.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s pretty wild to me that healthcare workers would only earn $5 more per hour than McDonald’s workers.

      A lot of people would look at that statement and think that fast food workers are going to be overpaid here in CA, but in reality, both groups were being severely underpaid and to a degree healthcare workers still are way behind what they should be earning considering the massive windfalls that for-profit healthcare providers are raking in. Billions to the top, peanuts for the rest.

    • MooseLad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well it refers to everyone in the hospital. So even if your job is manning the coffee or gift shop, you get $25/hr

    • Pantoffel@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t understand the math behind the UPS raises. I can’t believe it is as much as my math tells me.

      $30 bln / 340.000 workers ≈ $88.000 per worker per year.

      Am I missing something or is this actually correct?

      • Sunforged@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        They unfortunately didn’t fight to end the two tier system for part time workers, which is why your math is off. The part time employees aren’t very engaged with the union and there was/is little attempt from the union the reach out to that section of their members to educate and involve them.

        The union leadership has a vested interest in selling that they got an amazing deal, but this was a huge failure to fight over. Two teir pay is used by the owners to ensure their employees aren’t a united front.

  • Blapoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    10 months ago

    Man, I hope this momentum continues. Take these assholes for all they’re worth!!

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      10 months ago

      And to think all of these barely make a dent in corporate profits. That’s how greedy they are.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        That should be mentioned on this, like the .03% their profit went down, I wouldn’t doubt in some cases they may have even become more valuable because of employee retention.

    • Sunforged@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      Don’t just hope, help build momentum by getting involved! There is so much to be done, either unionizing new workplaces, forming militant sub committees within existing unions and most importantly organizing outside the democratic party to force them out of center.

      Workers Strike Back is where my wife and I have decided to best spend our time with, but there are others to join. The important part is to get off the internet and start making it happen.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This doesn’t mention one of the big wins from the WGA strike: transparency from the streamers on what people are watching. It’s part of the residuals win, but transparency is huge on its own.

    • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      As someone who doesn’t know much about that industry, why is transparency on what people are watching important?

      • numlok@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        The more popular a show, the more money writers get (residuals). In the old days, viewership was measured independently and those numbers shared (Nielsen). In the steaming age, streaming services basically tell writers, “trust us”.

      • AppaYipYip@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        From what I understand a lot of Hollywood contracts (for writers, actors, etc.) include residuals for tickets sold or views on streaming services. However, streaming services did not have to provide the actual numbers of streams so people couldn’t determine how much money in residuals they were owed.

        I believe there were also some questions about streamers fudging numbers to say shows were more/less watched than they actually were so it’s a big step to knowing what’s actually going on.

      • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Streamers are generally just a kind black box when it comes to what they recommend and what each show’s ratings are. If I’m understanding this correctly, transparency will allow for things similar to Nielson ratings and keep streamers honest.

        Wouldn’t you want to know if everyone is actually watching that one show Netflix keeps recommending or if they’re just trying to make it seem like everyone’s watching it to inflate its popularity?

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    10 months ago

    The funny thing is that when employees are unionised and getting paid fairly, they can spend their time working on serious stuff instead of constantly fighting against being exploited.

    The professional and successful companies know this well enough. It’s all the personally owned shit stores that think the owner himself can outsmart everyone by stealing nickles from their own employees to finance the underbidding of other companies and thereby delivering a shit product. Grow the fuck up already.

    Quality work is done by qualified people who takes enough pride in their work to join a union of people who does similar kind of work, instead of winging it like a poorly paid servant.

  • greenskye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like part of this needs to address the common claim that the businesses in question will go bankrupt as a result of the increases in pay for labor.

    It’s great that unions increase pay. But that hasn’t been the argument I’ve heard against unions. It’s that increasing the pay will tank the company and everyone would shortly be out of work. Which I don’t believe at all, but that’s the common argument against unions

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      We heard all these excuses back in 07 in the lead up to the minimum wage going up federally. None of it came true and it never has.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I can’t think of a quick indisputable rebuttal to that claim, like I could say the companies have paid higher wages in the past relative to the value of the dollar and stayed in business, but there are a lot of factors involved that would need examining. But like another comment said risk is inherent in any business, if your business can’t succeed with these wages another company will fill your place. If no company can succeed with pay rates and benefits that are bare minimum for living then there is a root aspect of this setup that needs to change.

      One thing we could do is look at companies that have unionized or increased wages and benefits for workers and were successful as a business afterwards. I don’t know any specific companies off-hand that are good examples, but there are probably some that could be mentioned if people doubt the possibility.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    There are consulting companies that specialize in preventing unions from forming. If the law allows it (most US states do), they’ll get everyone to watch anti-union “training” videos. That’s not even getting into the historical violence that companies have inflicted on striking workers.

    Companies would not do these things if they thought unions were no big deal.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I am asking once again for your support of unionization and strikes. While the WGA strike is over, the UAW, Kaiser employees (soon-ish) , and of course, SAG-AFTRA, still need your support.

    Because this is only the beginning.

  • Transcriptionist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    Image Transcription:

    White text on a blue background reading

    “Here’s proof that his year’s organized labor uprising is working:”

    The next few paragraphs are in yellow:

    "340,000 UPS workers won $30 BILLION in raises, more time off. and more full-time jobs after threatening to strike.

    "Writers beat the greedy Hollywood CEO’s replacing them with AI and won increased residuals, healthcare, and pension contributions.

    "Half a million Fast Food Workers in CA won a $20 minimum wage and a seat at the table determining future wages, benefits and working conditions.

    “Half a million California Health Care Workers won a $25 an hour minimum wage.”

    The final paragraph is in white again:

    “Unions work. You can bank on it.”

    [I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜 We have a community! If you wish for us to transcribe something, want to help improve ease of use here on Lemmy, or just want to hang out with us, join us at !lemmy_scribes@lemmy.world!]

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    So uhh how about contracted companies that do janitorial working. Asking for a friend… who works the same shift I do.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        I will, my only problem is that I am in a state with very weak human protections, both a right to work, and a at will hiring state.

        So, would love some resources and how to avoid being the one who, volunteers to bell the cat so to speak

        • NotThatKindofDoctor@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m not sure how to overcome those hurtles. But check out the SEIU website. That’s the union that organized the justice for janitors movement. I know that they’re currently working on unionizing other marginalized employees across the country (like adjunct faculty). I’m sure there are resources on their website.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Thanks, because I am in North Carolina and the labor situation down here is terrible.

            That said my supervisor in coworkers are pretty cool, I’m pretty sure that if we lived in a different state we would already be in a union. I’m on a first name basis with my supervisor, and you know I’ve rubbed out those with her and her people enough times to know that basically everything that goes tits up around here is the fault of corporation, heck, my boss is boss is pretty much admitted during one meeting that the only reason he doesn’t have it bigger budget or a company card is because he’s pretty sure he’s not the right color to get it.

            Basically almost every job I have worked in this state, which is the only state I’ve ever worked in, with the exception of the job I have now. Had this whole seminar about how we should never trust Union people and even threaten penalizing employees who speak of such things. Which I’m sure is not legal.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            I have been asked this several times, I need time I have asked why people seem to think that moving is free.

            It isn’t that I’ve just never considered the possibility that I could get up and move to a different state, it’s the fact that I have the support network here in my home state that I would not have anywhere else, and that support network is the only reason I’m not on the streets.

      • smackjack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Crothal took over the housekeeping department in the hospital that I work at. The difference in how clean the place was before and after they took over is night and day, and not in a good way.

        Crothal is all about theater. As long as it looks like someone is cleaning, that’s good enough for them

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Where I work now, Big Lots, is the greatest example of a company that needs a union I have ever seen. However in the less than 6 months I’ve been there the staff has almost entirely changed and we’ve gone from about 15 employees to about 8. It’s the worst corporate nonsense, the worst pay, the worst hours, the worst benefits, the worst recognition, and the worst job in general I’ve ever fucking had by a MASSIVE margin, so naturally it forces employees to watch the strongest anti union video I’ve ever bore witness to in my life. I would love to start a union here, but by the time I even talked to everyone half of them will have quit already.

    • Serdan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I hope you’re looking something else. You shouldn’t subject yourself to that bullshit.

      • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Bro I’m barely hanging on. I can’t pay my bills anymore, I can barely afford to eat, I have zero energy and I’m depressed constantly. I have easily put out hundreds of applications on Indeed in the past few months and had no luck finding anything close to decent at all, I get a few calls here and there but the jobs are always wild as fuck, like the Amazon company that called me yesterday that wanted me to only work Saturday and Sunday for 12 hours each day. I have honestly considered pan handling as I know I would legitimately make ten fold what I’m making for 1% of the effort, but primarily these days I just think about ending it all.

        I used to make good money and threw it all away due to stress. Big fucking idiot I am had no idea what small stress I was trading in was going to be replaced by the biggest stress and the lowest points of my life.

        • Serdan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          What would it take to get back into the thing that made you good money?

  • Mouette@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    You got to fight for a fair share of the revenu you’re generating those greedy fuck would not even pay you if they could

  • soloner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    Dumb question but what if the entire labor market started forming unions. Could every job out there be part of some union?

    Would this be better? Or do some jobs not make sense to unionize?

    • lwe@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think any job could benefit from workers union. No matter if restaurant workers or software engineers. We can see right now the issues that exist with US at-will work situations and green card holders being held hostage.

      I am part of a union as a software engineer and I wouldn’t have it any other way anymore. I am based in the EU though.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      I live in a country where more than 50% of worker is are in some union or another. Not a single person or union would allow it’s members to go to work if it was even remotely close to the situation in the US. Not to mention that you’d have to change a whole bunch of laws that give rights beyond what unions fight for, which don’t exist in the US

      • Lorindól@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Same thing in my country. The percentage of union members has been in steady decline for years, mostly due to years of right-wing paid propaganda that has had an alarmingly great effect on the younger generations.

        Another reason is that since the unions did such great work in the years after WWII, the working conditions in most workplaces are pretty damn good. Therefore many assume that “union membership is useless for me, why should I pay anything for something I already have?”

        The unions are slowly losing their power to defend the workers due to this idiocy. Many of the unions have been poorly managed and haven’t done their work defending the workers as efficiently as they should have, this cannot be denied.

        Right now our right-wing government is planning new labour laws that would break the peace between the unions and employers that has lasted for decades. A peace that has brought us such prosperity our grandparents couldn’t even dream of.

        But no, the rich just must have more and more.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I don’t know if you are in Europe, but I work somewhere in the US with high safety standards relative to what I’ve seen. We had a team from EU working with us and they mentioned a few of the things we did regularly wouldn’t be allowed in their country haha.

    • heavyladder63@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s best to unionize everyone as much as possible, and indeed there are unions for essentially every job, so that everyone’s pay and working conditions can improve as much as possible. Everyone deserves a shorter working week.

      I saw another comment where I think you said you work in tech, so I will paste this:

      There is a tech union :) Unions and pro-union movements have been growing a lot in major tech companies in recent years and they have already had significant achievements in improving workers’ conditions. If you would like to join don’t hesitate to check out CODE-CWA and remember the most important thing is to start building support for unions among your coworkers!