This is the first time I've heard someone argue that unionizing is a self-interested pursuit. It's called "collective bargaining" for a reason; workers who cooperate in negotiations with their employers have more leverage than those who negotiate individually. The entire point is to work together for the betterment of the group!
See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor.
Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior
In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.
In Italy too. We have national contracts that are negotiated by unions for the whole indistry and are valid for all workers of the same industry, not only members.
They've also been proven to increase wages for people in the same industry who are not even in the union due to raising the floor in general for what good labor should cost
> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor
If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon
As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc
I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think their point was that they're against the self-interested nature of unionizing.
I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening.
And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me.
Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.
Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?
People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike.
Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to.
But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services.
We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.
"Competition is universally good" is what has decimated American manufacturing since Reagan. It's hollowed out the US middle class, which affects what the country can build, purchasing power, and innovation. Free trade policies have destroyed cities, eliminated millions of well-paying jobs, cut social services, and ripped the social fabric from communities. There were no alternatives to just "take a job at a better company"; most manufacturing jobs that left had no alternatives.
It was cynically selfish and short-sighted. The US from 1980–2020 is a perfect example of how much more complex systems, economies, worker dynamics, and second/third/nth order effects are.
Just to add to that "Competition" is no longer even a thing when the unchecked capitalistic game is played to the extent we are at, with extreme consolidation and duo/triopoly cartels running most services and playing all the dirty tricks in the bag (regulatory capture, rent extraction, lobbying for deregulation and weakening of labour and environmental norms, ...)
Competition is generally good for the consumer, but Americans need to wake up to the fact that it's not built into the system, it's to be regulated into it, and competing is only good so far as it doesn't turn into a race to the bottom (which again, is a matter of a regulator setting the bar).
You realize his examples are public sector unions. Which mean the “employer” you are referring to is the citizens? Not some evil corporation, government mandated monopolies which then get taken over to serve their union members.
I don’t have any objection to voluntary unions. Meaning people can join them for support or collective bargaining, but that citizens can just opt to not employ anyone in the union. Unions could be support structures for workers, instead they are mafia bosses.
Well… yeah. But I didn’t blame the employees, I blamed the employer who must have seen the writing on the wall for a long time and yet let it come to this.
Where do I say that nurses shouldn’t have good working conditions or good pay? Most of us have figured this out already: you can take a job at another company that’s better to work for. Most nurses do have pretty good working conditions and get paid well. Competition among employers is the solution here. Walking out and putting customers (or patients in this case) in a precarious position is not.
The average nurse in the southern US is paid roughly ~$30 an hour. Given their responsibilities, long shifts, and overall stress, do you think that's a fair wage?
>Walking out and putting customers (or patients in this case) in a precarious position is not.
Sometimes the system needs to grind to a hault to get peoples attention.
So she doesn't enjoy her job and only works there because you can't make up the $15 hour difference between her working in a book store for minimum wage vs her working for $30 an hour? Why don't you take a part time job on the weekend to lighten her load? There are many people who become a nurse because its a calling.
>So she doesn't enjoy her job and only works there because you can't make up the $15 hour difference between her working in a book store for minimum wage vs her working for $30 an hour?
She loves being a nurse and couldn't do anything else. But that doesn't mean it isn't exhausting for her.
>There are many people who become a nurse because its a calling.
And that excuses the shit pay and unsafe working conditions for nurses?
as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss.
a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.
thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.
Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.
Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.
Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an automatic process? Hmm?
> Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.
I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you.
> Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.
No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense.
When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?
> I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me?
Do you think that my goal is only to get a reaction and not to try and make any other point? I think someone who was "just" trying to get a reaction probably would just curse at you or do something else. Reactions are signals though and annoyance in particular is a very useful signal, hopeful to the one who experiences it. More importantly though, why, when you responded to me the first time, did you not address the very obvious non-rhetorical variant of my question though and instead, decide to appeal to me with sarcasm about the profundity of the rhetorical variant?
I'm trying to engage here and not put my trauma on display so I'll try to be as straightforward as I can. I am sincerely trying to respond in kind to you by telling you the truth and I will be glad to explain, in detail, my point of view. So, let me do that:
> GP is equivocating two things...but did not give any reasons why...
Yes. And I had hoped to correct that equivocation by pointing out the many random and/or automated processes that produce beautiful or otherwise enjoyable things. I wasn't agreeing with GP, I was improving the position. And I did, because very many useful things are created without any human interaction.
> fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media
Okay and you haven't engaged with the point that I'm making at all. It's different than the GP's. You also haven't given me any reasoning to backup your point that I am fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media. You want reasons why and I want reasons why. Let's engage in a civil manner.
The point that we're engaging on, really, is not the GP's. It's what computerliker said about how "a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product" and that "having less media [created] by a computer is a loss".
Nothing to misunderstand there and I disagree strongly on both the implications of the first and the conclusion of the second quote. That's what I'm attempting to address and not every possible argument ever made about AI creations.
So, do you still think that I'm misunderstanding something? Also, what about my point? Do we really want fewer things created by random and/or automated processes simply because a human didn't create them? I don't think so.
People also forget the role they play in protecting and helping corporations. Without unions as a legal and negotiating intermediary you get things like factory workers burning down the factories when they are overly exploited.
Sorry, but I don't think that makes sense. Any mutiny-preventing deal that a union negotiates could instead have been offered voluntarily by the employer to all employees from the outset, no union required.
